Sitting of 24 November 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 1].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Hydro-Electric Development (Committee's Report)
    Captain W. T. Shawasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the date upon which he received the Report of the Committee on Hydro-Electric Development in Scotland; whether the Report will be made available to the public, and when?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I hope to be in a position at no distant date both to publish the Report, which I received on 25th August last, and to indicate the Government's attitude to its proposals.
    Captain Shaw: Have the main features of this Report been made available to local authorities in Scotland, or to any other body?
    Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, the Report has not yet been published.
    Captain Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated in some of the Scottish papers that last Friday he had a meeting in Scotland with the local authorities to deal with this matter? Am I to suppose that that report is erroneous?
    Mr. Johnston: I am not responsible for the newspapers.

    Land Sales
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the sale of 40,000 acres of the lands of Lochaber; and the name of the purchaser?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. I am informed that the purchaser is Mr. H. J. Kennaway, a land agent in Edinburgh. But no disposition has yet reached the Sasines Office for recording.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it a tribute to the work of the 51st Highland Division that these vulgar sales should take place at a time like this?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot express any opinion on that.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Do these purchases, according to my right hon. Friend's knowledge, precede any move for the setting-up of another power scheme, such as that which has been rejected three times in this House already?
    Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, I can give an assurance on that.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has not the time arrived for the Secretary of State for Scotland to step in and take over this land? This matter is very interesting to Scotland at the moment, and the Secretary of State knows it. I want an answer.
    Mr. Johnston: The Question on the Order Paper is not whether this land is worth purchasing by the State or not. I cannot say whether it is.
    Mr. Kirkwood: All land is worth purchasing by the State.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what acre age of Scottish land has been sold since September, 1939; the total amount paid for it; and what estates have changed ownership more than once during that period?
    Mr. Johnston: Information of the kind desired by the hon. Member could only be obtained after many days' search in the General Register of Sasines; but it would be incomplete. In many cases the disposition in favour of a purchaser would not disclose the acreage disponed and in

    635
    most cases the disposition would not contain a map from which acreage could be calculated. Further, there will be many cases of sale where dispositions have not yet been recorded; and others where no record is to be made, the transactions resting on correspondence or contracts of sale, or unrecorded dispositions.
    Mr. Davidson: Is it not a fact that all such land sales since the war started have required the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or must be made with his full knowledge? Has my right hon. Friend any powers to object to such sales taking place?
    Mr. Johnston: None whatever.
    Mr. Davidson: Can he explain how it is, then, that the Government state that they have passed legislation dealing with the taking-over of both labour and private property?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot relate that Question to the Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Sloan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is able to answer as to the amount of land that has changed hands more than once since the beginning of the war?
    Mr. Johnston: No, Sir; I have already given the reasons in detail.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any special measures are being taken to prevent speculative dealing in such land in Scotland as is likely to be affected by the reconstruction proposals of the reports of the Council of ex-Secretaries of State, with special regard to those areas in which hydro-electrical development is anticipated; and whether he will make a statement?
    Mr. Johnston: The Interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee recommended that, to obviate increases in the cost of land required for public purposes due to speculative dealings, the compensation payable in public acquisition or control of land should not exceed sums based on the standard of values at 31st March, 1939. The Government have already announced that they accept this principle and will in due course introduce legislation to give effect to it.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite convinced that no danger can arise of speculation in land values, after
    636
    the hint we had the other day in a speech by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the titles are in order, and would he refer to his own "Noble Families"?
    Mr. Johnston: The point is that the Sasines Office do not require to get all transactions to priority dispositions recorded there.

    Illegal Trawling
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action it is proposed to take regarding the trawler against which a complaint was lodged some weeks ago by local fishermen for persistent illegal trawling in Broad Bay, Isle of Lewis; and what early action is proposed to safeguard the fish-spawning grounds and livelihood of the Isles fishermen at present on active service?
    Mr. Johnston: The complaint referred to in the Question has been reported to, and is now being investigated by, the Crown authorities. As regards the second part of the Question, owing to naval requirements, it has not been possible to maintain the normal fishery protection service, but the naval authorities are assisting in the patrol whenever possible. I am advised that the inshore fisheries are not being seriously affected by illegal trawling but the matter is kept under observation.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local officials on the spot have given practically no assistance so far, and that, under the very eyes of the inshore fishers and their families, whose livelihood is being spoilt, this trawler is getting away with it?
    Mr. Johnston: My information is contrary to that.
    Mr. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman's information is wrong. I have seen it with my own eyes.
    Mr. Johnston: My information is directly to the contrary.

    Advisory Council on Education
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the terms of reference of the revived Advisory Council on Education, and the names and qualifications of its members?
    Mr. Johnston: The general terms of reference of the new Advisory Council on Education are contained in the Education (Scotland) Advisory Council Order, 1942, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, and with his permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the members of the Council.
    Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his persistence and practical interest in this subject have given great satisfaction in Scotland?
    Following is the list referred to:
    Sir William Hamilton Fyfe, LL.D., F.R.S.C. (Chairman), Lord Provost Garnet Wilson (Vice-Chairman).
    Members:
    Miss Agnes M. Allison, William Barry, Esq., Lord Provost John M. Biggar, Professor E. P. Cathcart, C.B.E., LL.D., F.R.S., J. B. Clark, Esq., C.B.E., LL.D., Ernest Greenhill, Esq., Major E. G. R. Lloyd, D.S.O., M.P., William McClelland, Esq., Mrs. Bridget M. McEwen, Patrick McGee, Esq., Neil Maclean, Esq., M.P., R. C. T. Mair, Esq., O.B.E., M.C., Adam M. Millar, Esq., Miss Agnes B. Muir, Ronald M. Munro, Esq., J. E. S. Nisbet, Esq., James J. Robertson, Esq., F.R.S.E., J. Rothnie, Esq., J. Cameron Smail, Esq., O.B.E., F.R.S.E., W. Crampton Smith, Esq., O.B.E., J. Henderson Stewart, Esq., M.P., Miss Etna J. Taylor, Robert Taylor, Esq.

    Pensions Appeal Tribunals
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any consultations with the appropriate medical authorities in Scotland as to whether there is a sufficiency of doctors to serve should pensions hardship tribunals be set up by the Government?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womerstey)rose—
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the wording of the Question? I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
    "whether he has had any consultations with the appropriate medical authorities in Scotland"
    on this question. I submit that when I put this Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland he can answer "Yes" or "No." The Question is not addressed to the Minister of Pensions at all.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must answer in his own way.
    Mr. Davidson: I am asking for your protection, Sir, to prevent a Minister sending a Question to another Minister when he is asked, as Secretary of State for Scotland, for a definite reply.
    Mr. Kirk wood: And that Minister is paid for the job, too, although he may not be drawing his salary.
    Mr. Speaker: We must get on with Questions.
    Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. This is a matter in which the position in Scotland cannot be considered in isolation. When pensions appeal tribunals are established they must cover the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the statements recently made in this House relate to the absence of the necessary personnel to staff an adequate number of such tribunals.
    Mr. Davidson: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in any decisions he has reached on this question affecting Scotland, ever consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Office?
    Sir W. Womersley: Yes, certainly. I might point out that the Medical Personnel Priority Committee, to which I have had to apply to see whether there was any medical personnel available, have two representatives for Scotland on that board.

  PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of Civil Defence workers, permanently injured through service in Scotland, since November, 1939, giving respective figures for men and women, and the total amount of compensation paid, respectively?
  Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
  Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that the Government have intimated their policy with regard to compensation to injured Civil Defence workers, how can the Government come to decisions with regard to the cost to the nation and other important factors if they do not know the number of injured Civil Defence workers?
  Sir W. Womersley: We do not maintain separate statistics for England and Scotland; we take both together.
  Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, having regard to the fact that the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, was passed through all stages and received the Royal Assent in two days, namely, 2nd and 3rd September, 1939, and that this Act deprived His Majesty's subjects of their rights at Common Law, also that as a result many persons of both sexes have received inadequate compensation in respect of fatal and other injuries, he will appoint a committee to report as to the operation of this Act and as to amendments which experience has shown to be necessary?
  Sir W. Womersley: I have been asked to reply. I do not accept the hon. Member's statement that inadequate compensation has been paid in respect of fatal and other injuries sustained as the result of enemy action, and I am not prepared to advise the Government to appoint a Committee as suggested.
  Sir H. Williams: Were not the subjects' rights at Common Law taken away from them in a Bill rushed through Parliament?

  STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER
  Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what date the various nations of the British Commonwealth ratified the Statute of Westminster; which nations have failed to ratify; and what representations have been made thereon?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The terms of the Statute of Westminster were approved in advance, before its passage through Parliament here, by the Parliaments of all the Dominions. The Statute contains a clause which was inserted at the request of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand under which certain of its provisions would not apply to those two Dominions until adopted by the respective' Parliaments. A Bill for this purpose was recently passed by the Australian Parliament and received the Royal Assent on 9th October. No such legislalation has yet been passed by the New
  640
  Zealand Parliament. The hon. Member will see from the above that no question of representations arises.
  Mr. Etherton: Does not the Minister anticipate that a Bill similar to that introduced in the Australian Parliament will be introduced in the New Zealand Parliament?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have heard nothing about any such Bill.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (ARMED RAID FROM EIRE)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the attempt made on 26th October by a party of seven men, armed with tommyguns and revolvers, who had commandeered a motor-car at Dundalk, in Eire, to burn down the British Customs hut at Carrowcarnon, County Armagh; whether he has made representations to the Government of Eire against this renewed use of Eire territory for an armed raid on Northern Ireland; and whether he has demanded a refund of the damage done to the Customs hut, or whether the cost of restoration will fall on the Government of Northern Ireland or be defrayed by the British Government?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have seen reports in the Press of the incident to which the hon. Member refers. As regards representations to the Eire Government, I have nothing to add to the replies given to similar Questions in the past. The question of the incidence of the cost of repairs to the hut will, I understand, be further considered.
  Professor Savory: Can my hon. Friend inform the House whether anyone has been brought to justice for these repeated raids organised in Eire and carried out on Northern Ireland; and how many attempts have been made from Eire in the last 10 years to bum down these British Customs houses?
  Mr. Emrys-Evans: I should like to have notice of that Question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Civil Defence Personnel (Uniform)
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the President of the Board of Trade how

    641
    many clothing coupons are demanded from Civil Defence personnel on the original issue of uniform including battle-dress, overcoat and boots; what subsequent demands are made, either at regular or irregular intervals; and whether he is aware that in some areas, after coupons have been surrendered on an original issue of uniform, subsequent substantial demands are made for coupons including coupons not yet valid?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Full-time Civil Defence workers obtain their uniform, consisting of battledress, overcoat and boots, coupon-free, provided that they refund yearly to my Department, through their Local Authority, 18 coupons. The uniform itself is worth 43 coupons. Since the refund is made on an annual basis, irrespective of the dates on which the uniform is issued or replaced, wearers may use for this purpose any of the coupons in their current ration book, including those which will not become valid until later in the period.
    Mr. Etherton: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the position of part-time workers?
    Mr. Dalton: Part-time Civil Defence workers have not been required to refund any of their basic ration on the ground that they wear their uniform for such a small part of their working time that their advantage over non-uniform workers is negligible.
    Mr. Etherton: In regard to the coupons which the Minister's Department is asking to be surrendered before their valid date, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is an unfortunate example to ask for coupons before their valid date?
    Mr. Dalton: Not at all. It is a great convenience for the workers concerned. As I explained, this uniform may be required for issue or replacement at any time during the year. The coupons in question do not pass between traders, but local authorities act as agents for the Board of Trade, and that is a matter for the convenience of the workers concerned.

    Towels
    Mr. Thorneycroftasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    642
    is aware of the large increase in the incidence of verminous heads, chiefly due to the fact that hairdressers throughout the country have for some time been unable to carry out cleansing and shampooing treatment owing to the shortage of towels; and will he, in the interest of public health, cause towels to be released to hairdressers for the purpose?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that the shortage of towels has resulted in an increase in the condition to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the trade was approached some time ago by public authorities throughout the country to assist in this matter, and as towels are tools, will he consider it in that light?
    Mr. Dalton: I am informed that the Hairdressers' Guild, who have been in touch with the Ministry of Health on the matter, have not said that in their view this unfortunate condition is due to a shortage of towels.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider issuing special coupons for towels, particularly for housewives?
    Mr. Dalton: That is another question, to which I have previously given an answer.
    Mr. Gallacher: I know, but it was not a good answer.

