Sitting of 20 October 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER
MR. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Duncan Macgregor Graham, Esquire, Member for the County of Lanark (Hamilton Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Sports Equipment (Service Supplies)
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now reconsider his decision to distribute sports goods to the Services through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, instead of the normal trade channels?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): In accordance with the undertaking which I gave last week, I have re-examined this question, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Having regard to the shortage of supplies, he and I are both satisfied that the present system of distributing priority sports goods is necessary to ensure equitable distribution to Service users.
    Colonel Evans: Is my right hon. Friend prepared, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, to receive a deputation on this subject this week?
    Mr. Dalton: It would be wrong for me to give an answer without consulting my right hon. Friend, but this matter really has been looked at repeatedly from every angle. I myself doubt whether it is well for Members to pursue it further, although I am sure my right hon. Friend would
    1808
    agree with me that we are always at the service of Members on such matters.
    Colonel Evans: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Towels
    Mrs. Beatrice Wrightasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will provide special householders coupons for all types of towel?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; the ordinary clothing coupons are available for this purpose.
    Mrs. Wright: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the people of small means are at a great disadvantage, as they are not accustomed to keep large stocks in their homes? Should not the matter be looked into from that point of view?
    Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to make it as little difficult as possible, and for that reason we have advanced the release of the red coupons to 15th March from 1st April. It will, therefore, be possible for coupons to be drawn on rather more rapidly than they might otherwise have been. I would like to mention that the increase in the production of towels will, I hope, be of the order of 60 per cent. in view of shortages that have been revealed, but that, of course, is at the expense of other cotton goods.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that coupons for towels must come off either the husband's clothing or the wife's clothing, and as the husband is reluctant to go short of clothing the woman has to go short to provide the house with towels. Why not have separate coupons for towels?
    Mr. Dalton: I hope there will be mutually agreeable arrangements made in the different households. We have endeavoured to assist them by pre-dating the next period.
    Mrs. Hardie: Why put obstacles in the way of people keeping themselves clean?

  GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Sir Percy Hurdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether, in view of

  1809
  the conditions of malnutrition and starvation among the children of Greece, he will cause consultation to take place with the Governments of Canada and Australia to secure their co-operation in bringing relief, especially in regard to milk supplies?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As the House is aware, the 15,000 tons of wheat now being shipped to Greece each month are a free gift from the Canadian Government, who are, of course, consulted at every stage in connection with the present relief scheme. For geographical reasons, it has not been thought feasible to invite the co-operation of the Australian Government on similar lines. As regards milk supplies, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave on 29th September to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).
  Sir P. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend realise that that is no answer to my Question? What I wish to know is whether, in view of the starving condition of these children in Greece, he will consult with Canada and the other milk-producing Dominions, to see whether they can help us to supply the need?
  Mr. Foot: I have already said that we are in constant consultation with the Canadian Government on this question. It is not only a matter of supplying the need; it is a question of how much we can safely let in.
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what requests for navicerts have been received for supplies of tinned or dried milk from Argentina or from North America for the benefit of the children and infants in Greece; and whether, in view of the urgency of the need, he will now give favourable consideration to the supply of such milk under appropriate control?
  Mr. Foot: No such application has been received for shipment from Argentina. A proposal was recently made by a charitable organisation in Canada to ship approximately 30 tons of dried milk; but, for the reasons given in my Answer of 29th September, this consignment has not been loaded. As regards the last part of the Question, I have already informed the House that I cannot give any fresh undertakings as to the future, at least
  1810
  until the results of the present experiment are known.
  Sir P. Hurd: What is the real difficulty about getting this milk into Greece?
  Mr. Harvey: Would my hon. Friend do his best to hasten the inquiries which are being made, as children are dying in Greece?
  Mr. Foot: I pointed out in the answer to which I have referred that Greece was normally self-supporting in milk and dairy products, and that there would have been no acute shortage now if it were not for the requisitioning and other seizures by the occupying authorities.
  Mr. Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare; what expression of the views of the Greek Government with regard to the need for the supply of milk for infants and children in Greece has been under the consideration of his Department; and whether he has official information as to the acute need of large numbers of such children for even a minimum diet sufficient to preserve life and health?
  Mr. Foot: His Majesty's Government are, of course, in frequent communication with the Greek Government with reference both to food supplies and other matters, but the House will not expect me to reveal the nature of such communications. As regards the second part of the Question, I have received no fresh information as to the condition of Greek children since my Answer on 29th September to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore).
  Sir P. Hurd: In the meantime, children are dying.
  Mr. Hannah: Is there not a rather widespread feeling in the country that we are not doing the best we possibly could for the Greeks?
  Mr. Foot: We made an entirely exceptional concession in favour of Greece; 15,000 tons of wheat a month are being shipped to Greece. That is something which is not being done for any other occupied territory.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Optical Service
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the transport limitations now imposed in

    1811
    this country on soldiers and airmen alike, he will consider instituting, in co-operation with the Air Ministry, a system of travelling opticians with the necessary supply and repair equipment?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Numerous optical centres are situated throughout the country according to the distribution of troops. There are also sub-centres where their formation is justified by the number of troops in the area. These are visited by ophthalmic specialists from the main centres. A similar service exists in the Royal Air Force, and the facilities provided by the two Services are available for use by either where convenience is served. In this way a more efficient service is provided than would be possible if travelling opticians took the place of the static centres, and, in general, less transport is used.

    Western Desert Railway
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War whether the successful attack by the Royal Air Force in the Middle East on an eastbound enemy train near Bir Habbata means that the desert railway, its locomotives, and equipment were not destroyed by the Eighth Army during its retreat into Egypt?
    Sir J. Grigg: The railway referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend stretches for some 280 miles from El Daba, behind the German and Italian lines, to Belhamed, 15 miles from Tobruk. It was not possible in the limited time available for the track to be effectively demolished throughout its length. As it has now been in enemy hands some three months, the enemy have had ample time to make good any damage which we were able to effect before our withdrawal. No locomotives, except one which was completely demolished, were allowed to fall into enemy hands. It is know that since his advance, the enemy has shipped Italian locomotives to Africa. He is at present working his railway traffic with these, and with those wagons which could not be withdrawn by us in time.

    Channel Islands
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for War how many attacks have been made on the enemy forces occupying the Channel Islands by British
    1812
    Forces since the German occupation, and with what effect?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on 13th October. I have nothing to add to that answer.
    Mr. Ammon: But that was no answer; the right hon. Gentleman did not give any information. Are we to understand that the Germans are not aware of these attacks?
    Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend can understand only that it would be unbecoming in me to claim greater knowledge than the Deputy Prime Minister had.
    Mr. Ammon: This is unusual modesty on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, is it not?

    Requisitioned Land (Compensation)
    Mr. Jewsonasked the Secretary of State for War why he has been occupying certain land, of which particulars have been sent to him, since November, 1941, without it being requisitioned and for which he is paying no rent, although the tenant has to pay rent for it; and why he has now occupied a further 10 acres without requisitioning it?
    Sir J. Grigg: The original site was requisitioned in July, 1941, and compensation has been regularly paid. On two occasions since then it has been necessary to increase the area of the site for operational reasons, and this was done at once without objection by the tenant. Both for agricultural and for technical military reasons, it proved difficult to define exactly the boundary of the fresh area to be requisitioned, and so, unfortunately, there was some delay. The boundary has now been fixed, and notice of requisition is being served; compensation due for the larger area will be promptly paid.

    War Office Staffs
    Major C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers, other ranks, and civilians under 30 years of age are employed in administrative posts in the War Office or branches of the War Office; and how many of these are in medical category A?
    Sir J. Grigg: The figures asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend are being prepared, and I will communicate with him as soon as they are ready. He will appreciate that this information will take some time and labour to compile.
    Sir Irving Albery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that information of that kind ought already to be at his disposal?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will it be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will consider that.

    Pay and Allowances
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty experienced by a large number of serving soldiers in understanding their rates of pay and allowances, he will consider in what way they can simplify these with a view to their being more readily understood?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on this subject on 10th September, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present me ods are somewhat obsolete and antiquated? Does he not fully realise the necessity for the men in the Army getting to know what they are entitled to, and having a simple form that they can understand?
    Sir J. Grigg: Certainly; if my hon. Friend will read the extract that I will send him he will see that I do understand that.
    Mr. De la Bère: But, in spite of that answer, the soldier does not understand the system of payment. He wants to have the thing simplified.