    Small Traders
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the reviews which have recently been carried out by certain chambers of trade throughout the country, which reveal the plight of small shopkeepers, especially those whose turnover is between £1,000 and £5,000 a year, he can now state what additional proposals the Government intend to make to prevent the further closing down of these old-established small businesses?
    Mr. Dalton: I am not aware of any recent reviews of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am keeping in close touch with the National Chamber of Trade. The proposals which I announced in this House on 13th October should be of material assistance to small shopkeepers, and, as I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, I am now anxious fully to try out these proposals.
    Mr. De la Bère: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that comprehensive reviews have been made by various chambers of trade throughout the country, and further, that these disclose that little men and little women engaged in trade with a small turnover before the war are being exterminated and eliminated daily; and will he really give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. Dalton: I have already stated that I am in very close touch with representatives of the National Chamber of Trade, who will no doubt bring to me the information that comes to them from chambers of trade locally.
    Mr. De la Bère: But the National Chamber of Trade is not absolutely comprehensive.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the National Chamber of Trade really represents the small people in business?
    Mr. Dalton: I have asked the various chambers of trade, and I have given an answer as to my relations with the National Chamber of Trade. I am very anxious to get into touch with all those who can assist me in this difficult problem.
    Mr. Hannah: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question of small traders is a very acute one?

    Technical Books
    Mr. Colegateasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory position of the supply, of technical books; and whether he is prepared to arrange the supply of paper to publishers in such a way that all standard technical books may be available in sufficient quantities for students at technical schools and colleges?
    Mr. Dalton: As my hon. Friend was informed by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education, on 19th November, while there has necessarily been some reduction in the publication of technical books, there appears at present to be no serious shortage of such books. Special arrangements have already been made to assist the publication of books of particular importance to the war effort, including technical books, and I am considering
    644
    further measures for increasing the supply of these types of books.

    Bombed-out Families (Curtain Material)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider increasing the number of coupons made available to bombed-out families to enable them to purchase curtains for one living room and one upstairs room, in order to save artificial light and black-out material?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No curtain material, other than black-out cloth, is now being made. Black-out cloth is not rationed. As regards rationed materials, most of which needs black-out backing in any case, the fairest plan is that which I have adopted, namely, to confine coupon-free purchase of curtain material to one living room, so that as many bombed out families as possible may have a share: of the limited stocks which remain.
    Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself into the position of one of these unfortunate families having to live in an upstairs room without proper curtain material; and has he fully considered the possibility of still further reducing the production of luxury material in this country in order to have something like equality of sacrifice?
    Mr. Dalton: I have gone a great distance, so great as to provoke protests in some quarters from manufacturers of luxury material. If the hon. Member cares to assist me in more detail I shall be very glad. I am aiming at giving the fairest distribution among bombed-out families of the limited stocks which remain.

    Agricultural Workers (Rubber Boots)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the supply of rubber boots for agricultural workers in shops in small market towns in agricultural areas?
    Mr. Dalton: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) on Tuesday last, supplies of rubber boots are very limited, as a consequence of the loss to Japan of our principal sources of rubber supply. A fair share of these boots has been allocated to agricultural workers. Supplies are too small to permit of stocks being held in all retail shops, but I have

    645
    arranged that any particular shop which is without stocks shall be able to obtain the boots on presenting customers' buying permits to suppliers.
    Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that Italian prisoners are able to have rubber boots whereas a lot of our own men who are working on the land have not the same facilities; does it seem right that the Italians should have better treatment than those who belong to this nation?
    Mr. Dalton: I should like more evidence that that state of affairs is correct.
    Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that you can go into a town and see rubber boots in the windows of shops and that when an agricultural worker goes to a shop in a small market town in Suffolk he is unable to purchase them; and will the right hon. Gentleman try to rectify the matter?
    Mr. Dalton: I have already explained the means by which buying permits are issued to agricultural workers so that they can obtain boots.
    Mr. Bossom: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Kent where he will see agricultural workers without rubber boots and Italians walking round in rubber boots?

  ECONOMIC WARFARE (BLACK LISTED FIRMS)
  Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the total number of persons who now appear upon the Statutory Black List in Latin America and European countries, respectively; how far the List now corresponds with the American Proclaimed List; what machinery exists for the co-ordination of the two Lists; and whether he will make a statement as to the effectiveness of this device in reducing pro-enemy activities in neutral countries?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): On 16th November, 1942, there were 11,250 names on the Statutory List. Of this number, 7,832 were names of persons in Latin American countries, while 3,002 were names of persons in European neutral countries or their
  646
  colonies. The Statutory List corresponds very closely indeed with the United States Proclaimed List, and there are now less than a score of persons who appear on one List and not on the other. His Majesty's Representatives in the countries to which the Statutory List applies have instructions to keep in the closest touch with their United States colleagues, and it is now the normal practice for the British and United States Missions to make joint and simultaneous recommendations for inclusion in or deletion from the Lists to the Proclaimed List Committee in Washington and the Black List Committee in London. The Government of the United States is represented on the Black List Committee, while His Majesty's Government is similarly represented on the Proclaimed List Committee. Considerable evidence is now available regarding the combined effect of the two Lists. Generally speaking, neutral firms are showing a steadily increasing anxiety to avoid being listed. I am satisfied that among the European neutrals the Lists have deterred a substantial number of firms from dealing with or on behalf of our enemies, and have appreciably reduced the volume of trade between German Europe and adjacent neutral territories. In Latin America, and to a lesser extent in Europe, the Lists have tended to become a weapon of political as well as of economic warfare, since they have served to identify not only persons engaged in undesirable commercial activities but also those with Axis sympathies. The effectiveness of the Lists has been particularly marked in those Latin American countries which have adhered to the Allied cause, because in a number of cases the Governments concerned have taken steps to control the activities of listed persons.
  Sir Herbert Williams: As answers from this Department are usually five times as long as those from other Departments, ought they not, Mr. Speaker, to be taken at the end?
  Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that should United Nations troops enter into any of these countries, the people already on the Black List will not be given prominent positions?
  Mr. Foot: That is a different question.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Requisitioned Buildings
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider, as an experiment, the appointment of caretakers in a certain number of buildings requisitioned by the War Office?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): A considerable number of caretakers is being employed by the War Department to look after unoccupied requisitioned houses.
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers have been reprimanded for damage done to buildings by troops under their command; and how many have been compelled to make a contribution towards the cost of such damage?
    Sir J. Grigg: There is no record in the War Office of any case in the last year of any court-martial or summary trial arising out of the responsibility of officers for damage to property by troops under their command. Nor are there any records readily available of the number of officers who may have been censured by their superior officers or incurred financial penalties for this type of neglect.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does that mean that the War Office does not take this particular subject seriously?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not at all; it means that there has been a certain decentralisation and that the records in some of the Commands do not come to the War Office.
    Mr. Mathers: In view of the damage which has been done, has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any means of preventing it and thereby removing a serious reproach on our troops?
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increase in the number of buildings requisitioned by his Department, he will increase the number of inspectors detailed to carry out flying inspections of all such buildings?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The staff at present engaged on the inspection of requisitioned buildings is in general keeping abreast of its work, and I do not consider that the employment of more officers and men is justified?
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that in one Command there are no fewer than 13,000 requisitioned buildings and that there is only one inspector, who has been able to cover only 300 buildings in three months?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Claims Commission, too, assist in this work and have been doing so for a year.

    Mixed Military Establishments (Staffing)
    Mr. William Brownasked the Secretary of State for War whether the report of the Cozens-Hardy Committee on the employment of military personnel on civilian duties in War Department establishments will be made available to Members of the House?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Committee is essentially a Departmental Committee, and I should not propose to publish any reports it may render. Perhaps I may add that the hon. Member's Question does not accurately represent the Committee's terms of reference, which are, in short, "to examine the methods of staffing certain mixed military establishments."
    Mr. Brown: If the report itself cannot be made available to us, will the Minister take an opportunity at a later stage of telling us what action was taken?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that.

    Film and Photographic Service
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether in connection with the recently-established Sergeant-Photographer Corps in the Middle East for the supply of newspaper photographs to London and New York, he will consider allowing the names of the photographers, who for the most part do their work in the fighting-line, to appear on the photographs which they transmit?
    Sir J. Grigg: As far as individual publicity is concerned, soldiers equipped with cameras are treated in the same way as the rest of the Army. It is not customary, therefore, publicly to connect the names of officers and men of the Army Film and Photographic Service with photographs taken by them in the normal course of their duty.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these specially trained photographers were given the rank of sergeant

    649
    in order that they should mix with soldiers in the front line, the only difference being that they are armed with cameras instead of rifles; and as they cannot be identified with any military unit, what service could it be to the enemy if their names were published on the photographs?
    Sir J. Grigg: My answer was not based on the security question but on the very sensible, or very appropriate, rule that all ranks of the Army do their work anonymously.
    Sir W. Davison: But was not the rule made so that the enemy should not be able to identify particular units at the front, which does not apply in this case? Is there not far too much concealment of individual gallantry at the front, which could well be made public?
    Sir J. Grigg: If it is a question of mentioning individual gallantry, I think it should be done for the fighting men first. One has only to consider the impossibility of doing that to answer my hon. Friend's question.

    Army Council Instructions
    Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now reconsider his decision about placing Army Council Instructions in the Library of the House of Commons for the private reference of hon. Members?
    Sir J. Grigg: Under an arrangement introduced in September last Army Council Instructions of general interest to all ranks are now summarised in the form of notices which are issued for posting on the notice boards of units throughout the Army. These summaries, which include summaries of Army Orders also, are issued in a series called "Notice Board Information." Copies of each of these notices on issue are placed in the Library of the House. I do not consider it desirable to go beyond the above arrangement, which I trust will enable hon. Members to keep themselves acquainted with the principal Army Council Instructions of general interest issued from time to time.

    Women's Auxiliary Services (Pay)
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the women in the Auxiliary
    650
    Services of the United States of America are being paid at the same rates as the men in the Services; and whether he will consider adopting the same principle?
    Sir J. Grigg: As regards the first part of the Question, I have heard that this is so. I am not considering a departure from the present basis of paying women in the Army.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does not the Minister think, in view of, the fact that these women are serving the country so magnificently, that the time has now arrived when they should be dealt with equitably in this matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is a matter of opinion. I should be the last in the world to belittle or not to give full credit to the services that women are rendering, but the question of pay concerns many other Departments than mine.

    Soldiers' Debtor Balances
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War how many cases involving the consideration of soldiers' debtor balances arising through overissue of cash have been dealt with since Army Council Instruction 368 was published on 18th February, 1942, and the total sum written off due to causes outside the soldier's own control; and whether he has any statement to make as to the working of this procedure?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have no precise information as to the number of cases or the total sum written off, as separate records of cases dealt with under this Army Council Instruction have not been kept. From the general reports received on the procedure introduced as an experiment by this Army Council Instruction, it is clear that it has effected considerable improvement and is working smoothly. A considerable number of soldiers has been relieved of the effect of charges due to causes outside their own control. The new procedure is being continued.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the Army Council itself issued these Instructions and, therefore, should have reports as to how the experiment is proceeding, will the Minister give instructions that the number of cases dealt with and the total amount of public money involved shall be available both to himself and to Members?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not think that would be in keeping with the policy of decentralisation which the Array Council has adopted during the last 18 months.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service (Austrians)
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that, in the absence of security reasons, opportunities will be afforded to Austrians serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service to do work other than as cooks, orderlies and storekeepers, to which they are restricted at the present time?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid I cannot usefully add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 10th November.
    Mr. Mander: Does that mean that the Austrians referred to have no possibility of being employed other than in the instances described in the Question?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. If the hon. Member reads my answer, he will see that that is not the case.

    Overseas Service (Age Limit)
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department has now a definite fixed policy regarding the age at which a soldier can be sent on foreign service?
    Sir J. Grigg: A soldier is not sent overseas until he is 19. This is the limit observed when whole units are sent abroad. Soldiers are, however, not usually sent overseas in drafts until they reach the age of 19½.
    Mr. Davidson: If cases are submitted to the right hon. Gentleman concerning boys under that age and men of 47 years of age, will they be treated sympathetically by the War Office?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into them.
    Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my pocket particulars of the case of a lad of 18 years of age who was sent abroad? Will he look into such cases?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have said that I will.
    Mr. McGovern: If a boy under 19 years of age is sent overseas and attention is drawn to the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman have the boy brought back?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should require notice of that Question.

    Home Guard
    Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that misunderstandings have arisen regarding the position of Civil Defence workers who are eligible for enrolment in List 2 of the Home Guard; and whether he can make a statement defining the obligations undertaken by such persons on signing the enrolment form?
    Sir J. Grigg: A Civil Defence worker who is eligible for voluntary enrolment in the Home Guard must obtain the consent of the head of the Civil Defence service to which he belongs before enrolment. By signing the enrolment form he undertakes the same general obligations as other members of the Home Guard. But in practice he is placed in list (ii), which means that he will not be called out for Home Guard duty immediately the Home Guard is mustered, but will be released from Civil Defence to Home Guard duty when that course becomes operationally necessary. He is unlikely to be called out unless fighting breaks out in the vicinity. Until so called out he retains as a Civil Defence worker his obligations to his own service and the allocation of time between Civil Defence and Home Guard is a matter for local agreement. It is provided that, except in an emergency, no such individual should be required to carry out more than 48 hours' training and duty in all (whether Civil Defence including Fire Guard duty or Home Guard) in any period of four weeks.

    Skilled Tradesmen
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that tradesmen in the Army skilled in trades in which there is a surplus are being used for unskilled work, whilst unskilled men are being trained as tradesmen; and will he take steps to give opportunity for these skilled tradesmen in surplus trades to be trained in other trades before calling for unskilled men?
    Sir J. Grigg: It is not clear to me to which tradesmen my hon. Friend refers. All mechanical and electrical tradesmen are, or shortly will be, employed in their trades. Most men mustered as such in the building trades are in the Royal Engineers, which must always have a large number of skilled men of this type immediately available when engaged in active operations. All men in this corps

    653
    are classified by the Army as tradesmen. Others have become fully trained soldiers in fighting units and cannot at this stage in the war be removed without impairing the efficiency of those units. I am satisfied that no change is justified in the policy now followed by the Army in this question, a policy which was explained in some detail in Command 6339, but if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind which he considers should be looked into I will gladly do so if he will send me details.
    Mr. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of surplus woodworkers doing unskilled work and that these' men could be very quickly and easily trained to work in metal, in which trade the Army needs men?
    Sir J. Grigg: This is a subject which has been debated very thoroughly and gone into very thoroughly, and I am afraid I could not deal with it within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I am quite ready to discuss it with my hon. Friend if he likes.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information about the holding-up of letters and parcels sent to British prisoners in Germany; and what action has been taken to get the ban removed?
  Sir J. Grigg: From extracts taken from prisoner of war letters in August it became apparent that a ban had been placed by the German authorities on the inward and outward correspondence of British prisoners of war in Germany. The Germans explained to the prisoners that this was a reprisal for delays in the transmission of mail from German prisoners of war. A protest was made through the Protecting Power against the German action stating that the correspondence from German prisoners had not been restricted. No reply has been received to this protest, but in September a large volume of mail from prisoners in Germany was released
  by the German authorities. More recently, however, it has become clear that some restrictions are still in force. A further protest
  654
  against this breach of the Geneva Convention was made on 7th November, but no reply has yet been received. I am not aware that parcels sent to British prisoners in Germany have been held up, but if my hon. Friend has any evidence of this, I will gladly look into it.
  Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety on the part of many people who have had no communications since September, and that according to reports, the Germans are deliberately holding them up because they allege that there is difficulty of communication with German prisoners in Canada and Australia? Will the Minister keep on urging that this ban should be removed?
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox:asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered letters received from prisoners of war in Oflag IX A/H which state that, on 1st October, these men were deprived of all books, washing and shaving kit and all their clothes, except those then worn; that up till 15th October these articles had not been returned; and will he make representations, through the Protecting Power, as to the cause of this treatment?
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Strong representations have been made about this unjustifiable action on the part of the German authorities.
  Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend realise that at this camp, where the treatment was very good up to the end of September, it is alleged that this brutal treatment of the prisoners is a reprisal for something we did to German prisoners of war in the Red Sea in March? Will my right hon. Friend inquire into that and give the German Government no excuse for treating our men like this?
  Sir J. Grigg: I do not think the German Government ever had any excuse, but I will certainly make assurance trebly sure.
  Sir William Davison: Has the Red Cross found out whether the Germans give any reason for this scandalous breach of the Geneva Convention?
  Sir J. Grigg: The Germans are apt to leave communications and protests unanswered for a very long time.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the bad sanitation at some of the prisoner-of-war camps in Italy, especially at Campo Pg 5, Pn 3100; and what steps he is taking to have such places made fit for human habitation?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the deficiencies in sanitation in several Italian camps. Representations have been made by the Protecting Power, and I hope that the deficiencies are now being put right.
  Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sanitation even in the best houses in Italy leaves much to be desired?

  POLICE RAIDS, LONDON
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why three clubs were closed by the police on Wednesday, 28th October; can he name the clubs; and how long they are to be closed for?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): On the date in question three places—none of which was a club—were closed by an Order of the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of paragraph (1) of Defence Regulation 42c on evidence that there was drunkenness on the premises. Two of these places, known as "The Twelve" and "The New Tatler" have been closed for one year and the third known as "The Straight Away" for two years.

  SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS
  Mr. Summersasked the President of the Board of Education (1) what additional cost it is estimated would fall on the Exchequer if all those whose children obtained scholarships to secondary schools were allowed the full financial benefits accruing and the present means test before receipt of benefit were abolished;
  (2) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the parents of winners of scholarship awards to secondary schools
  656
  at the investigations held into their financial resources; and whether he will review the present practice in this regard so that the financial advantages of scholarships may be available to the parents of all those capable of attaining the necessary standard?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Without calling for a special return from local education authorities, I am unable to say what would be the precise financial effect of converting all special places in grant-aided secondary schools into free places. At a rough estimate, however, I should expect the additional annual expenditure involved to be of the order of £500,000, of which 50 per cent. would fall on the Exchequer. An additional sum would be required if maintenance allowances were given indiscriminately to all scholarship holders, but I can give no estimate of the cost. The whole question of fees and maintenance allowances in secondary schools is under consideration.

  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that he intends, subject to agreement with our Dominions, to make the materials of economic self-development available to all the world after the war in so far as raw materials, essential primary products and markets of the British Commonwealth of Nations are concerned?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on this matter is stated in the fourth principle of the Atlantic Charter and in Article VII of the Mutual Aid Agreement of 23rd February, 1942.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask that the right hon. Gentleman's reply be communicated to Mr. Wendell Willkie, who was very critical of the statement made recently by the Prime Minister?

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Organisation and Control
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take in

    657
    hand the reorganisation of the Civil Service with a view to securing an end of the situation in which the establishments of all Departments are controlled by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; the separation of the function of Permanent Secretary from that of the Head of the Civil Service; the establishment of a properly constituted personnel department in the shape of a reconstituted Civil Service Commission; and the abolition of the caste system of recruitment to the Civil Service?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): There are various implications in the Question, and more especially in the fourth part, which I cannot accept. Subject to that qualification the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. Brown: Will the Chancellor make representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to the House being given an opportunity to discuss the whole question of the organisation of the Civil Service?
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman had better take up that matter through the usual channels.
    Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Deputy Prime Minister informed me in the House some weeks ago that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury had no direct control over the head of any Government Department?
    Sir K. Wood: I am sure that whatever my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said is correct.

    Pensions
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the point to which the cost of living must rise before he will consider a review of the pensions of retired State servants?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The question is hypothetical.
    Mr. Brown: How long does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend that the present situation of pensioners of the public Services should go on without any sort of remedy? Cannot he do something about this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I have nothing to add to my answer.
    Mr. Davidson: Is it the Chancellor's policy to give old age pensioners priority?
    Sir K. Wood: That seems to go a little outside the Question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Stock Exchange Dealings (Taxation)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to pre vent the rising trend on the Stock Ex change from developing into a dangerous boom, he will consider the adoption of a tax on capital appreciation on all trans actions or take other steps to the same purpose?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I do not think it necessary to take any other steps in this matter?
    Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is as wrong to make profits out of Stock Exchange booms in war-time as to make profits out of munitions?
    Sir K. Wood: I shall have to ponder over that.

    Bank Rate
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the official rediscount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was recently reduced to one-half per cent.; and whether, in the light of this fact, he will cause the Bank of England to reconsider its decision to maintain its Bank Rate at 2 per cent.?
    Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the change mentioned, but am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Stokes: Arising out of that most unsatisfactory reply, will the right hon. Gentleman explain for what reason it is necessary to maintain the Bank Rate here at 2 per cent. when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can reduce it to a half per cent.?

    Special Note Issue, Algeria and Morocco
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the special money issued by the Bank of England for

    659
    our troops to spend in Morocco and Algeria is part of the fiduciary note issue authorised by Parliament?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. These notes, which are not issued by the Bank of England, but by the military authorities, are not legal tender in this country, and the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Are not these notes issued by the military authorities dangerous? What is the backing for them?
    Sir K. Wood: I could not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion about danger. It is very necessary for the military authorities. The backing is the obligation of the Government.

    Bank Credit
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the introduction of a Bill to extend the principle of the Bank Charter Act, 1844, to govern the activities of the banking department of the Bank of England and the clearing house banks as to secure to His Majesty's Treasury the profits arising from the creation of bank credit in excess of a total volume to be determined and to provide for the control by Parliament of the volume of bank credit similar to that exercised over the volume of the fiduciary issue?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our post-war programme of reconstruction will be considerably handicapped unless we have a comprehensive reform of the monetary and financial system?
    Sir K. Wood: I know that is my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it my right hon. Friend's view?

    Broadcasting Fees (Crown Servants)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will alter the regulation whereby servants of the Crown giving a broadcast, which does not form part of their official duties, have paid to them only half the fee that they would normally get for such a broadcast, so as to make it permissible for members of His Majesty's Forces to receive the full fee since, in many cases, they are stationed at some distance from the
    660
    broadcasting station and incur expenses in excess of those which would be normally incurred by servants of the Crown who are not members of the Armed Forces?
    Sir K. Wood: In all cases where a servant of the Crown, whether military or civilian, receives half fee for a broadcast talk, free travelling and subsistence allowances on the appropriate scale are payable from official sources.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is really an inter-departmental ruling which has never received the sanction of the House of Commons?
    Sir K. Wood: No, it is my responsibility.
    Mr. De la Bère: The House of Commons is not responsible for my right hon. Friend's actions.

    Bronze Coinage
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the scarcity of copper, he will consider withdrawing the bronze coins from circulation and substitute smaller coins of a suitable alloy?
    Sir K. Wood: A considerable economy, estimated at over 800 tons a year, in the consumption of copper for bronze coinage has already been effected by discontinuing the minting of pence. The withdrawal of existing coin and substitution of lighter pieces has been considered, but the saving in material would not justify the inconvenience to the public of the change and the expenditure of labour involved in recall, melting and re-coinage.
    Sir S. Reed: Is this not a favourable opportunity to consider getting rid of the dirtiest, most insanitary and most cumbersome bronze coinage in the world, especially as so many automatic machines are out of service?
    Sir K. Wood: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulties I have mentioned.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Could not my right hon. Friend make one single coin of 2½d. instead of three coins of two pennies and a halfpenny?
    Sir K. Wood: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Parcels from Oversea Troops (Duty)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the United States of America no duty is charged on parcels of limited value received from American soldiers and sailors in Asia and Africa; and whether he will arrange for a like exemption in respect of small presents sent to this country by British troops, etc., abroad?.
    Sir K. Wood: I have no information on the subject of the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part, I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Keeling: Is it the loss of revenue or administrative difficulties which prevent the proposal being adopted?
    Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I will give a full explanation.

    Purchase Tax (Infants' Articles)
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to lighten the burden upon parents of young children, he will consider the removal of Purchase Tax upon articles, such as perambulators, solely used for infants?
    Sir K. Wood: Perambulators, and garments and footwear suitable for young children's wear, and not containing silk or fur skin have always been exempt from Purchase Tax. I am afraid it would not be possible to provide for the exemption of every kind of domestic article which may be used for infants.
    Viscountess Astor: Would it not be possible to exempt perambulators? They are of enormous value, and they are difficult to get?
    Sir K. Wood: They are already free of Purchase Tax.

    Requisitioned Property (Compensation)
    Mr. Hammersleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when manufacturing premises are compulsorily closed in order to concentrate production, and are subsequently requisitioned, in assessing the compensation to be paid under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, valuers on behalf of the Government seek to prove that these premises have little or no letting value
    662
    as manufacturing premises; and whether he will give instructions that this procedure be abandoned?
    Sir K. Wood: The Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, provides that the compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning of land shall be a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land during the period for which possession of the land is retained, under a lease granted immediately before that period. When assessing the compensation rent payable in respect of a requisitioned factory, regard is accordingly had to all the circumstances existing at the time of the requisition which would affect the rent that a tenant might be expected to pay for the factory, including the fact that it could not be used for the production of the goods formerly manufactured there.

  DEPARTMENTAL ORDERS
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the large number of Departmental regulations which do not form part of Parliamentary legislation and the confusion which exists in the minds of the public as to the category to which they belong, he will have set out for public information a list of such regulations as come under this category since the outbreak of the war?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The hon. Member is presumably referring not to the Defence Regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, all of which are laid before Parliament, but to Departmental orders made under some of those Regulations. I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) on 8th September last, which explained where complete lists of such orders may be obtained by the public. Copies of these lists and of the orders themselves will be found in the Library of this House.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer this very moment admitted taking action on these lines? Is he not further aware that many people

  663
  will think that Parliament is responsible because it is passing all these orders? I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His shoulders are broad.