    Military Exercises (Accidents)
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for War how many children have been killed and injured, in a neighbourhood of which he has been informed, as a result of military exercises; and what steps he proposes to take to minimise the risk of such accidents in the future?
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that one child has been killed and four injured as a result of two accidents in the place referred to by my hon. Friend. I am making full inquiries into the circumstances of both. Fresh instructions are now being prepared, and will shortly be issued, dealing with the stricter enforcement of safety precautions when firing practice takes place.
    Sir I. Albery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that where places are constantly used for exercises of this kind some guard should be kept over the ground? There is no other way of keeping out active boys?

    Fire Service
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the number of trained firemen with raid experience now being called up, what steps these men should take if they are desirous of serving with an Army fire-fighting unit, and whether instructions have been issued that men graded A I will not be so accepted?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Army's need for trained firemen has so far been met by the recall to the Army of trained men who had been previously released for duty with the National Fire Service and who can now be spared from that service. It is therefore not intended to earmark men from intakes for fire-fighting duties but if deficiencies occur in future which cannot be made good as at present, men with the necessary experience will be transferred from other arms. There is a certain number of A 1 men in the Army fire service, but as a rule only men in lower medical categories are transferred.

    R.A.M.C. (Non Medical Commissions)
    Mr. Linsteadasked the Secretary of State for War whether pharmacists, trained in zoology and physiology, serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps or newly recruited, will be eligible for consideration for appointment to the Royal Army Medical Corps as non-medical officers?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Linsteadasked the Secretary of State for War to what rank promotion will be possible for officers appointed to non-medical commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Sir J. Grigg: Officers appointed to non-medical commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps will normally be commissioned as second lieutenants. They will be eligible for promotion to war substantive lieutenant after six months' commissioned service. Selected officers will be eligible for promotion to captain as and when vacancies arise.

    Home Guard
    Captain Sir William Brassasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the difficulties under which Home Guard company commanders labour in endeavouring to memorise the various instructions, countermanded instructions and amended instructions in the Army Council Instructions sent to them from the War Office, a typical example of which can be found in Army Council Instruction 1833, paragraph 3; and whether, in view of the fact that Home Guard work is supposed to be a part-time job, he will consider altering this system of instructions by reference, by the issue of some completed work to save the labour of constantly referring back as is the practice under the present system?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Army Council Instructions already issued in connection with the Home Guard are being consolidated and will be issued as Home Guard Regulations in the near future.
    Sir W. Brass: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Richard James, The Bungalow, Green Lane, Hindley Green, Wigan, joined the Home Guard many months ago when he was an ordinary workman in the colliery; that after being appointed an official in the colliery he resigned from the Home Guard when such resignations were legal; that he was ordered to parade and did not attend; that he was prosecuted and fined by the Wigan magistrates because the Home Guard authorities contended that his resignation was not received; that since his appointment as a colliery official he has been employed on more than seven shifts a week and will he take steps to make this-resignation effective?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the case referred to by my hon. Friend. There is no record of Mr. James' resignation being
    1816
    received at any time by his battalion commander. The question of Mr. James', discharge from the Home Guard on occupational grounds is, however, now being considered.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this man is certainly doing very much more useful service in the pit than parading in the Home Guard?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would not admit that.
    Mr. Davies: I would.

    Arrested Soldiers (Escort)
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers charged with offences are frequently marched through the streets of London handcuffed to their escort; and whether he will give instructions to prevent a continuance of this practice?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of no case in which this was done, but if my hon. Friend will give me details of any, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

    Medical Men
    Major Milnerasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of medical men who, on whatever grounds, have left the Army during the present war?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that about 800 qualified medical men have left the Army during the present war.
    Major Milner: Is it not the fact that many of these medical men are quite suitable for utilisation in other capacities in the Army and that they are all qualified medical men who have been removed from the Army or have received then-discharge or something of that sort?
    Sir J. Grigg: A great many of them have been, invalided out—more than half of them, in fact.

  PRISONERS OF WAR
  Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the German and Italian prisoners of war in this country have been supplied by the Red Cross with portable gramophones and records, but that the firms supplying the

  1817
  records have been instructed not to include any music by British or Jewish composers, instrumentalists or singers, or band music by British regimental bands; and by whose orders and under what circumstances has the playing or singing of British music been prohibited?
  Sir J. Grigg: No order has been given either by the War Office or the International Red Cross Committee to exclude music by British or Jewish composers and artists or music by British regimental bands from purchases of gramophone records and sheet music for German and Italian prisoners of war. No British public or private funds are used to make these purchases. The music is chosen by neutral delegates to suit the tastes of the prisoners concerned.
  Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on inquiry being made the reason given was that the records were mostly required for German airmen, who are fanatical Nazis, who said that they would not have their ears polluted with British music and would require either German or Italian records; and will the War Office look into this matter even though it is not ordered by themselves?
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that music composed by Edward German Jones is played to them?
  Sir W. Davison: This is a serious matter, and will the War Office look into it, because the public resent very much that prisoners of war should be allowed to dictate to the Red Cross as to the records supplied to them?
  Sir J. Grigg: As I have told my hon. Friend, the music is chosen by neutral delegates.

  POTATO CROP, SCOTLAND (HARVESTING)
  Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that farmers in the Blair Atholl district are unable to secure the help of Italian prisoners of war for potato lifting, although there is a large camp in that neighbourhood, and in view of the great importance of this crop, will he take steps to have these prisoners made available immediately?
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I understand that help has now been given, and the Perthshire Agricultural Executive Committee are satisfied. As many of the prisoners as could be spared temporarily from the Ministry of Supply's work have been made available.
  Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the County of Perth and elsewhere in Scotland thousands of tons of potatoes will be lost unless we do something to get the labour; and is he further aware that the arrangements with regard to Italian prisoners of war are considered to be unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, my answer dealing with Perthshire says that agricultural executive committees are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made.
  Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made by his Department in regard to the employment of Italian prisoners of war during the potato harvest; and is he satisfied with the position in this respect?
  Mr. Johnston: Arrangements have been made through agricultural executive committees whereby all possible prisoner of war labour in Scotland is being, and will continue to be, fully employed on essential operations during the harvesting period.
  Mr. Snadden: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to get into contact with the producers, as at present so many formalities have to be gone through? They have to go to the county committee, then somewhere else, and finally to the prisoners of war camp, and the potato harvest is over before the matter is dealt with.
  Mr. Johnston: That is directly contrary to the information in my possession, and if the hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards about it, I will show him evidence to the effect that the agricultural executive committees are thoroughly satisfied with the arrangements that have been made.
  Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern expressed throughout Perthshire and neighbouring counties regarding the scarcity of labour to lift the potato crop which is in danger of being ruined

  1819
  by frost; that the exemption of schoolchildren is unsatisfactory; and whether he will consider the closing of schools for a fortnight or three weeks in order to overcome the objection of parents that children who volunteer to assist in potato gathering will be handicapped in their educational progress compared with those who continue to be taught?
  Mr. Johnston: After inquiry, I am satisfied that the agricultural executive committees for the areas mentioned, acting in close co-operation with the respective education authorities and school management committees, have made and are making adequate arrangements for ensuring that the potato crops will be gathered in good time.
  Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the County of Fife, where the agricultural executive asked for 300 senior children, 250 of them volunteered to go and help in the harvest, despite the advice of the headmaster that they should not do it and that education was much more important than the feeding of the children?
  Mr. Johnston: My information is that in Perth County 45 per cent. of the whole crop has already been lifted, in Angus 50 per cent., and in Fife the agricultural executive committee are satisfied that, with the labour resources available now, the crop will be lifted at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no later than yesterday a number of very important producers of potatoes informed me that there are hundreds of acres in Perthshire which have not yet been touched, and that there is not a bit of labour in the district?
  Mr. Snadden: What is the good of producing record crops if you cannot lift them?
  Mr. Johnston: We have agricultural executive committees, composed very largely of skilled farmers, and if they give us information to the effect that they are satisfied that the arrangements already made are sufficient to enable the crops to be lifted, I am afraid we must take their advice.
  Mr. Hunter: The right hon. Gentleman should come up to Perth and meet the farmers in the Perth market.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Miners (Statistics)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the wastage in the mines between 1st January and 19th September; how many new men or ex-miners began work in the mines in that period; and to what extent miners left the mines in the same period to obtain other work or to join the Forces?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): Between 3rd January and 19th September this year, the gross wastage from the industry was 23,467: the total entries during this period were 26,957. No miners left to join the Forces, and, in view of the operation of the Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Order, the whole of the wastage is therefore accounted for by death and disablement cases, by the retirement from gainful employment of older men, and by cases when ill-health prevented from continuing to work in the mines.