  RAILWAYS (FUEL ECONOMY)
  Sir Robert Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will cause the railway companies to appoint full-time fuel economy officers in each of the main works and in each region of the line to act in collaboration with the executive officers concerned and with the wardens in each shop and set of premises.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): In order to secure the utmost economy in the use of fuel by the railways, the general managers have personally accepted responsibility for applying all the necessary measures. I hope and believe that this will prove to be the most effective way of carrying out the purpose which my hon. Friend has in view.

  ALLIED GOVERNMENTS AND EMBASSIES, LONDON (PETROL)
  Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what basis petrol is allotted to the various Allied Governments and Embassies in London; and whether consideration and encouragement are given to those who use small motor-cars and discouragement to those whose fleet consists exclusively of large high-powered motor-cars?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Petrol is allotted to the Allied Governments and Embassies in London, as to other foreign Embassies and Legations here, on the basis of their ascertained requirements. The question is constantly reviewed and economies are brought about wherever possible. The attention of the Allied Governments in London has lately been invited to the desirability of using small cars where these will suffice, in order to economise in the rubber needed for tyres. The adoption of this suggestion would naturally mean economy in the use of petrol as well.
  Mr. Etherton: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of certain Powers to
  664
  the example of the Fighting French Diplomatic Corps?
  Mr. Law: I have told my hon. Friend the steps that we have taken in regard to the Allied Governments. There is no reason to suppose that they are making any abuse of these facilities.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lord Gort rides a bicycle? Would not Ministers in this country try to follow suit?
  Mr. Law: I do ride a bicycle.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Diphtheria (Immunisation)
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the differences of opinion in the medical profession as to the utility and safety of immunisation again diphtheria and recent admissions by medical practitioners in medical magazines of severe and fatal cases of diphtheria in immunised children, he will arrange for an inquiry into the matter by a small committee, on which opponents of the practice shall have some representation, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what extent the claims made on its behalf are justified by experience?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) on 10th November.
    Mr. Leach: Can the hon. Lady give an indication of what the answer was?
    Miss Horsbrugh: It was as follows:
    "I have seen the pamphlet mentioned. The case for immunisation against diphtheria is fully supported by medical opinion and practical experience in other countries, and, as advocacy of immunisation has been the Government's considered policy for some time past, I do not think there would be any advantage in the appointment of a committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1942; col. 2282, Vol. 383.]
    Mr. Leach: May I take it that the Ministry is actually afraid of going into the matter in full?
    Miss Horsbrugh: No. We went into it in full some time ago and came to the conclusion as stated in the answer.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: If the Government make up their minds that the case for immunisation is fully proved, will they take steps to arrest the hon. Member for causing the death of innumerable children?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not bring accusations of that kind against another hon. Member.
    Sir F. Fremantle: It was not an accusation; it is a definite fact against a Government policy which has been decided.

    Venereal Disease
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the serious increase of venereal disease in this country and to the inadequate measures which have so far been taken to combat it; and whether he will give immediate directions to the Departments concerned to neglect no step which can be taken to encourage the use of every kind of preventive measure and to stop the spread of infection?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The increase of venereal disease has been receiving my right hon. Friend's close attention in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Defence Regulation for combating this problem which has been laid before the House. I would also refer him to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on this subject on 17th November, and to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 19th November.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Defence Regulation is quite inadequate to combat this problem? Is it the intention of the Government to initiate a propaganda campaign throughout the country?
    Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. Friend will refer to the reply to the hon. Member for Maldon on 19th November, he will see what publicity and further educational remedies are to be undertaken.
    Mr. Davidson: In the consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter was considereration given to the use of the various organisations in-Scotland which have been combating this evil for many years?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I know that consultations have taken place, but I would like a Question put down as to the details.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the publicity on this matter is inadequate and that the people likely to be affected are not aware of the facilities available and the necessity of prompt action which will be kept secret?
    Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. Friend will look at the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon on 19th November, he will see that further publicity and education on this matter are being initiated.
    Mrs. Tate: If my right hon. Friend is as concerned as he should be about this matter, will it be possible to ask why there have not been a larger number of and better clinics set up in the last few years?
    Miss Horsbrugh: There have been extra clinics set up in the last few years, but if my hon. Friend will look at the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon, she will see what is how being done with publicity and education and increase of clinics.
    Dr. Summerskill: Has the Department considered compulsory notification, a course which is advocated by many medical authorities?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The Department has considered many schemes, and the scheme that is now before the House in this Regulation is that for which it is thought desirable to get sanction from this House.
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.
    Viscountess Astor: May I ask—
    Mr. Speaker: The question will be raised on the Adjournment.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING (NEW WAR BONDS ISSUE)
Sir K. Wood: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about our borrowing programme. At present two market loans are on offer—2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1949–51, and 3 per cent. Savings Bonds, 1960–70. The total of the current issue of Savings Bonds is now about

667
£206,000,000, and I propose to continue that issue for the time being. The total of the current issue of National War Bonds has now reached £673,000,000, and I propose to discontinue the issue at the close of business on 30th November.
As from 1st December, and thereafter until further notice, subscriptions will be invited to a new issue of National War Bonds. The rate of interest will be 2½ per cent., and the Bonds will be issued at par. They will be repaid at par on 1st March, 1953, at the latest, but there will be an option to the Treasury to redeem them at par on or after 1st March, 1951. The maximum currency of the Bonds is thus 10 years 3 months, as against 9 years 9½ months for the current issue, and represents a further improvement in the terms on which the Treasury is able to borrow.
The need to finance as much as possible of our war expenditure by our market loans is as great as ever, and I appeal to all investors to subscribe as much as they can to the new issue, or, if it equally meets their needs, to the issue of Savings Bonds.
Mr. Bellenger: Will the holders of the old loan be entitled to participate in the new issue? What is the real purpose of making a new issue other than the slightly extended term of the period of the loan?
Sir K. Wood: It is generally the custom when an issue has reached the proportions that this has done to turn to some other issue, and in this respect we are able to borrow on better terms. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the first part of his Supplementary Question on the Paper.
Mr. Loftus: Will the House have an opportunity to discuss at an early date the whole policy of borrowing?
Sir K. Wood: That is a question which must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  "to continue certain expiring laws"; presented by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS [Sixth Day.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question—[11th November]:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 'Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. A. G. Walkden.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Stokes: It would be out of place to start a speech to-day without offering congratulations to the new Leader of the House. I personally wish him an enjoyable voyage through what will certainly be very stormy waters. I find myself to-day in an unexpected position, having attempted during the last five Sittings to catch your eye, Sir, after having risen on no fewer than 39 occasions. It was not until the gathering gloom of Thursday afternoon that your Deputy caught my eye. I naturally with some humility wondered whether I should continue to-day, but I consulted some of my hon. Friends, and they insisted that one or two of the things I wished to say to the House were of such importance that I ought to continue.
    Therefore, I crave the patience of the House for a few minutes and wish to assure hon. and gallant Members who are here to discuss the Army that I shall not stand long in their way, and as they are here in such large numbers they can surely force the Government to suspend the Rule if they really choose to do so. There are only four points with which I wish to deal: one is a personal one, one has to do with the Army, and two are what I call burning questions of national importance. I do not want to waste time in indulging with others in the various congratulations which have been expressed by speakers throughout this long Debate, but it would be churlish if I were not to include myself among their number by
    686
    congratulating everybody, including the critics, over what has happened.
    To deal first with the personal matter. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), with his usual courtesy, told me he was going to say something about me in the Debate, and I think I ought to get myself straight with the House and the country on the point he raised. In part of his speech he said:
    "Germany…is now receiving unpalatable and ever-increasing doses of her own medicine, a fact which is causing great satisfaction throughout this country, though it is viewed with displeasure alike by Dr. Goebbels and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) I hope I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice, but I received a communication from him on the subject of night bombing and I gathered that he disapproved of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1942; col. 117, Vol. 385.]
    My hon. and gallant Friend did not quote the document, and I have never had an opportunity of seeing him until to-day, but I need only quote from a speech which I made, I think it was at Carnarvon, in June of this year:
    "Churchillian strategy of bad tanks and bombing planes should give way to the production of ships and fighting planes. The bombing of Cologne in my view was morally wrong, as no real effort was made to limit the targets to military objectives, but it was strategic lunacy if it called away from the protection of our fast dwindling fleet and merchant shipping one single plane needed for their protection."
    I do not withdraw from that position for one moment. I know that I hold an unpopular view on this subject, but women and little children are women and little children to me, wherever they live, and it fills me with absolute nausea to think of the filthy task that many of our young men are being invited to carry out. I know this is a minority view, but what is more important in the eyes of the House is the question of protecting our battle fleet and our merchant shipping, and no less authorities than Lord Hankey and Lord Winster, in another place, and Sir Percy Noble and Sir Max Horton have all been pressing that more and more bombing planes should be allocated to them in order to safeguard the Western and South-Western approaches, which are really the only places where we can lose this war.
    This Debate is to deal with the Army, and my second point concerns the Army. The Prime Minister, speaking of the Forces in Egypt and Libya, said "the

    687
    bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers." That is a sufficiently romantic term, but I wonder whether our soldiers, sailors and airmen would not as well like to catch the gleam from the glitter of gold and silver in the Chancellor's Treasury. Time and time again in this House during the past six or eight months questions concerning Service pay and allowances have been raised, and we have had no satisfaction from the Government. I do hope that at the earliest possible moment the Government will deal with this matter, and will not forget the R.N.V.R. among others. The Prime Minister said that "we are entitled to rejoice only on condition that we do not relax." That is a view with which I entirely, concur, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that the critics will not relax. The matter that I want to deal with concerns tanks. I have been into battle across, the Floor of the House with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and the Production Departments on "this question, and would like to remind the House of some of the things that have been said. In Washington on 26th December, 1941, the Prime Minister said:
    "For the first time we have fought the enemy with equal weapons."
    He came back from his successful American trip to repeat on 27th January, 1942:
    "Upon the whole we have met him (Rommel) with equal weapons."
    On 11th November, 1942, after his visit to the troops in Egypt and Libya, he said:
    "Alas, they had no weapons adequate for the fight."
    So now we have the truth. It is exactly what his critics have been saying all the time. My only conclusion is that the Prime Minister was deceiving the enemy. How he succeeded in doing that, having regard to the number of tanks they had captured already, I altogether fail to understand. In so far, at any rate, as heavy tanks go, the battle was a success in Egypt and Libya this time, very largely on account of supplies from America, and it is a disgraceful thing that we are not so far advanced in oar tank design and production even yet to have a machine comparable to the German Mark III and the German Mark IV. On 2nd July this year he said that he had consulted the highest authorities in 1940 when deciding on the new tank, which ultimately turned out to be the
    688
    Churchill tank. I can only tell the House that, on authority which I have seen and shall be glad to show to any hon. Member, though I am not going to quote it here, in May, 1940, the Government were assured that the Churchill tank, known then by a number, would not be very good when produced, and I think when Service members speak we shall hear something about its performance in the field. I do not want to go into a long dissertation on tank production, although I have a lot of notes on the subject, but it is an appalling thought to those engaged in production that some sum of the order of £50,000,000 or £70,000,000 has been expended on a machine which was never properly tested before being put into production and which has absolutely cluttered up the workshops of this country. While "unbattleworthy" may be too strong a word, it is very near it. While still on the subject of tanks I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said at Cardiff the other day:
    "We have new tanks coming into production that are better than any our forces have had before."
    That would not be difficult:
    "I have seen them and they are better even than anything produced by the Germans, the Italians or the Japs, and better than any tank in the world, and the effect of this tank on the future of the war is incalculable."
    That speech was made on 20th September, 1942. The simple question I wish to ask my right hon. Friend—and I will give way to him if he wishes to reply—is this: Is he quite sure that he is right?
    The next point with which I wish to deal concerns the losses that certain sections of our troops, the sappers particularly, had in Libya, and on that I wish to ask why there is as yet no minesweeping tank. In the last war the tanks used to go on in advance to clear the way for the infantry, but now the infantry have to go ahead to make way for the tanks, although in 1939 proposals were put forward to produce a machine which would go out and clear the mines from minefields. It did not need a great military genius to see that one of the answers to tank attack was a minefield, and I want to learn some day from the right hon. Gentleman why it was that such a machine was not proceeded with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe

    689
    (Mr. Cocks) has said, "The whole of tank production is in a muddle." It is in a muddle for one reason and one reason only, and that is that it has been left in the hands of what I call a half-baked crowd of motor mechanics when it should have been in the hands of people who understand the engineering industry and shipbuilding. I suggest that what is wanted and what we should insist upon is an inquiry into this whole matter, an inquiry which would report to this House and not merely to the Prime Minister.
    The first of my two burning questions is one which is exercising the minds of everybody up and down the country today. It is, "Why Darlan?" It is no use burking that question. The country had better know the kind of person we are dealing with, and I do not think I can do better than read the Order of the Day issued on 6th May, 1942, by Darlan to the French troops when we went to Madagascar. This is a free translation of the French version—the Foreign Secretary will correct me if it is wrong:
    "Once more the Anglo-Saxons instead of fighting their enemies are looking for an easier victory by attacking a French Colony far away from Paris. The Marshal has ordered you to defend Madagascar and I know that you will patriotically respond to this appeal. Hold high and strong the honour of the flag. Defend to the limit of your ability and make the British pay as dearly as possible for their highwayman's act. All France, all the Empire are with you at heart. Never forget that the English betrayed us in Flanders, that they traitorously attacked us at Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar and in Syria; that they have murdered civilians in Paris; that they have attempted to starve the women and children at Djibouti. Defend the honour of France. One day, England shall pay. Long live France."
    The question which I want to ask is whether the B.B.C. will be allowed to re-broadcast that to the nation to-night so that the people may know, or whether the Prime Minister, with his red-headed Goebbels, will sit on it and prevent the nation from learning the truth and of having a realisation of the kind of man whom the Government are allowing to hold French control in North Africa?
    That brings me to my next point. This is a very grave matter. It has come to my knowledge within the last 48 hours that it was intended on Sunday that General de Gaulle should broadcast to Europe in the European service. By a long-standing arrangement with the Foreign Office and the Secretary of State
    690
    for War, the script, I am informed, was submitted for approval and after some discussion apparently was approved. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. What happened subsequently? It was suppressed by the Prime Minister, and so no broadcast took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is this correct?"] This is correct so far as I know. I have not access to all the archives of the Foreign Office, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in his place, and can tell us.
    We on this side, I may say, are very seriously disturbed at the sudden appearance everywhere of the forces of reaction, and I want to ask to what part of that script did the Prime Minister take exception? There cannot have been anything very bad in the script, otherwise my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not have agreed to it. I think the House of Commons ought to know just what it was the Prime Minister thought was bad, so that we may know where we are upon this matter. We ask why General de Gaulle, the head of the Fighting French in this country, and recognised as such by the Government, is disallowed from broadcasting at this moment. It is very humiliating for a man in his position When, even after having got my right hon. Friend's approval for what he proposed to say, he should be prevented from speaking. All the time Darlan is broadcasting from Africa without even mentioning the name of the man who is the leader of the Fighting French. Everybody is very uneasy about this. What it comes to is this, that people are saying, "Why should we sacrifice our lives and all we have got, just to make the world safe for the Darlans and others of that ilk?" It is necessary that that matter should be cleared up at once.
    During the week-end we had some Cabinet changes. The last time we had Cabinet changes five people who had nothing whatever to do with the disasters which then occurred went out, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) came in. Now my right hon. and learned Friend goes out. He was the only man there who had nothing to do but to study the war, and who comes into replace him? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security, for whom I have the greatest regard, but I would

    691
    point out that already he has the cares of two heavy Departments on his shoulders, and it seems to me an astonishing move. Why has it been made? Is it the case that the forces of reaction are at work again? I am wondering whether the next victim is to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, and whether, some time or other, an attempt will be made to unfrock him. If so, I should be glad to rally to his side. But the whole situation at present is one which is puzzling the nation.
    That brings me to the second burning question which I desire to raise. It is, What are we fighting for? Are we fighting for the Darlans of the world? We all know, and those of us who sit on this side of the House have studied closely, the astonishing paradox that when war is on there is plenty for everybody. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no difficulty in raising money; there are plenty to eat and materials available in abundance. In this connection I call the attention of the House to some remarks made by the Prime Minister on 12th October. He said:
    "Here in the fourth year of a world war more people in Scotland are to-day getting three square meals a day than ever before."
    He went on to say that
    "Glasgow boys of 13 were to-day nearly three pounds heavier than boys of the same age before the war."
    I suppose fattening for the slaughter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" and "Shame."] It was a disgraceful remark to be able to make. What does it mean? Are we fighting so that when the war is over we can go back to two meals a day and to children who are three pounds lighter? Then the Prime Minister has said, "What we have we hold." What a silly remark. Would it not have been a more statesmanlike remark and a great encouragement to everybody to have said to all the world, "What we have we will pool with anybody who will come in and collaborate with us"? [Interruption.] I am not going to be led aside by any interruptions, and I propose to conclude very shortly. It is all very well to sing as they sang at Edinburgh, "Keep right on to the end of the road." It is a grand song, and Sir Harry Lauder, I am sure, sang it well. But we know that the road before us is a pretty thorny one, and we would like to know where it leads to. It is time that the Government woke up and
    692
    gave us a policy. When I and some of my hon. Friends here were pressing the
    Government for a statement of peace aims, we were told, "We cannot do anything about that now; we should embarrass the Americans, and they might not come into the war." Now the Americans have come in and this Government do not dare to do anything, because they have to move to the tune which is played by the piper in New York.
    I shall not delay the House further today. I hope on some other occasion I shall have the good luck to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and then I may have an opportunity of developing some of the philosophies in which I believe and the economic changes which I desire. But I warn the Government that we are tired of waiting and that we want a little on account now. It is no use my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol standing up at that Box for 50 minutes and talking absolutely nothing to us, telling us that we have to compromise, that we have to do without, and that we cannot do anything in war-time. What nonsense. What you cannot get done in war-time, you will never get done in peace-time, and the Government will have to take action now. If they fail to do so, it will be a betrayal of all the fighting men who are asking just the sort of questions which I am asking. A little time ago a constituent of mine, a very capable young man, brilliant at his work and in every way qualified to speak for the youth of the country, wrote to me that he was perfectly willing to fight—[Interruption.] I do not understand the interruption, but if the hon. Member who made it will repeat it, I will gladly reply. This young man, as I say, wrote to me:
    "I am only too willing and glad to join in the common effort but the awful thought which I have is this that the same old men who ruined the world for my father have now ruined it for me. If you and your colleagues in the House of Commons allow those same old men to have anything to do with the making of the peace, they will lose it, and you will have betrayed one and all of us."
    It is our responsibility to see that that betrayal does not take place.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): One is tempted to reply to the speech that we have just heard, but I beg, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the fact that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I must keep to the

    693
    arrangement that has been made.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Will hon. Gentlemen allow me to make my statement? A reply will, of course, be made to the speech to which we have listened, in the course of the general Debate. Certainly it is going to be made, but at this moment we must go on with the Debate.
    Mr. Maxton: I understand that we are to go into Secret Session and that the right hon. Gentleman's purpose in getting up was to call attention to the presence of Strangers; but surely the speech made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is not to go out to the world without some reply from the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if I were to reply here and now to it, I should exhaust my right to speak in the forthcoming Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, I am in the hands of the House. It is my duty to interpret the wishes of the House. An arrangement has been come to, and Members have come here for the express purpose of discussing a particular subject. I have said that they shall have that opportunity, and, as far as I am concerned, they shall have that opportunity. Therefore, I beg to call attention—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Shinwell: May we have one point cleared up now? I quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's intention. He wants to keep to an arrangement, and that is the proper thing to do; but at what part of the general Debate does he propose to intervene? Obviously it cannot be today. How does it come in? Will he explain that?
    Mr. Eden: Certainly. I shall see that an opportunity is made for that. It is perfectly fair and proper to do it. I should like to do it now. I have the choice of doing that and depriving hon. Members of a good deal of the time for
    694
    which the arrangement has been made. I say to the House that if hon. Members will be good enough to accept my assurance—I will try to put it as clearly as I can—that speech will, of course, be answered. I will make myself responsible for seeing that it is answered at the earliest possible moment. I had no notice from the hon. Member. I wish he had given me notice that he was going to suggest there has been a breach between myself and the Prime Minister. I think he should have given me notice.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it true?
    Mr. Eden: As it is, there is no difference between myself and the Prime Minister—none whatever. I should like the House to stand by the arrangements that we have made. I will undertake that, at the first opportunity, if necessary by some rearrangement, a reply will be made to that speech.
    Mr. Granville: If a private-notice Question is put down for the next Sitting Day, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House, the country and the world a comprehensive reply on this subject?
    Mr. Eden: I will certainly consider what I can say in reply to a private-notice Question. I want to keep my word and the promise I have given to Service Members and I now beg to call attention to the fact that Strangers are present.

  SECRET SESSION
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  Question agreed to.
  Strangers withdrew accordingly.
  [The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]

FUEL AND POWER
  Coal Mines (Statistics)
  Coal Mines (Statistics)
  Smoke Abatement, London
  Smoke Abatement, London
  Inspectors of Mines (Reports)
  Inspectors of Mines (Reports)
  Miners' Medical Service
  Miners' Medical Service
  Coal Outcrop Working
  Coal Outcrop Working
  Mechanised Mining (Output)
  Mechanised Mining (Output)
EDUCATION
  Training of Teachers (Committee)
  Training of Teachers (Committee)
  Teachers (Bonus Award)
  Teachers (Bonus Award)
  ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Securities (Redemption)
  Government Securities (Redemption)
  Cash Payments (Limitation)
  Cash Payments (Limitation)
  Notes (Hoarding)
  Notes (Hoarding)
  DIVIDEND PAYMENTS (PAPER ECONOMY)
  DIVIDEND PAYMENTS (PAPER ECONOMY)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Surplus Milk (Distribution)
  Surplus Milk (Distribution)
  Fish Distribution Scheme (Medway Towns)
  Fish Distribution Scheme (Medway Towns)
AGRICULTURE
  Isle of Wight
  Isle of Wight
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Smallpox Cases, Edinburgh
  Smallpox Cases, Edinburgh
  Vaccine Lymph
  Vaccine Lymph
  Medical Schools (Women Students)
  Medical Schools (Women Students)
  Surrey County Council (Medical Report)
  Surrey County Council (Medical Report)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (PRICE)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (PRICE)
BRITISH ARMY
  Refreshment Houses (Use by all Ranks)
  Refreshment Houses (Use by all Ranks)
  Senior Officers (Selection)
  Senior Officers (Selection)
  Released Officers (Civilian Clothes)
  Released Officers (Civilian Clothes)
  Officers, Temporary Rank (Concessions)
  Officers, Temporary Rank (Concessions)
  Smallpox (Restriction on Leave)
  Smallpox (Restriction on Leave)
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Royal Army Ordnance Corps (Commissions)
  Royal Army Ordnance Corps (Commissions)
  Quartering Commandants
  Quartering Commandants
  Issuers (Pay)
  Issuers (Pay)
  MOTOR VEHICLES (WORN TYRES)
  MOTOR VEHICLES (WORN TYRES)
  LIVERPOOL TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (NIGHT WORKERS)
  LIVERPOOL TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (NIGHT WORKERS)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Fire Prevention
  Fire Prevention
  Licensed Houses (Careless Talk)
  Licensed Houses (Careless Talk)
  CHECK TRADING ORDER
  CHECK TRADING ORDER
  ENGINEERING CADETSHIPS
  ENGINEERING CADETSHIPS
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EXIT PERMITS FROM OCCUPIED COUNTRIES.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Minister of Economic Warfare, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, whether they have any statement to make regarding the action of the German Government in selling exit permits from occupied countries in return for payments in the currencies of neutral countries.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, for several months past evidence has been reaching His Majesty's Government that the enemy is organizing a considerable traffic in the sale of exit permits from occupied countries, particularly from the Netherlands. Partners, business associates, relatives or friends of persons in such territories who themselves live in neutral or Allied countries are informed that the persons concerned will be granted visas and facilities for leaving German-occupied Europe if payment is made in the currency of a neutral country. Sometimes the information comes in the form of a request for assistance from the person in occupied territory, sometimes those in the neutral or Allied countries receive it from agents of the German Government. The sums demanded are in the neighbourhood of £5,000 per head, and in a number of cases it is stated expressly or by implication that, if the money is not paid, those concerned will be treated as hostages and they and their families will be sent to concentration camps.
The evidence which has reached His Majesty's Government and the United States and Netherlands Governments leaves no room for doubt that this traffic is being organized by the German Government and its agents on a considerable scale in order to increase the enemy's resources of foreign currency. While His Majesty's Government might on humanitarian
196
grounds have been prepared to overlook isolated instances of payments made to the enemy in the above-mentioned circumstances, it is clear that the matter has reached the dimensions of a regular organized traffic, from which the enemy hopes to derive marked benefit. Indeed, the fact that he has been obliged to resort to this action is a measure both of the difficulties in which he finds himself as a result of the Allied financial blockade and of the advantage that would accrue to him from any serious breach of it.
Quite apart from the detriment to the blockade which would be involved by any condonation of this traffic, His Majesty's Government feel that to acquiesce in it would, in the long run, prove the worst service that could be rendered to potential victims in occupied territories. It is the universal experience that surrender to blackmail merely increases the appetite of the blackmailer. There are still many persons in occupied Europe with wealthy friends, relatives or business associates abroad, and to permit this situation to be exploited will merely add to the sum of human misery among the peoples now under German domination. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government, after consultation with the United States and Netherlands Governments, have decided that they must regard all persons who make payments to the enemy in consequence of this traffic and all persons furthering it or facilitating it in any way as being engaged in transactions for the benefit of the enemy. They therefore wish to make it clear (1) that they will immediately place upon the Statutory List and thereby proclaim as enemies any persons in neutral countries or in any other territories to which the List applies who act as brokers or agents in this traffic; (2) that persons in such countries or territories who pay money to the enemy or his agents in pursuance of this traffic are performing a service to the enemy and will render themselves liable to all such legitimate penalties and counter-measures as it may be within the power of the United Nations to take; (3) that any person in the United Kingdom who makes payment to or for the benefit of the enemy in these or any circumstances is liable to prosecution under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Marchwood be given leave to advance his Motion (which now stands for the third sitting day after the 22nd of November) to this day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I can, I think, sufficiently explain the purpose of this Bill in two or three sentences. The Bill is really ancillary to a Bill which is being passed in Northern Ireland called the County Court (Jurisdiction) Bill. In order that the purposes which the Northern Ireland Parliament have before them may be effectuated, it is necessary also to pass a Bill through the Imperial Parliament. The reason is that, while legislation relating to the County Court in Northern Ireland is within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, legislation which would amend the existing law about the High Court in Northern Ireland is a reserved matter, and has therefore to be dealt with in Parliament here.
The general object is to increase the jurisdiction of the County Court so that, for example, it may deal with actions of contract up to £100, whereas at present it can do so only up to a figure of £50, with power in the High Court in Northern Ireland to transfer these smaller actions to the County Court. It follows that we need legislation here as well as in Northern Ireland, and this Bill—the terms of which I can, if necessary, explain more in detail—is simply for that purpose. Your Lordships can take it from me that the Bill is drafted in proper form. The matter is agreed with the authorities in Northern Ireland, and we shall merely be facilitating a piece of legislation which they desire to carry through. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NORTH AFRICA: POLITICAL PRISONERS AND REFUGEES.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether the members of the International Brigade, Spanish Republicans and other political prisoners and refugees who had been kept in concentration camps or employed on forced labour by the Vichy authorities in North Africa have now been released; and whether it is intended to invite their assistance in the service of the United Nations.]
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, as you are aware, North Africa is still a zone of military operations, and all these matters are in the hands of the United States Commander-in-Chief. Your Lordships will have seen the statement recently made by President Roosevelt, upon which I cannot comment at this juncture.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Viscount surely appreciates that this is a joint military undertaking, and that British soldiers are fighting on North African soil. Cannot we have some assurance that His Majesty's Government are using their good offices to have these proved friends of ours released from a very trying imprisonment, and allowed to serve the cause for which they have suffered so much?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are naturally in consultation with the United States Government on all questions concerning North Africa, but operations are proceeding, and I do hope that the House will understand that at this delicate moment I do not want to add anything. This is an American sphere of operations, and that must be borne in mind.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Viscount is well aware that this matter is the subject of widespread

199
misgivings and intense anxiety on behalf of our friends in North Africa who have been imprisoned. I am sure that His Majesty's Government will keep this very prominently in mind.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I can certainly give that assurance to the noble Lord, but I thought that the point made by Lord Addison was covered by my reply to Lord Strabolgi's supplementary question, when I said that His Majesty's Government were acting in consultation with the United States Government on all questions concerning North Africa.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to press my noble friend, but, if he is able to give any information later, will he be good enough to let me know, so that I can ask for information?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I will certainly bear that in mind.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I saw in the newspapers yesterday that President Roosevelt's son had been appointed to command these very people. Has the noble Viscount no information on that subject? Of course, much that appears in the Press is false.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no information on that subject, but I hope that noble Lords who are interested in this question, which I know is one which does arouse great interest, will read again President Roosevelt's statement, which is certainly of significance.

NORTH AFRICA: M. FLANDIN AND M. PUCHEUX.
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 M. Pierre Flandin and M. Pierre Pucheux, former French Ministers, have arrived in French North Africa; whether their journey was facilitated by the Commanders of the British and American occupying troops; and what is the object of their visit.]
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are not aware that either M. Flandin or M. Pucheux
200
has arrived in French, North Africa. These men have certainly received no encouragement assistance to proceed there from any British authority.

COSTS OF PRIVATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the appointment of the same Committee that your Lordships appointed in the spring of this year, and with the same terms of reference relating to the costs of Private Bills. I did not move for the appointment of this Committee the other day, because the question was being discussed of whether any alteration should be made in the terms of reference or in any other way. There has been no change, however, since your Lordships first agreed to the appointment of the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of the cost involved in promoting and opposing Private Bills, Provisional Orders and Special Orders, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore),

V. Mersey,

V. Sankey,

L. Templemore,

L. Hare (E. Listowel),

L. Belstead.

—(The Earl of Onslow).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MERCANTILE MARINE AWARDS.
LORD MARCHWOOD LORD MARCHWOOD had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will, in view of the statement that the Civil and Military Divisions of the British Empire Order are of equal status, state precisely the circumstances under which officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for naval decorations; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to my Motion I should like to express my appreciation and thanks to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the trouble he has taken to arrange a date for the Motion which suits the convenience of everyone concerned with it.

201
The purpose of the Notice standing in my name is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will, in view of the statement that the Civil and Military Divisions of the British Empire Order are of equal status, state precisely the circumstances in which officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for naval decorations; because despite the recent statement of the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, and answers given by Ministers to various questions on the subject in another place, there is still uncertainty and confusion with regard to awards for gallantry to the officers and men of the Merchant Navy.
Quite apart from every other consideration, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is due to these gallant men that the Government should give a clear ruling, free from ambiguity, which will remove all doubts. Judging by Ministerial pronouncements and by the way recent awards have been bestowed, some in the Military and others in the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire, there appears to be no settled, consistent policy in the matter. At times it looks as if selection were made on occupational grounds; at others, one is almost forced to the conclusion that it is done on the principle of the lucky dip. The First Lord of the Admiralty states that the policy is that officers and men of the Merchant Navy "should receive naval decorations when engaged in operations which amount in effect to sea battles." This, in view of certain recent awards, suggests the conundrum: When is a battle not a battle? And the answer would appear to be When a Merchant Navy officer or man is given an award in the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire.
The Prime Minister, replying to a question on the subject, stated that naval awards are now available for the Merchant Navy for gallantry in action with the enemy. If that simple, straightforward statement were allowed to stand without qualification or variation, the case would be met and everyone would be satisfied. I should like to repeat that, so that the Minister who is going to reply will know exactly what is in my mind: if that simple, straightforward statement were allowed to stand without qualification or variation, to form the basis of awards, the case would be met and every-
202
one would be satisfied. It would certainly obviate the need for any sea lawyer's judgment as to whether there had or had not been a battle.
The Prime Minister also said that it is not proposed to vary the long-standing custom that the appointments of civilians shall be in the Civil Division and of military personnel in the Military Division of the Order. This suggests another poser: Are officers and men in the Merchant Service to be considered civilians when defending their ship in the face of enemy attack, or are they to be considered combatants? Here again unfortunately one does not know until one sees what award is given, and recent awards provide no clue. Taking the Prime Minister's dictum that naval awards are available for the Merchant Navy for gallantry "in action with the enemy" and the First Lord's restriction of them "to sea battles," one finds it quite impossible to understand on what grounds the decoration of the C.B.E. Civil Division was given recently to Captain Capon, whose ship when carrying refugees from Singapore was attacked continuously for several hours by enemy aircraft, three bombs from which hit the ship wounding some of those on board and starting many fires. The aircraft were driven off and the fire parties got the fires under control when they were again attacked for two hours by 47 aircraft, and these were also driven off by the combined fire from the ship and her escort, one aircraft being shot down and another damaged. The Master's coolness, leadership and skill are reported to have been outstanding and it was in a great measure due to his handling of the ship during the attacks that she and the refugees on board were brought to safety. These facts are beyond dispute and surely in such circumstances no-one would have the temerity to say that Captain Capon was a noncombatant, for he fought bravely and successfully. Ridiculous as it may sound it would be just as accurate to say he was a pacifist as to describe him as a non-combatant.
The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, speaking in the debate on September 8, said of the Merchant Navy that their services were beyond praise and that it was right that officers and men should be eligible for all the gallantry awards that are available to those in the Royal Navy. Why

203
then, I ask again, were Captain Capon and those under him not given naval awards? According to the Minister of War Transport they were eligible for them; according to the Prime Minister's definition they were "in action with the enemy," and whatever conception the First Lord may have of what constitutes a "sea battle," Captain Capon and his crew certainly played a very vital part in one.
To say, as the First Lord does, that the action fought by Captain Capon's ship does not fall within the "sea battle" definition, that it was essentially defensive and that the honours to the Captain and his men were chiefly in recognition of service in saving the damaged vessel, belittles a very gallant action. It also does much less than justice to the merchant sailors who took part in it, and it is to be hoped the Government will adjust matters by transferring the awards given from the Civil to the Military Division. The case I have quoted is not an isolated one; there are many others—which rather lends colour to the impression that there is some definite reason why the naval awards in the appropriate Division are withheld. I suggest that it would be far better to disclose the reason than remain silent, seeing that that attitude fosters a feeling of disappointment and soreness.
I hope it will not be thought for a single moment that in stressing the point 1 belittle in the slightest degree the valour, courage and devotion to duty which are necessary to earn civil awards, for one sees on so many occasions that the gallantry displayed by civilians cannot possibly be excelled. Gallantry is gallantry wherever displayed. It wears no uniform exclusive either to civilians or the Fighting Services. It is the type of award that is the consideration, not its value as a measure of gallantry; it is a matter of principle. If the personnel of the Merchant Navy are to receive decorations for fighting, they should be given the appropriate honour, which should be military in character and not civilian. The eloquent and generous tribute paid to the Merchant Navy by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beauty, when moving the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, touched the hearts of all who heard him, and it will be gratefully remembered by
204
those serving in the Mercantile Marine. He pointed out that in comparison the Merchant Navy had suffered greater loss in personnel than any of the other Services and that their devotion to duty was beyond all praise. As a serving officer in the Royal Navy he welcomed the decision that gallantry awards were to be given the Merchant Service officers and men upon the same basis as those in the Royal Navy, and the assurance given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that his remarks concerning the Merchant Service would receive the close and sympathetic attention of the Government, was most welcome and reassuring.
The nation wishes to see an end of this discrimination and pettifogging treatment of the Merchant Navy, for it is not only unnecessary, but it is unfair. Once again, therefore, I ask the Government to rise to the occasion and wipe away for all time these invidious distinctions and differences of treatment. Let the men of the Merchant Navy, who are doing a really splendid job, have the satisfaction of knowing that it is appreciated; that the nation intends them to have a square deal in return, and that the Government are prepared to give it. I beg to move.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, it is rather disturbing that such a delicate question as that of honours for one of the great Services of the State should again have to be debated in your Lordships' House so soon after the last occasion, when Lord Marchwood moved his Motion which had such effect, and which gave a great deal of pleasure to many of us. But I agree with the spirit of what he said this afternoon, and I do not feel that the Government have left the situation in a satisfactory state by their recent decision, which was, your Lordships will remember, that a merchant seaman was to be eligible for naval honours when the occasion was one which could be considered to be, in effect, a naval battle. I find it difficult in these days to define what a naval battle is. These are not days of great fleets of twenty or thirty battleships on each side, drawn up in line of battle, fighting each other as at Trafalgar or at the battle of Tsushima or on other great occasions in history. Naval battles at the present day are comparatively small affairs judged by the standard of naval history.