    Shops and Offices (Heating)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is on his instructions that the heating of shops and offices has been prohibited; and whether he has considered the special difficulties of those employed in those establishments and the certain adverse effects on their health?
    Mr. T. Smith: My right hon. Friend made General Directions under the Control of Fuel Order which prohibit central heating in controlled premises, which includes shops and offices, during the month of October, except under permit. Other forms of heating are not prohibited, but I have asked persons in charge of the heating of such premises to co-operate in the voluntary fuel economy campaign by postponing the heating of shops and offices by gas, electricity or coal until such time as central heating is permitted. The consequence of these Directions was naturally considered before they were made, but I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to get into touch with those societies that pay sickness benefit? He will then see that the latter part of my Question is justified. Will he also be good enough to bear in mind the provision

    1821
    hands in grocery shops who are working all day surrounded by marble slabs?
    Mr. Smith: We certainly have been keeping in touch with various points, and I assure my hon. Friend that these matters will be considered.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman consider regulating temperature by the thermometer and not by the calendar?
    Sir I. Albery: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman's Department allows central heating in smaller buildings, but not in large buildings?
    Mr. Smith: I could not say offhand, but there is an exception to this Order. If circumstances are such that heating can be allowed, it is allowed.

    Coal Output (Instructions)
    Mr. Barstowasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in how many cases instructions have been given by the Regional Coal Controllers as to the seams to be worked and the methods of conducting underground operations; and whether any changes have been required in the managing staff of the less efficient collieries with a view to obtaining an increase in output?
    Mr. T. Smith: Regional Controllers and their staffs are constantly discussing with the various colliery companies in their regions possible methods of increasing output, and their suggestions have already been put into effect in a number of cases. Changes in managerial staff have also been put into effect in certain cases.
    Mr. Barstow: Will my hon. Friend reply to the first part of my Question, to which I would like a definite answer?
    Mr. Smith: At the moment it is impossible to give statistics to show in how many cases this is being done.
    Mr. Barstow: That means that there are no cases.
    Mr. Smith: Not at all.
    Mr. Barstowasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that the Regional Coal Controllers are sufficiently well supplied with technical staff to enable them to give effective instructions, designed to increase output, to the managements of individual collieries?
    Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Member that active steps are being taken to ensure that the Regional Controllers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power are fully supplied with adequate technical staff. They have already secured, for their senior staff, men of high qualifications and the latter are at present in the process of selecting the best available technical assistants.
    Mr. Barstow: Have many instructions been sent to the managements of collieries on how to work their pits?
    Mr. Smith: I think the Question relates to the provision of adequate technical staff. Seniors have been appointed, but in some districts there has been a little difficulty in the way of getting suitable technical assistants.

    House Coat (Distribution)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the poor people in the Brandon and By-shottles Urban District Council area have already had their coal allowance cut; and what remedy he proposes to deal with this situation?
    Mr. T. Smith: As has already been announced, a new scheme came into operation on 5th October under which supplies of house coal allocated to depots are apportioned on the basis of merchants' registrations. These arrangements are designed to secure equitable distribution among merchants of the available supplies of house coal, and although some readjustment of previous supplies must inevitably result, I am satisfied that the new arrangements will not cause hardship in the area to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some of these cases the allowance is only 12 stones of coal per week, and does he consider that is sufficient to heat a home having four, five, six or seven rooms and also to do all the cooking for four, five, six, seven or eight people in a family?
    Mr. Smith: I have not heard that that amount has been distributed, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Murray: I will, because a certain merchant supplier has had his supply reduced by three tons eight cwts. while his consumers have been increased by 39.
    Mr. Smith: Let me have particulars.

    Alternative Fuels
    Mr. Cecil Wilsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in the production of petrol and/or other fuel from mines refuse or town sewage?
    Mr. T. Smith: I am glad to say that progress is being made with the use of methane in road vehicles as an alternative to petrol. Some local authorities, whose sewage digestion plant yields a surplus of this gas, are already using it in their vehicles. Certain others are exploring, at the request of my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport, the possibility of installing the necessary equipment, which can now be made available. Some interesting experiments in the liquefaction of methane are taking place at one colliery, but I am unable to report any other developments in the production of petrol from mines refuse.

    Absenteeism, Mines
    Mr. Colegateasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the figures of absenteeism

    Absenteeism Percentage: all workers employed.

    Absenteeism Percentage: workers at the coal face.

    Week ended 12th Sept.

    Week ended 19th Sept.

    Week ended 26th Sept.

    Week ended 3rd Oct.

    Week ended 12th Sept.

    Week ended 19th Sept.

    Week ended 26th Sept.

    Week ended 3rd Oct.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Scotland

    6.76

    6.36

    6.25

    6.70

    8.03

    7.42

    7.40

    7.99

    Northumberland

    8.21

    8.35

    7.52

    8.15

    11.44

    11.06

    10.02

    10.43

    Durham

    8.74

    8.52

    7.89

    8.26

    11.25

    11.30

    10.00

    10.68

    South Wales and Mon.

    10.93

    10.89

    10.13

    10.65

    13.26

    13.22

    12.23

    13.02

    Yorkshire

    13.45

    13.27

    12.10

    12.21

    17.06

    16.61

    15.25

    15.26

    Nottinghamshire

    13.89

    13.54

    13.43

    13.94

    19.43

    18.93

    18.76

    19.75

    Derbyshire

    11.72

    11.42

    11.03

    10.97

    15.61

    15.21

    14.76

    14.97

    Lanes, and Cheshire

    12.78

    11.96

    10.79

    11.26

    15.52

    14.65

    13.00

    13.47

    Ministry and Petroleum Board Officers (Petrol)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what class of officers in his Ministry, or connected with the Oil Fuel Board, are allowed to obtain petrol without coupons; and for what reason?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): No officers of the Ministry of Fuel obtain petrol without the surrender of coupons. In the case of the Petroleum Board, to which I assume the hon. Member refers, no officers obtain petrol for their own care without coupons, but vehicles operated by the Board in confer
    for all workers employed and for workers at the coal face, respectively for the last four weeks for which they are available for the following districts: Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, South Wales and Monmouthshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Cheshire?
    Mr. T. Smith: In view of the number of figures involved, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Colegate: Can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation as to why the figures for Scotland which he is to send me should be less than half those of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Smith: Absenteeism is a very complicated subject, and one cannot deal with all the factors which make up the figures. But the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he will find a complete explanation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    nection with its business are allowed to draw petrol at the Board's own depots without the surrender of coupons.
    Mr. Edwards: Does that mean that there are conditions which apply to these two Departments which do not apply to others?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, except that in the case of the Petroleum Board it would seem unnecessary to prohibit them from issuing petrol to themselves until they have given themselves a coupon.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is an adequate check on the people in this Department, just as in other Departments?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, a very strong check.

    Oil and Petrol Prices (Service Departments)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the Petroleum Board sell oil and petrol to the Fighting Services; and what is the difference between the price charged by it and the price paid by it to the Government when purchasing oil delivered under Lease-Lend?
    Mr. Lloyd: Oil is sold by the Petroleum Board to the Service Departments in two ways. Bulk supplies are bought at the port of arrival on the basis of c.i.f. costs plus a commission to the Board for its services in arranging ocean transport. Small scale supplies inside the United Kingdom are bought under the terms of a general Government contract with the Board which provides for a substantial rebate off the price authorised by the Government for general sales. I regret I am not able to depart from the established rule not to publish the terms on which the Government purchases goods from suppliers.
    Mr. Stokes: As the Government have purchased these goods from themselves, why should we not be told the margin between the price sold to themselves and the price at which they buy from themselves?
    Sir I. Albery: Cannot my hon. Friend say what the margin is, without disclosing the price?
    Mr. Lloyd: That would be in conflict with the general rule I have mentioned.

    Medical Practitioners (Petrol Allowance)
    Mr. Donald Scottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the inconvenience suffered by medical practitioners in country districts caused by the present petrol restrictions and the consequent danger to public health; and whether he will consider depositing extra petrol coupons with the local police, to be issued to doctors and ambulance drivers in cases of emergency, when their own supply is exhausted?
    Mr. Lloyd: In consultation with the British Medical Association, arrangements have been made to secure that no medical practitioner shall be hampered by lack of
    1826
    petrol for his essential professional journeys. I am not aware of any failure of these arrangements, but I shall be happy to consider any case of which the hon. Member will give me particulars.

  PETTY SESSIONAL COURTS (CHAIRMEN)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Attorney-General whether, in his consideration of reforms of the police courts, it is proposed to have a person with legal qualification to be the chairman for every court?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My hon. Friend's Question no doubt refers to petty sessional courts and not to police courts, in which a stipendiary magistrate sits. My Noble Friend will carefully consider whether the proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend is practicable and desirable when the question of the reforms to which he refers comes up for decision.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that in police courts common sense is more important than legal qualifications?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also remember that common sense is frequently absent?
  The Attorney-General: Common sense and legal knowledge are not mutually exclusive.
  Mr. Hannah: Is not common sense a most uncommon thing?

  STATE FACTORIES (DISMISSED WORKERS)
  Mr. Silkinasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that workers employed at the Royal Ordnance and other State-owned factories who have successfully appealed to an appeal board against dismissal are refused reinstatement in spite of directions or requests under the Essential Work Order by the National Service officer; and whether this is in accordance with the policy of his Department?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Before their establishments are scheduled under the Essential Work Orders, Government Departments agree to reinstate

  1827
  in circumstances where other employers would be under a legal obligation to do so. I should be glad to make inquiries into any individual case my hon. Friend may have in mind.
  Mr. Silkin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Government Departments do not regard themselves as under an obligation to reinstate and that there are numerous cases where they have not done so?
  Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware that there are numerous cases, and I will be glad to inquire into them if my hon. Friend will send them along. Surely my hon. Friend knows the difficulty of issuing directions to one's self.
  Mr. Silkin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

  BOMBING RAID, LILLE
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the bombing raid made over Lille on the day of 9th October, including the number of Nazi aeroplanes destroyed?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): On 9th October a large force of United States and British bombers and fighters carried out a most successful combined raid on Lille, in the course of which heavy casualties were inflicted on hostile fighters attempting to ward off the attack. I have nothing to add to the official reports issued by the United States Army Headquarters and the Air Ministry beyond congratulating all who participated in this successful operation.

  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the position of policemen's widows with a view to introducing legislation to make provision for police widows' pensions more related to the circumstances occasioned by the war?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): A number of proposals regarding the pension
  1828
  scheme for police widows were made by a Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Snell and have been under consideration, but I cannot, at present, add anything on this topic to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) on 1st October.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the giving of consideration may mean a short time but that in general, with the Government, it means a long time, and does he not realise the necessity for some immediate action being taken in this matter, in view of the hardship which is being imposed on these women?
  Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that there is very complex machinery for discussing proposals affecting the police and that the Home Office are not the only body concerned in this matter.
  Mr. De la Bère: Does my hon. Friend realise the ugly unreality of all this complex machinery?
  Mr. Peake: I am sorry my hon. Friend missed the opportunity of taking part in the Debate on this subject on the Adjournment last Thursday.
  Mr. De la Bère: The position still remains unsatisfactory.

  CLYDE SHIPYARDS (ABSENTEEISM)
  Major Lloydasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the degree of avoidable absenteeism on overtime expressed as overall percentages during the months of July, August and September, 1942, respectively, in the shipyards on the Clyde?
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): As some shipbuilding firms on the Clyde do not keep detailed records of absenteeism, I am unable to give comprehensive figures for the avoidable absenteeism on overtime for the whole of the Clyde shipyards, but with the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving what information is available, and including figures for absenteeism in normal working hours during the same periods.
  Major Lloyd: Cannot arrangements be made for some of the worst offenders in this connection to travel on one of our convoys to Russia so that they could learn at first hand how Russia deals with this difficult question?
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister tell me how it is that, if no details are kept in this matter, so many sweeping charges are made against the men?
  Captain Pilkington: The details are kept for a very large number of firms, but not for ah of them.
  Following is the statement:

  Percentages of Absenteeism.

  Four weeks ending:

  7 Aug. 1942

  4 Sept. 1942

  2 Oct. 1942

  Adult Males:

  Normal working hours

  5·1

  3·6

  3·4

  Weekday overtime

  22·0

  18·1

  21·2

  Sunday overtime

  9·1

  7·4

  8·2

  Youths and Boys:

  Normal working hours

  7·5

  6·0

  4·9

  Weekday overtime

  40·0

  32·5

  36·0

  Sunday overtime

  20·0

  14·7

  15·0

  Females:

  Normal working hours

  8·7

  7·0

  5·3

  Weekday overtime

  25·5

  16·8

  18·4

  Sunday overtime

  12·1

  8·7

  8·4

  AGRICULTURE

    Workers (Home Guard Duties)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange with the military authorities to exercise their discretion, in the interests of food production and adequate rest and sleep for those working on the land, that men should not be unduly pressed for Home Guard drill and exercises?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Instructions to this effect were issued some time ago. My experience is that Home Guard commanding officers generally have shown every consideration for the circumstances of agricultural workers and that they are working in close co-operation with the county war agricultural executive committees.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the recent prosecution in a court of law, and
    1830
    is he aware that in many parts of the countryside there is a feeling of disquiet against the undue measures that are being taken against agricultural workers by some Home Guard officers, measures which unduly harass men who are very hard workers?
    Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Member is referring to a recent case which obtained a good deal of publicity, he will know that it is sub judice. I would only assure him that there is a good deal to be said on the other side, too.

    School Children and Students (Employment)
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of children of school age who were employed upon agricultural work in the years 1940 and 1941, respectively, together with the number for these years from the universities, secondary and private high schools?
    Mr. Hudson: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.
    Mr. Adams: The information must be of considerable public interest. Surely we can have it in due course. Will the Minister obtain it?
    Mr. Hudson: The difficulty is that a very large number of the children concerned do a great deal of work on the farms by private arrangement with the farmers, and we have no record at all.
    Mr. Adams: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the Question?
    Mr. Hudson: No, there is no record of that either.

  CHANNEL ISLANDERS (DEPORTATIONS)
  Mr. Ammonasked the Prime Minister whether any vessels transporting Channel Islanders to Germany have been intercepted by British ships of war?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Although a large number of attacks are made on shipping in the Channel, we have no knowledge that any of the ships attacked were carrying Channel Islanders.
  Mr. Ammon: Can my right hon. Friend say what great wrong these

  1831
  islanders have done that they are treated with such scant consideration?
  Mr. Attlee: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. Certainly, they are not treated with any scant consideration by this Government. They get very little consideration from our enemies.
  Mr. Ammon: Does not my right hon. Friend know that this is the first time in history that British territory has been invaded without any resistance, and people handed over to the enemy and no notice taken in this House at any time by the Government?
  Major Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a general statement about the fate of the Channel Islanders, who, after all, are subjects of the British Crown, before the House rises?
  Mr. Attlee: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Exchange Equalisation Account
    Mr.-Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make a statement on the Equalisation Account?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): As I have previously stated, I cannot go beyond the existing arrangement by which the annual accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account are submitted confidentially to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it on the right side?