205
Was the action off Cape Matapan a battle or should we call it an action? Was the fight off the River Plate a battle, or was it an engagement or a small action? If merchant seamen had been present on these occasions, would they have come under the new rule and been eligible for naval honours, or would they have been treated as if they were merely casual civilians strolling about the battlefield? If in the case of a great fight such as the convoy to Malta, which we all have in mind, or the convoy to Russia, when there are probably fifty merchant ships and a couple of dozen warships or less, fighting continuously and fiercely for two or three nights and days, it is illogical to call the naval mart a fighter and the merchant man a civilian, surely when the number of ships engaged is less—if there are only two or three merchant ships and one or two warships present at the engagement, or even if there is only one merchant ship fighting against a submarine on the surface, firing their guns at each other and gallantry is specifically performed—you cannot say that in principle it is all different, that the situation is not great enough, that the battle has not been big enough to allow us to change the rule, and that accordingly the civilian seaman must get a different type of honour from that given to his naval comrade.
I do not think you can stand there. That does not seem to be right. After all, no matter in what circumstances the gallantry is performed, a man's gallantry is of exactly the same nature whether there are ten, a hundred, or a thousand ships on the scene of action at the time. I have spoken before, and I do not apologize for speaking again, to emphasize that it is of vital importance that it shall be agreed and understood that there is no question, as my noble friend Lord Marchwood properly stressed, between the honours awarded for civil gallantry and honours awarded for gallantry by the Fighting Services of the Crown. There is nothing that is more difficult to win than a civil gallantry decoration—the George Cross or the George Medal. Every case must be one of specific individual bravery which has been witnessed by two or more persons, who must sign a report that they witnessed the act and must describe what they saw, and that report must be investigated by one or more responsible persons before it comes to the Committee
206
over which I preside. I am glad to say that the number of cases with which we have to deal to-day are so few that we have really very little to do. After all, gallantry needs opportunity, and opportunity can only come to civilians in this country, as a rule, if air raids take place. Therefore, the fewer decorations for gallantry by civilians, the fewer bombs are being dropped on our heads.
But if, for instance, a big town like Plymouth or a London borough is subjected to a very fierce and continuous battle for many hours—perhaps for three or four days running—we do not say to that town or borough, "You have fought a great action, let us have a list at once of twenty, thirty, or a hundred names of people whom you want to select and whom His Majesty would delight to honour." That was done in the last war in the Fighting Services—I do not know whether it is still done when a great occasion has occurred and honour and glory have come to our arms. In the case of the civil awards that is not done. We do indeed induce every authority to take the greatest care that gallantry is looked for and reported as soon as possible; but it must be a specific act by an individual. Also we have been most careful to keep the standard of civil gallantry very high. Why is that so? It is because when I toured the country two years ago, when the Orders were first instituted by His Majesty, to explain the principles on which we wanted to carry out His Majesty's intention, I found the strongest determination amongst civilians of all types, from the highest to the humblest, that the gallantry standard should be kept at the highest possible level. Therefore there can be no question, whatever decision is made by the Government on a problem in respect of which it is admittedly most difficult to give complete satisfaction, of any distinction being made between civil and military or naval awards in themselves.
Having gone so far as the Government have gone, having decided, as we may say, to decorate the ship, they surely should not spoil it for a ha'porth of tar. Let them go boldly forward on the line they have taken, and let them recommend that on all occasions of fighting at sea awards for gallantry shall be without distinction. The sea is a battlefield. Whenever you are on the sea in these

207
days, it is a battlefield. When you leave port you go into battle, you face mine, submarine, torpedo, or bomb at any moment. The battle is continuous, and it never stops. There is no reason to stop at the words "when it can be considered as a naval battle". The award of naval honours should extend, in my opinion, to the merchant seaman on all occasions; not because it is a greater honour, because it is not, but merely because it is more appropriate and gives the merchant seaman the status that is his by right. It is not only when he is engaged in battle that he should have that right, but also in relation to any consequence of enemy action that befalls his ship. If the ship, for instance, has been damaged by the enemy and the enemy has flown away or gone underwater, the seaman is very likely fighting for the life of his ship, ready to give his own life for it. In those circumstances when he does some very brave deed, and perhaps sacrifices his life, he should not be told that "the enemy were not present and therefore you can only get a civil decoration." He should, in those circumstances, still be eligible for naval honours.
We all remember the very remarkable case of a pilot in our gallant Air Force not long ago who had been bombing over Germany and whose aircraft had been very severely damaged. Eventually he came to the conclusion that the only thing to do was to tell his crew to save their lives, and he hung on to his aircraft as long as he could to allow them to do so. Ultimately he lost his life in landing here. What award did that gallant man get? He got the Victoria Cross. The enemy was no longer present, but he was committing an act which was necessary as a consequence of enemy action. That is as I understand it. If that is right, then we must be logical and must similarly agree that in other spheres of action as long as you are on the battlefield you should be eligible for a proper military award. I would also make this point. On the civil battlefield in this country, if a sailor in the Royal Navy is ashore and assists the civil authorities in helping them to do something at his village or his farm in dealing with the effects of an air raid, for example, what award does he get? He gets a civil award. He is on the civil battlefield, and he gets a George Cross or
208
a George Medal or something of a lesser distinction.
I will not go into the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, has raised about the military and civil elements in the British Empire Order, because that is a most difficult and controversial question which must have a great deal more serious consideration. But I would like to say finally that I do feel that some steps ought to be taken to ascertain the feelings of the Merchant Navy itself. I have tried to do so myself, and I find there is a very considerable conflict of opinion. In the debate in this House on the 8th September the noble Lord, Lord Winster, your Lordships may remember, read a letter which he had received, I think, from the National Maritime Board and from the Officers Association in which they expressed the view that asking them to receive this or that honour was not in compliance with any wish expressed on behalf of the Merchant Navy, that their wish was to do their duty and let them be rewarded or not in a way that was considered best by their King and country. I do not think that is altogether a satisfactory position.
It is the same in the Fighting Services. The Fighting Services, so called constitutionally, also do not want to consider what honours they are going to get. It is the last thing of which they think. Nevertheless there are people, one or two in each of these Services, whose duty it is to think about these matters, and to he quite sure that on such a great and delicate subject proper thought is given to ensure that there is consistency and that everything is ordered as it should be ordered. I think it is a great pity that the heads of the great Merchant Navy—I agree they are not centralized in exactly the same way as the Fighting Services—have not been brought into consultation on these matters. They also have a duty to their men, and I do not think it is satisfactory merely to say that they care for none of these things. It is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, should have to move this Motion and that I should have to support it; yet I feel that somehow, if he had not originally moved his Motion, nothing would have been done. That is an unsatisfactory thought, because we must remember that the merchant seaman is always in the battlefield, he is fighting our battler, we depend on him, and he

209
should in every respect be eligible for the honours and privileges that fighting men are getting in this war.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, put the Motion originally on the Paper, my noble friend asked me to study the subject and to ascertain the views of the personnel of the Mercantile Marine and particularly of the National Union of Seamen, with whom we always have very close relations. The Motion was postponed owing to the indisposition of Lord Bruntisfield. I would like to congratulate the noble Lord on his recovery. I am glad to see him here to-day in his usual rude health. The postponement has, however, given a little more time for the investigation I was undertaking. I consulted the officials of the National Union of Seamen and I understood they had discussed this matter with their colleagues on the National Maritime board. Their views, which I am now asked to express, may be put in this way. Needless to say they appreciate the lively interest which Lord Marchwood takes in the men of his old cloth, if I may so put it. He is an experienced seaman himself, and he never forgets, and we all value that characteristic. But as regards the National Union of Seamen—and l believe in this case they also speak for the officers' organization—they have asked the to state quite categorically that they have no desire to be associated in arty way with any suggestion which might appear to attempt to impinge on the Royal Prerogative. The question of what kind of decorations should be given as awards for gallantry is a matter in the discretion of His Majesty, and they have no desire whatever to make any suggestions with regard to the matter at all. That is quite categorical.
They also ask me to say—and here their attitude is the same as that described by the noble and plant Lord who has just addressed your. Lordships—that what they are primarily concerned with is using their greatest exertions and endeavours to hasten the victory which we must achieve if their life and the life of any of us is to be worth living in the future. Their whole energies are bent to that end. They also ask me to remind your Lordships that after the war there will be many acute problems affecting the Mercantile Marine and its personnel;
210
that they, for their part, are very exercised as to their future, and that they want to be quite sure there will be no return to the bad conditions at sea which were suffered by so many seamen before the war. I hope that when these matters come up for consideration after the war all your Lordships who have shown such appreciation of the fortitude and devotion to duty of the men of the Mercantile Marine will be, as I am sure you will be, deeply sympathetic to their claims for fair and just treatment. That, I believe, is the reward they look for if there is to be a reward for doing what, after all, is only their duty.
I would add one further sentence with reference to what has been said both by my noble friend Lord Marchwood and my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield. The question whether merchant seamen should be recognized as combatants is very delicate, and no one knows better than the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield. Seamen under International Law are civilians and are entitled to the privileges of civilians. The fact that they defend themselves when attacked—the right of every citizen—the fact that they are prepared to defend themselves against piratical attacks as in this war, does not alter their civilian status. In this case the status of a civilian is no sort of stigma at all. This is a very delicate matter, and it might be very inadvisable to interfere, or to appear to interfere, with the civilian status of the merchant seaman. The fact that International Law at sea has been torn up, and that centuries old established rights and usages of seamen in the great wars of the past have been thrown away by the modern barbarians whom we are fighting to-day, does not alter the fact that one day we shall reestablish International Law. That is one of the objects for which we are fighting.
LORD CHATFIELD: May I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that it is to the disadvantage of merchant seamen when they become prisoners of war, as a great many of them have, if they are treated by Germany or Italy as civilians in the prison camps? If they are treated as fighting men they will get all the attentions and privileges to which fighting men are entitled. If they are civilians they will not get those privileges and may suffer far greater hardships.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am informed that the representatives of their union accept that position, but it does not alter their anxiety as to their position when the question of permanently altering the status of the merchant seaman is under examination. I venture to suggest that one of the most certain things in this world is, that we must restore respect for International Law at sea, and then the status of the merchant seaman will become a matter of great importance. All I am doing is to put this forward as a consideration which must not be lost sight of in the well meant and sympathetic efforts of my noble friend Lord Marchwood and others, to bring about these changes and reforms. I am putting forward the anxiety felt by seamen themselves when any question of altering their status permanently is under discussion. What I have said I think fairly represents the views of the spokesmen and representatives of seamen themselves, and I am sure that His Majesty's Government will bear it in mind when this matter comes up for decision.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I will occupy your attention for two or three minutes only. I would like first to say that I was glad to hear the remarks of my noble friend who has just spoken as to the position of the National Union of Seamen in regard to an inquiry about the status of merchant seamen, because when my noble friend Lord Marchwood asked for an inquiry to make sure of that the Union was quoted against those who spoke in favour of it and it was said the Union did not want anything of the sort. I support my noble friend Lord Marchwood who, it must be remembered, speaks for the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, which is a very influential Company, and must be taken to know something about the feeling among officers of the Mercantile Marine. Since the last time that I had the pleasure of supporting him on the question of decorations for merchant seamen I had been under the impression that all was well and that officers and men of the Mercantile Marine were entitled to the same decorations as the officers and men Of the Royal Navy. If that is not so, and apparently it is not, I think it is deplorable that the action which we thought would be taken has been limited by these quibbles. I do not want to inflict upon your Lordships the same arguments which I tried to put forward
212
on a previous occasion. Deeds speak louder than words, and the fact is that the Merchant Navy is now an integral part of the Fighting Services. When they take part in any operations there ought to be no distinction between defensive and offensive action. If you start to go into that you will get into a hopeless tangle. If a man takes part in an action against the enemy it does not matter whether it is defensive or offensive.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely my noble and gallant friend recognizes the difference between a merchant seaman defending his own ship and a merchant seaman in an armed merchant cruiser?
LORD MARCHWOOD: Surely he is defending if attacked whether he is defending himself or the ship or the cargo that is being carried to help our Army.
LORD STRABOLGI: When a man is serving in an armed merchant cruiser he becomes a combatant. He is different from a man serving in a ship armed for defence—a centuries old practice. A man in the latter case remains a civilian.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I entirely disagree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. It depends on the operations that are being carried out. If you carry out an attack and part of the attacking force consists of merchant ships, how can you pretend that the seamen are civilians when they are taking as great a part in the action as anyone else and doing the same work as the Army Service Corps does for the Armies on land? We have been told that 16,000 merchant seamen have lost their lives at sea in this war. That figure was given some weeks ago and so that number must have been considerably added to now. To that number you must add those who have died after being brought ashore and those who have been ruined in health and strength through long hours of exposure. Whatever may be said as to whether a man is a civilian or a seaman the Merchant Navy have made good their case to be considered as combatants whenever there is a question of awards or rewards. I am sure that if your Lordships were to take a strong line in insisting on their being treated in that way, you would have all officers and men, their admiring comrades, in the Royal Navy, and millions of people throughout the country at your back.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, I should like first to offer an apology to my noble friend Lord Marchwood for having been unavoidably prevented from being in my place last Tuesday which was the day originally fixed for the discussion of his Motion. I am afraid I caused him some inconvenience and I am indebted to him for his kindness in postponing his Motion. The noble Lord who moved this Motion has, I know, this subject very much at heart. I hope that in listening to my reply he will not feel that I am influenced by any prejudice against the Service of which he is one of the representatives in this House. The Motion which he has put on the Paper asks a specific question—namely, whether, in view of the statement that the Civil and Military Divisions of the Order of the British Empire are of equal status, His Majesty's Government will state precisely the circumstances under which officers and men of the. Merchant Navy are eligible for naval decorations. The speech of the noble Lord and the discussion which that speech has prompted strayed far beyond the limits of the original Motion. I make no complaint of that at all; but I would observe that many of the points raised bear most directly upon the Prerogative of His Majesty the King. For instance, the question whether it is right or proper that the Military Division of the Order of the British Empire should be closed to officers and men of the Merchant Navy. In replying for the Government it would be wholly improper for me, as the representative of the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, to say anything which might be interpreted as an encroachment upon the Prerogative of the Crown, and I intend to take good care not to do so.
Let me first of all answer the point specifically referred to in my noble friend's question. In a previous debate, which took place in your Lordships' House on September 8, my noble friend, Lord Leathers, when announcing that His Majesty had been graciously pleased to allow naval decorations—the D.S.O., the C.G.M., and the D.S.M.—to be awarded to officers and men of the Merchant Navy in addition to those naval decorations, the V.C., and the D.S.C., for which they were already eligible,
214
made quite clear, I think, the circumstances in which these naval awards would be appropriate. I will quote his words:
"The object in mind is that military awards"—
in using the word "military" my noble friend meant it in the naval sense, of course—
"are appropriate for merchant seamen when engaged in operations which amount in effect to sea battles."
Now my noble friend Lord Marchwood said that that was not sufficiently clear. I will come back to that point in a minute, but let me say here that the term "sea battles" does not necessarily cut out small naval actions which could not, in any sense of the word, be described as battles. Lord Chatfield asked: What is a battle? Well, it is very difficult to say. Certainly actions such as he described—the River Plate engagement, for instance—which, perhaps, cannot be described technically as naval battles, would not be cut out under the phraseology which has been used.
Lord Marchwood now asks me for a precise statement of the circumstances in which the Merchant Navy are eligible for these decorations. I should be very happy to oblige him but, though the spirit is willing the flesh, I am afraid, is very seriously handicapped and for this reason. May I first of all amplify the statement which my noble friend Lord Leathers made in the recent debate? In general, officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for Royal Navy honours, decorations and medals for gallantry and distinguished service, such as would earn similar rewards for the Royal Navy in operations which are in effect sea battles. The circumstances in which they are eligible for such awards cannot be more precisely stated than that for the reason that they cannot be precisely foreseen. Indeed, I think any attempt at greater precision is to he deprecated for there would then be a very real danger that the effect of laying down exact rules might be to exclude, because of meticulous definition, cases of an unprecedented or unusual kind which it might be desirable to see qualify for Royal Navy awards.
Several noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have put questions which I think stress the truth of what I have said. They ask: What is a battle?

215
What is going to be allowed and what is going to be cut out? I think that the less precision I use in answering those questions the better it will be for those who hope to qualify for the award of naval decorations. And in this connexion I would like to remind your Lordships of the procedure which governs the recommendations and submissions for the award of these honours, because it bears very much on the whole point. The Orders in Council governing Royal Navy awards and the Statutes of the D.S.O., make them available to the Merchant. Navy for such services in action with o the enemy as may seem to the First Lord of the Admiralty to qualify for such awards, and each recommendation is considered on the qualities, circumstances and merits of the action and conduct. For these purposes the First Lord enjoys the advice and assistance of the Honours and Awards Committee which sits in the Admiralty under the chairmanship of a Vice-Admiral in His Majesty's Navy, and is assisted by two Merchant Navy Captains when Merchant Navy cases are under discussion. The sort of case which noble Lords have mentioned to-day, when there is some doubt as to whether the award should be a naval decoration or not, would be considered by that Committee, and these two gentlemen, who are themselves men of the Merchant Navy, have full opportunity of expressing their view. I think the interests of the Merchant Navy would be well looked after by these two gentlemen. It would, therefore, seem to be infinitely preferable to refrain from circumscribing this procedure with precise or definite formula. I suggest that the object which I understand that the noble Lord has in mind is far more likely to be achieved if those concerned are allowed a wide measure of latitude.
The noble Lord, having failed on a previous occasion to round his mark, has put about on the other tack and, sailing his ship close-hauled, has come up to windward once more, his topsails shaking with indignation, and has returned to the attack. I am referring now to his plea that there should be no differentiation between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy in respect of awards within the Order of the British Empire. I am most unwilling to be drawn into any sort of comparison of the services rendered and the hazards endured by the seamen
216
of the Royal and Merchant Navies respectively; suffice it to say that the debt which the nation owes to both of them is irrepayable. It is upon the valour and endurance of both that the safety of the British Empire and its ability to achieve victory chiefly depend.
I must remind your Lordships that the provisions of the Statutes governing awards for gallantry for which officers and men of the Merchant Navy may or may not be eligible are not the concern, in the first instance, of the Admiralty. This is a matter entirely within the Royal Prerogative. Moreover, as the result of a recent decision, recommendations for the Order of the British Empire in respect of the Merchant Navy are now sent to the Prime Minister for submission to His Majesty by the Minister of War Transport and not by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord, please observe, still makes recommendations in respect of naval awards for the Merchant Navy. It will be seen, therefore, that this particular matter is less than ever one for the Admiralty. I trust that what I have said will make it clear to your Lordships that, whilst it is within my competence to answer the specific question posed in the Motion, the other point raised by the noble Lord is outside the province of my Department. However, since the noble Lord has made much of his latter point, and as it is my duty to-day to reply for the Government as a whole, I feel that I must, out of courtesy to him and to other noble Lords who have referred to the subject, give him an answer, even though, for reasons which I have stated, I do so with some diffidence. I think I had better say at once that it is the view of the Ministry of War Transport—and I have the authority of my noble friend for saying this—that it is important that the present position should be maintained, and that the proposal submitted by the noble Lord to-day should not be adopted. As the noble Lord himself has said, it has been officially stated on more than one occasion that the Civil and Military Divisions of the Order of the British Empire are of equal status.
LORD MARCHWOOD: No one disputes it.
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: The nature of the award depends simply upon the calling of the recipient, and not upon the merits

217
of the service performed; and it is not considered that military awards within the Order are appropriate for those serving in civilian occupations, however gallant be their exploits. It is really no reflection upon the seamen of the Merchant Navy to describe them as civilians. On the contrary, the fact that a calling which is unversed in the arts of war and not subject to any code of discipline, beyond that associated with the traditions of the sea, carries on undaunted in the face of unparalleled hardships and perils, can do nothing but add lustre to the glory of its achievements. So far as my Department is concerned, it is of the utmost importance that the equality of the status of the two Divisions of the Order of the British Empire should be fully and widely understood, if only because, apart from other pertinent considerations, the Admiralty have in their service very many thousands of civilian employees. Some of these nave performed acts of the very greatest gallantry in circumstances which cannot be described as other than in the face of the enemy. Take, for instance, the staff of the dockyard in Malta. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, said that the sea was in a different category, because gallantry at sea was performed on a battlefield. It would be impossible to nave a much tougher or rougher battlefield than Malta, and very similar conditions will be found at times in Plymouth and in other industrial towns in this country. These men to whom I am referring are civilian employees—the case of a dockyard worker in Malta was mentioned in the newspapers only three days ago—and they have been rewarded with appointments in the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire.
Any step, therefore, which might depreciate the value of these awards in the public esteem would, from the point of view of the Admiralty, be most regrettable. It is in fact much to our interest to effect the reverse process, and to discourage anything being said or clone which will foster the misconception that an award in the Civil Division is less meritorious than one in the Military Division. If this debate succeeds in correcting this unfortunate and wholly erroneous idea, then it will have served, I believe, a most timely and useful purpose. I have endeavoured to explain why the noble Lord's original question cannot be
218
answered with precision, and I have elaborated, I fear somewhat tediously, the important and far-reaching considerations which surround his further plea. I have had to tread delicately in so doing; but let nothing that I have said be taken as in any way detracting from the glorious achievements of the Merchant Navy. There exists in the Royal Navy, I know, the most profound admiration for their brother seamen. They are proud to sail in company with them and they realize, as fully as we all do, that it is their combined efforts and devotion to duty which will ultimately spell the doom of our enemies.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend who has just replied for the Government is entitled to the gratitude of the House for taking the opportunity of correcting the misconceptions which he suggests have existed with regard to the two categories of awards under this Order. At the same time I think the House will feel cordial admiration for the manner in which he has presented a case which is rather complicated. I fancy that the mover of the Motion spoke under a sense of strong emotion, but I hope he will see his way not to press the Motion after the clarification of the matter just made on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, has been careful to point out the danger in all these matters of trying to define precisely the intentions, which would really defeat the object in view, because it would entail the risk of forfeiting an award which men otherwise might receive and to which they would be entitled. He emphasized that this is more a matter for the Ministry of War Transport than for the Admiralty. He also at some length indicated the complication introduced by the question of the Prerogative of the Crown, and it is a very proper custom of the House to speak no word which would impinge on that.
He made the point that these actions that have been referred to are, in fact, sea battles, and cannot be more precisely described. The reason why I ask the indulgence of the House in intervening in this debate, is that I am probably one of the few members of the House who have recently had the experience of a considerable sea journey in convoy. During that journey I had the opportunity of speaking with a great number of naval

219
ratings who had been recently torpedoed, and who had been gathered up from various points and were being repatriated. During that prolonged journey I spoke with many of these men, and I was deeply impressed with the instances of heroism on the part of the Mercantile Marine recounted by those naval ratings. I am sure that the House will be in entire sympathy with the desire that these men should receive the highest awards for their great service to the country. While I understand the strong feeling of my noble friend Lord Marchwood, on the other hand I quite appreciate the points made by the noble Lord who replied for the Government, but my main object in rising was to emphasize the hope that whatever may emerge from this debate, the utmost generosity to the men of the Mercantile Marine should be accorded in the interpretation of the rules which govern the making of the awards.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I am sure you have all listened with interest to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, and I can assure him that, though, I am disappointed with the reply. I am in no way indignant. I deplore that the Government cannot see their way to do what we have asked, and that their spokesman has to use special pleading and hair-splitting arguments to explain away the case I have made. I do not wish to divide the House because I understood from the noble Lord that if we left the question to the Committee which has been appointed on which two Captains of the Merchant Navy sit, it might be possible to decide on rather a broader basis what is a battle. That, I think, goes a long way to meet the contention I have put forward. I have endeavoured to make my case reasonably and quietly, but I feel very deeply indeed on this question. My noble friend pointed out that many of these matters are entirely outside his province, and I appreciate the difficulty of his going further than he has done. But I do sincerely hope that when it comes to rewarding bravery, the Committee to which he referred will do their utmost to be generous and see that the definition of a sea battle is very comprehensive.
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this because if I gave the impression that
220
the Committee have any official responsibility in making recommendations I was quite wrong. In the first instance these recommendations are considered by a Committee which will have the benefit of the advice and guidance of two members of the Mercantile Marine, but they have no ultimate responsibility.
LORD MARCHWOOD: I quite see that. The debate has rather tended to develop into a matter of legal argument. I am no lawyer, but if I were to be asked what is a battle, I would say that any fighting at sea between ships of opposing nations, whether above, on or below the sea, quite irrespective of their numbers, should be regarded as a sea battle. That definition may quite possibly shock the experts of the Admiralty, who may distinguish between skirmishes, encounters, minor actions, running fights and a battle like Jutland. Again I say let the interpretation of a battle be comprehensive, and I shall be satisfied. There is abundant lip service given to these gallant men on every occasion and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when speaking just now, referred to the many acute problems that will have to be dealt with after the war. There were many acute problems that had to be dealt with before the war, yet very little was done by the various organizations he referred to until they were stirred up to get a move on. When this was done, within about three weeks they said "We have done this" and "We have done that." If we can inspire them with the energy to do these things we have achieved a great deal. I disagree in the main with what he said regarding these organizations. Sailors, as a body, are very inarticulate and do not want to bring forward their own case. They are afraid of losing their jobs. I have letters here which absolutely contradict the view expressed by the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: I must protest. The noble Lord surely does not wish to lead your Lordships to suppose that the National Union of Seamen have accomplished nothing for seamen in forty years of striving?
LORD MARCHWOOD: I am glad to say they have done something, but they could do a great deal more, and I am glad they are getting a move on at last. Here is an extract from a letter sent to the Honourable Company of Master Mariners

221
referring to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord VVinster, the other day. It says:
"When the official quoted by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Winster, says that opinion in the Merchant Navy is divided on the matter, I find myself sceptical of the correctness of his statement."
That I will not go into, however. I do admit that there is said to be a strong division of opinion regarding the question which I am raising. It is not pleasant for me, when the Government tell me they can go no further, to get tip and plead the case again. I was told definitely by Lord Leathers on the previous occasion that it was right that officers and men of the Merchant Navy should be eligible for all the gallantry awards that are available to those serving in the Royal Navy. I have given to the House my view of what I feel is the right thing to be done for these men, and I have had splendid support. I see that there are reasons why it cannot be done to the degree and ex-
222
tent which I have suggested. I therefore hope the Government will give their most sympathetic consideration to all that has been said, and that the Committee mentioned may in their wisdom widen the scope of their decisions. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

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