    Monetary and Currency Policy
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will assure the House that no amendment, alteration or addition will be made to the Ottawa Monetary Report of August, 1932, and the British Currency Declaration of July, 1933, without first receiving the approval of Parliament?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The question whether there will at any time be any modifications of the monetary and currency policy of this country is hypothetical.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask that nothing be done in this connection without the approval of the House?
    Sir K. Wood: The question is still hypothetical.

    Bank Credit
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to place the issue of money in the form of bank credit in the same legal position as the issue of bank-notes was given by the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928; that is to say, that the future increase of bank credit shall be subject to Treasury control, and that the profits accruing from such increase shall revert to His Majesty's Treasury?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The comparison which my hon. Friend seeks to draw between the note issue and bank credit cannot be sustained.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not reasonable that bank credit should come into the same category as the issue of notes, and that any additional increase of bank credit should be controlled by the Treasury, so that the country would have the benefit of that issue?
    Mr. Graham White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion in the Question is that it is open to the banks to create credit without consultation with the Treasury, and will he dispel that erroneous suggestion?
    Sir K. Wood: I think it is held only by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis).

    Bank for International Settlements
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names and nationality of the present directors of the Bank for International Settlements?
    Sir K. Wood: As the list is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor give the House now some information as to the proportion of members of the Board who belong to the Axis Powers?
    Sir K. Wood: I would prefer that hon. Members should see the information which I am circulating.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself know who they are?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: Then why not tell us?
    Following is the List:

    Dott. V. Azzolini (Italian).

    Y. Breart de Boisanger (French).

    Baron Brincard (French).

    Walther Funk (German).

    Alexandre Galopin (Belgian).

    Prof. Francesco Giordani (Italian).

    Hisaakira Kano (Japanese).

    Sir Otto Niemeyer (British).

    Montagu Collet Norman (British).

    Ivar Rooth (Swedish).

    Dr. Hermann Schmitz (German).

    Kurt Freiherr von Schroder (German).

    Dr. L. J. A. Trip (Dutch).

    Marquis de Vogue (French).

    Ernst Weber (Swiss).

    Yoneji Yamamoto (Japanese).

    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause the British directors of the Bank for International Settlements to submit a proposal through the American President of that bank for the liquidation of that bank?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

    War Damage Contributions
    Mr. Cecil Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the concession intimated concerning the assessment of the war damage contribution on Income Tax assessments, which have been reduced subsequent to September, 1939, is intended to apply to owners of mortgaged property who have had similar reductions in their assessments, having in mind that the Income Tax payable by such mortgagors in 1939 was generally offset by the allowances granted against their building society interest payments?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not clear as to the precise circumstances to which my hon. Friend's Question relates. If he will let me have particulars of any actual cases which he may have in mind, I will gladly look into them and will communicate with him as soon as possible.

    Requisitioned Land (Current Payments).
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances current payments can be made to the owner of land requisitioned by a Service Department in respect of minerals extracted for the use of the Department subsequent to a requisition; and if in no
    1834
    circumstances whether he will amend the relevant Defence Regulations to enable current payments to be made?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air on 8th October last. If he has any particular case in mind on which difficulty has arisen, perhaps he will let me have particulars.

    Display Advertisements
    Sir Joseph Lambasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to increasing Excess Profits Tax receipts and decreasing the unnecessary use of labour and materials, he will consider the desirability of imposing a substantial restriction upon display advertisements, especially as many of the articles advertised are now unobtainable?
    Sir K. Wood: The question of restriction of advertising is not a matter within my province. As regards the taxation aspect to which my hon. Friend refers, I can only refer him to the replies I gave on this question to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) on 25th November, 1941 [OFFICIAL REPORT; cols. 605–6, Vol. 376], and to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 16th December, 1941 [OFFICIAL REPORT; cols. 1828–9, Vol. 376].
    Mr. John Dugdale: Within whose province does this come?
    Sir K. Wood: I think it is the Ministry of Supply.

    Copper Coinage
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to save copper and in view of the number of common objects whose price has increased from 1d. to 1½d., he will consider issuing a 1½d. coin?
    Sir K. Wood: Suggestions for the issue of such a coin have been considered from time to time, but have had to be rejected. Apart from the objections to minting the very large numbers required to permit the free use of a new denomination, it would not appear generally conveneint to increase the present number of denominations of coin which have to be handled.
    Mr. Driberg: Has the matter been considered recently, since the average price of a bus ticket went up to 1½d.?
    Sir K. Wood: When the hon. Member put down his Question, I went into the matter again with my advisers.
    Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend realise how easy it would be, if the suggestion were adopted, to increase the price of the "Daily Express"?

    Wage-Earners (Income Tax)
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the directing of men to other employment in the national interest has resulted, in some cases, in lowering their earnings, which will result in hardship in the payment of Income Tax; and will he consider any suitable action in the next Budget?
    Sir K. Wood: I would remind my hon. Friend that the scheme for deduction of Income Tax from wages contains provision for deferring deduction of part of the taxes payable where, for any week when earnings are relatively low, the full deduction would be unduly heavy. Under the regulations that have been made, the wage-earner is able to secure that the periodical deductions of taxes shall not be such as to reduce the wages paid for that week below certain limits which vary according to whether the taxpayer is married and the number of his children or dependants. These limits are set out in the "Deduction of Income Tax (Schedule E) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, 1942" (S.R. & O.,1942, No. 1324).
    Sir I. Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases wages have been reduced by as much as one-third—for instance, from £6 to £4—and that the mitigation to which he has referred will be no adequate compensation for reductions of that kind, when the men have to meet the tax on earnings of £6 out of a wage of £4?
    Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in this matter. If he will give me particulars, I will examine them and send him a correction.
    Mr. Stokes: Could not the Chancellor get out of the difficulty by adopting the admirable suggestion that Income Tax should be collected out of the pay in the actual week in which the wage is earned?

    Bombed Houses (Income Tax)
    Mr. Channonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in assessing
    1836
    Income Tax, he will, in his next Budget, consider making some allowance or rebate to those taxpayers whose houses have been demolished by enemy action and who are compelled to seek alternative accommodation elsewhere, while they are still obliged to keep up payments of instalments on their properties which have been destroyed?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I could not see my way to propose a special relief from taxation in the particular type of case to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Channon: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the heavy drain on these people?
    Sir K. Wood: I have other considerations to take into account.

    Petrol (Taxation)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as private motoring has now been practically abolished and running costs of all vehicles are now charged ultimately to the Government, he will consider removing the taxation of petrol in order to release staffs engaged on this work for productive work for the duration of the war?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. It is not the fact that the running costs of all vehicles are charged ultimately to the Government.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department specialises in imposing unnecessary work on various Departments?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

    Securities (Transfer Deeds)
    Mr. Silkinasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that transfer forms for stocks, although blank at the back, are now required to be accompanied by a separate form D which, until recently, was printed at the back of the transfer; that both forms are needed for the same transaction and are always kept together, and that the Stock Exchange do not regard two separate forms as necessary; and why the former practice has been changed involving a considerable waste of paper?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's

    1837
    answer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 15th October and to the announcements in the Press on 16th October, that a new and simplified procedure in connection with transfers of securities is to be introduced as from 26th October. Under this; the use of a separate Form D will be abolished and the necessary declaration will ordinarily be printed on the back of the transfer deed. The hon. Member is, however, mistaken in stating that Form D was until recently printed on the back of transfer deeds. In fact it has been a separate document since its introduction in May, 1940.

  RUDOLF HESS'S WIFE
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply is being made to the request of Frau Hess, the wife of Rudolf Hess, who is now somewhere in England, for permission to join her husband?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I am not clear as to what my hon. Friend means by his Question. If the suggestion is that Frau Hess is in England, this is not so. In any case no such request has been received from her. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on 20th May, 1941, Hess is being treated as a prisoner of war and will receive appropriate treatment. Even if such a request had been made, there would be no question of granting such facilities, for which there is no provision in the Prisoners of War Convention.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of interest taken in the matter? Has the hon. Gentleman seen a similar photo to that sent to me of Mrs. Hess?

  TIN (INTERNATIONAL CONTROL)
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the agreement for the International Control of Production and Export of Tin is within the letter and spirit of the Atlantic Charter?
  Mr. Law: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. White: What arrangements have been made for the protection of consumers?
  Mr. Law: The agreement should help consumers as much as it helps producers. It is calculated to smooth out violent oscillations in price, which are beneficial neither to producers nor to consumers.
  Mr. White: Would it not be a good idea to give the representatives of the consumers the right to vote?
  Mr. Stokes: Is not this another example of the intention of the Government to retain monopoly interests as long as they can?
  Mr. Law: No, Sir.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Nurses
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's proposals for securing an increased supply of trained nurses; and the Government's proposals for ensuring a better standard of livelihood for those so engaged?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Proposals for securing a better distribution of certain nurses, after discussion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service have now been put to representatives of the nurses and of their employers. With regard to the salaries of nurses, my hon. Friend is already aware of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Rushcliffe which is considering this matter.
    Mr. De la Bère: This has been going on for a very long time. The nurses' standard of pay has not improved, and nurses are not becoming more numerous. It is necessary to do something now. It is no good referring it to committees. We want some practical action.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The number has increased very largely, but I am not entirely satisfied that we could not at this time be training another 2,000 or 3,000 who wish to become trained nurses in the future. We could also do with another 10,000 nurses throughout the country. There has also been an interim increase in salaries pending the result of this committee of inquiry.
    Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the increase is mainly in student nurses, and there are many trained nurses who will not come back into the profession because they are better paid outside?
    Miss Horsbrugh: No, there have not only been students. There has been an increase in trained nurses as well as student nurses throughout the country. I think at present nearly all the trained nurses in the country are working. If the hon. Member knows of any who can be released from other jobs, I shall be glad to hear of them.
    Mr. De la Bère: The pay is quite inadequate.
    Dr. Summerskill: In spite of the increase, is it not a fact that we have not been able to open certain sanatoria because of the shortage of nurses?
    Miss Horsbrugh: We are arranging for a better distribution of nurses. We have to have a ratio of trained nurses and nursing auxiliaries. One of the difficulties has been to get the right distribution.

    Salvage and Refuse (Collection)
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Health whether, in cases where local authorities are unable, owing to lack of labour and transport, to collect both salvage and refuse, he will indicate what service should be given the preference?
    Miss Horsbrugh: In the particular case which I think my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, the council reached their decision in the exercise of their judgment how they could best meet the needs of their district and of the national war effort with the necessarily limited means now at their disposal and, as I have already indicated, my right hon. Friend does not think intervention on his part would be warranted.
    Sir A. Knox: Does my hon. Friend realise that a lead is required? In my constituency there is a rural district council which collects salvage and leaves refuse, and all the local inhabitants fear an epidemic. In another they collect refuse and leave the salvage, and the salvage collectors are patriotically indignant.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend has not studied the communications that he has received on the
    1840
    subject. I shall be glad to discuss it with him, because I cannot think that in these days there is a very large amount of refuse left when salvage schemes are properly worked out.

    Housing (War Workers, Slough)
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a copy of a letter sent to him, by a firm engaged in important war work, and addressed to the Chief Billeting Officer, Slough, stating that it has been found necessary to apply for the release of valuable employees owing to the conditions under which these men are housed; and whether he will arrange with other Ministries to relieve the situation both by banning the area for military occupation and by the erection of huts?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already written to my hon. and gallant Friend and given him information on certain of the matters raised in the letter to which he refers. The subject is one which cannot properly be dealt with within the compass of a Question and answer, but I shall be happy to discuss it with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir A. Knox: Several letters have been sent to the right hon. Gentleman, but the matter goes no further, and that is why I put down the Question. The matter is urgent, and something must be done or production will suffer.
    Mr. Granville: These men are engaged for long hours upon vital and heavy war work, and there is a shocking condition of overcrowding. Will the hon. Lady represent to her right hon. Friend that something must be done at once or important employees in war production will be lost?
    Miss Horsbrugh: It is difficult to discuss by question and answer the arrangements for housing in particular areas.
    Mr. Granville: Will the hon. Lady make inquiries whether the local mayor has the right or vetoing billeting arrangements enabling landlords to refuse to take factory workers with families?
    Sir A. Knox: Cannot the Ministry secure that Service people are turned out of areas which are required for munition workers?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That is one of the difficulties of discussing the matter by question and answer. In certain areas there must be military people as well as those engaged in production.

    Medical Service
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Health the approximate number of medical men engaged in Emergency Medical Service hospitals, or in other capacities, who are not at present fully employed?
    Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend has no statistics giving the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks, but in view of the pressure upon all branches of the medical profession, the number must be relatively small.
    Major Milner: Is it not a fact that a certain number of these officers are engaged on a part-time basis?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Some of them are, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the amount of work varies considerably even from day to day.
    Major Milner: Will my hon. Friend say how many are engaged on a part-time basis?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly, if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question.
    Major Milner: That is the Question on the Paper.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The Question asked was the approximate number engaged who are not at present fully employed. That is a different thing. If my hon. and gallant Friend wants the number engaged on a part-time basis, that can be got.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of medical men engaged on a part-time basis is very considerable, and should not the figures be given to the House?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir; and if my hon. and gallant Friend puts down a Question, the figures can be given.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is my hon. Friend aware that the House is frequently told that there is a shortage of medical skill in this country, and yet the doctors in the Emergency Medical Service frequently complain that they are under-employed?
    Miss Horsbrugh: In some cases the staff at a certain hospital may be under-employed during a certain period, but suddenly they may be what one may call over-employed.
    Major Milnerasked the Minister of Health whether he can, if required, provide or make available a maximum of 50 medical men for the staffing of pensions appeal tribunals, either permanently or on the understanding that they can be released on short notice if urgently required for other purposes?
    Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is advised that the pressure on the services of medical men is so severe at the present time that it would be difficult to supply those suitably qualified for this work in the numbers indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend. It must be remembered that any new obligation imposed upon the medical profession in war conditions would prejudicially affect other services.
    Major Milner: May we take it that though it is difficult, it is not impossible?
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Is proper attention being given to the possibility of employing men who are discharged from high positions in different Services, who are men of great experience and could be used for this kind of work?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Guest: Are not a certain number of medical men in the Services retired on account of age or on account of having held high rank for a certain period, and are there not enough of these people fully to fill all the requirements of pension appeal tribunal purposes? Will the hon. Lady take it from me that I know positively of and that I can give her a list of people who would fill all these places?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I should be delighted to have that list from the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will send it as soon as possible.
    Major Milner: Will my hon. Friend consult with the Secretary of State for War on the matter?

  JAMAICA (FUEL SITUATION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fuel crisis in

  1843
  Jamaica, steps are being taken to establish a fuel, light and power board to equalise distribution and control prices; and whether electricity prices will be fixed at a reasonable low level?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My Noble Friend is aware that there is a serious shortage of kerosene oil in Jamaica. The Governor is being asked for a full report on the measures which have been or will be taken.
  Mr. Sorensen: When will a report on progress be made?.
  Mr. Macmillan: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another Question or consult with me.

  RUSSIA (CLOTHING SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Red Cross and other organisations have been allowed to purchase what they required during the past 12 months; have they been allowed to send the supplies to Russia that they desired; and can he give, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a list and amount of the supplies sent?
  Mr. Dalton: On 17th March, when I announced the cut in our own clothing ration, I explained that the increasing stringency of our supplies made it necessary for me also to curtail the purchases, hitherto unrestricted, for aid to Russia. I am, however, glad to say that substantial quantities of clothing, as well as of medical and other necessaries, have been sent to Russia during the past 12 months. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REFORT a list of supplies of clothing despatched by the British Red Cross and other British relief organisations during this period. This, however, is only part of the total, since further supplies, details of which are not available, have been sent through the Soviet Red Cross. I am at present in touch with the Soviet Ambassador with a view to the release of large additional quantities of clothing to Russia. The House will, I am sure, agree with me that everything possible should be done to help our Allies in this way, though all such aid must mean a corresponding subtraction from the increasingly restricted supplies available for our own civilian population.
  Mr. Smith: Am I to understand from the reply that we have fulfilled our obligations with regard to supplies to Russia?
  Mr. Dalton: There are not specific obligations in the sense of quantities promised at any given time. If my hon. Friend will read the particulars I am circulating, he will see that the figures are already substantial, and for the future we hope to send further considerable additions.
  Earl Winterton: In bringing out those figures, will my right hon. Friend make clear that a considerable amount has been sent to the Polish Red Cross for Polish prisoners of war in Russia who are now soldiers, and also to the Polish Relief Fund?
  Mr. Dalton: It is true that considerable quantities have been sent, but I am not sure that we have all the details.
  Following is the List:

  Clothing, etc., supplied to Russia by the British relief organisations during the year ended 17 th October, 1942.

  Blankets

  557,650

  Woollen garments

  400,000

  Boots, pairs

  68,800

  Coats, adults

  37,550

  Coats, children's

  50,000

  Blanket coats and hoods

  2,000

  Costumes, women's

  800

  Siren suits

  2,000

  Trousers

  6,000

  Cardigans, jumpers and pullovers

  44,000

  Jerkins, windcheaters and lumber jackets

  16,000

  Pneumonia jackets

  9,000

  Breechettes, children's

  40,000

  Vests and pants

  9,000

  Shirts

  51,500

  Scarves

  5,000

  Helmets and cap comforters

  29,000

  Gloves and mittens

  40,000

  Half hose, men's

  75,000

  Hose, women's

  12,000

  Puttees

  6,000

  Knitting wool

  1,000 lbs.

  Sea-boot yarn

  4,800 lbs.

  In addition 300,000 pieces of civilian relief clothing have been ordered and will be shipped shortly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask whether the Leader of the House has any statement to make with regard to the Business to-day?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is necessary to obtain the Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit, the Supplementary

1845
Estimate for Supplementary Pensions, and the formal Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. I propose, therefore, to move the suspension of the Rule as a precautionary measure, but I hope it will be possible to obtain the Business without the House sitting beyond the usual hour.
Earl Winterton: Is it contemplated that before the House adjourns there will be any statement or opportunity for Debate on the question of the chaining of prisoners?
Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir; it is not contemplated that that would be advisable or convenient

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. De la Bère: On Tuesday, 13th October, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would find time for the consideration of the Motion standing in my name regarding Government announcements. This was answered by the Lord Privy Seal. It is, I believe, a customary rule that such Motions should be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I asked some Supplementary Questions, but their sense was rendered ineffective by the fact that the Motion was not printed. As the Motion related to matters affecting Army pay, the War Office, the Beveridge Report and the position of the Board of Trade, I want to ask whether you, Sir, would give permission for it to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT in accordance with the customary rule, seeing that the privileges of Private Members have been so largely curtailed since the outbreak of hostilities and seeing that they have difficulties in getting a hearing?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not quite accurate about these Motions being invariably printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are not always printed. The Motion to which he is referring did not appear because of its inordinate length. It occupies 16 lines on the Order Paper, and I thought in these circumstances that if it were printed in the bound Volume, it would be sufficient.
Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that its nonappearance in the OFFICIAL REPORT destroyed the effectiveness of my Supplementary Questions, may I respectfully ask your indulgence to allow it to be
1846
printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, since it deals with important matters relating to the conduct of the war?
Mr. Speaker: The House will realise that these things are only done to save printing and paper. I thought that the hon. Member would back me up in that, but if he does not, I shall have to have the Motion printed.
Mr. De la Bère: May I humbly ask you. Sir, as I have not been able to make a speech and it is important that Private Members should be able to put forward their views, to be so indulgent as to allow my Motion to be printed?
Mr. Speaker: I have said that I would do it.
Mr. De la Bère: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker?
Following is the Motion referred to:
[That this House notes with grave concern the practice frequently permitted and exercised by the Government of handling advance information and priority Reports to certain sections of the Press, whether the House is sitting or not; recalls certain incidents on 9th and 10 th September in connection with Army pay and the incident regarding the Beveridge Committee on Fuel; believes that the development of this practice is due to the increasing use of Press relations officers by every section and department of the Government; notes the method adopted whereby one Press officer is set up for each section and department of the Government, and is speedily increased to a large staff, resulting in overlapping, needless expenditure and waste of man-power; is of opinion that the number of these Press relations officers should be drastically reduced; considers that the present methods result in annoyance to Members of Parliament and the public, misunderstanding and loss of efficiency; and is jealous of its prestige and authority being undermined by the manipulation of the public mind by undemocratic and undesirable methods not in the best interests of the national war effort.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Harry Thorneycroft, Esquire, for the Borough of Manchester (Clayton Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That the proceedings of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir S. Cripps]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

  SUPPLY
    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942

      EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000 be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
      Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. I should like to inquire how far this Debate may range to-day, whether it will be possible to discuss the question of pension appeal tribunals and how far it will be possible to raise other matters. I do not know, Colonel Clifton Brown, whether you are prepared to give any Ruling on whether we can discuss the setting-up of pension appeal tribunals.
      The Deputy-Chairman: As this is a subject to which some prominence has been given, perhaps it would be just as well if I were to give an answer on the point now. Any discussion on pension appeal tribunals would be completely out of Order. It would involve legislation and therefore cannot be discussed now. Generally, all matters concerned with the prosecution of the war can be discussed in so far as they are not already dealt with by the various Votes of the Departments, such as the Ministry of Pensions or other Departments, upon which we have separate discussions on separate days. Otherwise, the conduct of the war is a general subject for discussion upon a Vote of Credit. The setting-up of pension appeal tribunals would involve legislation and therefore cannot be discussed.
      Dr. Guest: May I draw your attention to the fact that pension appeal tribunals were set up by the War Pensions (Ad-
      1860
      ministrative Provisions) Act, 1919, and that that Act, in Section 7, gave a statutory right to men to receive pensions? If it requires legislation to set up pension appeal tribunals, is legislation also required to give a statutory right to pensions? Is there, in fact, any statutory right to pensions at the present time, or are we acting entirely under the Royal Warrant? It seems to me this is a very urgent matter. If legislation is required, it ought to be brought in at a very early date in order to clarify a difficult and awkward situation.
      The Deputy-Chairman: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point of view, and I dare say that other hon. Members have sympathy with him. It is not my wish to be obstructive, but the Rules of the House have to be obeyed, and I have to administer them. Pensions in respect of this war are paid under the Royal Warrant, and actually I believe they have no statutory authority, nor, I believe, is that required. The pension appeal tribunals which are in operation are limited to dealing with cases arising out of the last war, and they do not operate solely under the Act which the hon. Member quoted but also under Section 2 of the Act of 1920, which limits pensions to cases arising out of the war of 1914–18. I think that is the answer to the hon. Member. While it is not for me to suggest what might be discussed on other occasions, perhaps I may call attention to the fact that there will be occasions shortly when Members can have a fairly free run of subjects and when nothing is out of Order.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Before proceeding to deal with the Vote of Credit, I should like to refer to the visit which is now being paid to this country by one who stands very high in the counsels of the United Nations—Mr. Morgenthau, Secretary of the United States Treasury. My hon. Friends will agree with me when I say how glad we are to welcome Mr. Morgenthau here. He has been a lifelong friend of democracy and an unbending opponent of tyranny, and we welcome him on that account; and we welcome him also as one who has done much to promote that mutual understanding between Britain and America which has served us so well and not least in the field of war finance. Our relationships in this connec-

      1861
      tion have been of the happiest character, and are a good augury of the way in which we shall together deal both with the many problems which arise now and with others with which we shall be confronted when the war is over. I have before referred to the important statements made by the President of the United States both in regard to the American Mutual Aid Agreement and to Lend-Lease operations, and we all greatly appreciate the wisdom and the width of those declarations, which will mean so much to the future happiness of mankind and with which we are in the fullest agreement. We in this country have already devoted much time and thought to the important question of post-war international financial and economic relations, and our American friends can rely upon our fullest co-operation both with them and with the other United Nations, in seeking and obtaining that common policy which will be such a vital necessity to the whole world after the war.
      To-day I have to ask the Committee for a further Vote of Credit rather earlier than I expected. That is not because the last Vote is lasting for a shorter period than was estimated. It is merely in order to meet what we think will be the general convenience of hon. Members with regard to the arrangements for future Business. This further Vote of £1,000,000,000 will make a total of £4,000,000,000 for Votes of Credit during the current financial year and a total of £12,050,000,000 since the beginning of the war. When I spoke on the last Vote of Credit on 9th September our war expenditure had recently averaged £12,250,000 a day. Since then, the daily average has been about £12,750,000, made up of £10,500,000 on the Fighting and Supply Services and £2,250,000 on Miscellaneous War Services, and these rates represent, in each case, an increase of £250,000 a day. On last Saturday, 17th October, £544,000,000 remained out of the £1,000,000,000 voted in September, and that sum, together with the further £1,000,000,000 which I ask the Committee to vote to-day, is expected to last until about the second week in February.
      It is possible that we may now have passed the period of striking increases in the rate of our war expenditure, but even if this is so, it does not mean for a moment that the problem of financing the
      1862
      war on sound lines will now take an easier turn or that we can relax in our efforts. The contrary is in fact the case. In financing the earlier years of the war, we had the advantage of accumulated nest-eggs, and other capital sums available for investment. As these are used up, we have to utilise other means to take their place, in which still further savings from current income, still greater economies and the absolute avoidance of wasteful expenditure must take a high place. Waste, extravagance, and self-indulgence are completely out of tune with the spirit and the needs of these critical days, and it is imperative also not only that the huge sums we raise should be wisely and prudently spent, but that we should obtain full value for this vast expenditure. A decent and proper standard of living is obviously essential to the war effort itself, but if we seek more, or insist on spending for spending's sake, instead of saving all we can, we endanger the sound economic structure which we have built up and we act unfairly and unworthily towards all those who are fighting for us.
      The Committee will no doubt expect me to-day to refer to the out-turn of our finances during the half-year which ended on 30th September. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) knows well, as do others of my hon. Friends, that it is never safe to jump to conclusions from the half-year's figures about the out-turn for the whole year, and I do not propose to do so to-day. Comparisons with the figures for the corresponding half of the last financial year do, however, throw up some interesting and instructive facts. In the first place, it is remarkable that although our total expenditure was higher by some £350,000,000, or 16 per cent., than in the first half of the last year, the amount which we actually had to borrow, at £1,438,000,000, was some£70,000,000 less. That result was partly due to the receipt of £155,000,000 on account of the Canadian Government's generous contribution, but it is mainly due to the higher and unprecedented level of taxation. The revenue is doing very well, both absolutely and by comparison with last year. We cannot, by simple arithmetic, suggest what the year's out-turn is going to be, because every important item of revenue has its own peculiar

      1863
      features and possibilities, but I think we can count on obtaining all that I budgeted for. On the expenditure side also I should be rash to prophesy, but I see to-day no reason why the final result should differ appreciably from the Budget estimate. The increase in the expenditure of the half-year over the first half of last year is more than half of the estimated increase for the whole year. That was to be expected in view of the fact that the rate of expenditure was so much less in the first half of 1941 than in the second half.
      Figures showing the way in which we have borrowed are specially instructive. Small savings, it is true, brought in £40,000,000 less than last year and accounted for 18 per cent. as against 20 per cent. of our borrowings, but the drop is practically all accounted for by decreased sales of Defence Bonds, due, no doubt, largely to the fact that last year's figure included more sales in large sums to people who have now reached the permissible limit of holdings. Sales of Savings Certificates are slightly down, but the quality of the saving is improving, since the greater proportion of the certificates is being taken out in small denominations. These figures for small savings lent to the Exchequer must not be taken as meaning that the total volume of savings, in all forms, is decreasing or is even stationary. On the contrary. I have reason to believe that it is increasing. Up-to-date figures are not available, but I am advised that when they are available they are likely to show that the total volume of personal savings has, I am glad to say, continued to increase quarter by quarter.
      My hon. Friends will no doubt have observed an announcement in to-day's Press that, owing to the increasing volume of savings work, a rearrangement has been made in the head post of the Savings Movement and that I have been fortunate in securing as chairman of the committee my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Colonel Oliver Stanley). Before leaving this subject, I should like to refer to a matter upon which representations have been made to me by the National Savings Committee and. in which several of my hon. Friends who are here now have taken a keen interest.
      1864
      I mean the question whether the present limit of holdings of Savings Certificates should be increased. As my hon. Friends know, that limit is at present fixed at 500 certificates, which is equivalent to a purchase price of £375. Some such limit is obviously justifiable on a security which carries a very generous rate of interest free of tax. It would be wrong that those who are better off should be able to invest unlimited sums at a rate of interest equivalent, with the tax at 10s. in the £ to over six per cent. per annum, and to a much higher rate for Surtax payers.
      We have carried out a statistical inquiry which suggests that, out of about 15,500,000 holders who possess certificates, some 750,000, or just under five per cent., possess the full 500, but it also suggests that an appreciable proportion of those holders, about 40 per cent. overall, but about 60 per cent. of those who bought all their certificates during the war, bought all their 500 certificates at one time. In the light of such figures we must not exaggerate the effect of the existing limit on the volume of small savings out of income. It has, of course, always been open to anyone who has reached the limit to desposit his further savings in a savings bank or to invest them in small amounts in Defence Bonds or in the Post Office issues of War Bonds or Savings Bonds. At the same time I realise the attraction which this form of the National Savings Certificate has for a large number of people, and I do not wish—I know that a large number of my hon. Friends press this upon me—by rigidly adhering to the present limit to give anyone ground for feeling that there is no need for more of his savings to help to finance the war.
      I have decided, therefore, to make a supplementary issue of certificates, but at a lower rate of interest. It will be generally agreed that anyone who already holds the full 500 certificates should in future be content with terms which are more in line with what he would be able to get on other classes of War Loan. The terms of the new certificate will therefore be as follow: The purchase price will be £1, and it will gradually increase in value so that it will amount to 23s. at the end of 10 years. That is equivalent to an overall rate of interest of £1 8s. 2d per annum, tax free. These certificates will not be repayable until 90 days after

      1865
      purchase, but will thereafter be repayable on demand. Holdings of the new certificates will be limited to 250 units, which may be held whether or not any of the existing certificates are held. The existing issue of certificates will, of course, continue on sale on the same terms as hitherto. In present conditions it will take some time to carry out all the printing and other arrangements for the new issue, and it is undesirable to launch it when post offices are subject to their December pressure. The new certificates will therefore be on sale early in January. The precise date will be announced later, but I think the Committee and the workers and members of the Savings Movement will be glad to know of this decision at the earliest possible moment.
      Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committtee the comparable figures of the last war?
      Sir K. Wood: I will try to do so and to give the precise figures. We are entering on the fourth year of war, and when we survey the financial sphere during the past three years, we need not be dissatisfied with much that has taken place there. Comparisons with previous periods are dangerous if they are prompted by complacency, but if they are drawn to give us confidence they will be useful. We can, I suggest, gain great encouragement from the comparison between what we have achieved during the first three years of this war and the course of events in the first three years of the last war. Despite our immensely greater task, our achievements on this occasion have been more than proportionately greater and have been not inconsiderable. Our total expenditure in 1939–42 was about two and a half times as great as in the period 1914–1917, but the amount raised in taxation was four times as much and was 40 per cent. of the expenditure, as against 21 per cent. last time. The result has been that the amount we have had to borrow in the last three years was only two-thirds greater than in 1914–17. What is more important is that whereas the average rate of interest on the increase in the debt from 1914–17, excluding floating debt, was 5 per cent., the corresponding rate for 1939–42 was only 2½ per cent. For the floating debt the average rate fell from about 4½ per cent. to about 1 per cent.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like this to be clear, about the drop from 4½ to 1 per cent. Is that in the last war or the present war?
      Sir K. Wood: It is comparing the past with the present.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Four-and-a-half per cent. in the last war and only one in this war?
      Sir K. Wood: Yes. One other comparison is truly significant of the national effort. According to calculations made during the last war, the small investor then contributed rather more than £200,000,000 to War Loans during the first three years of the war. This time the corresponding three-year figure is £1,500,000,000. Behind these achievements lies the striking fact that in the industrial field our people here have at one and the same time given their whole power in prodigious efforts to provide and forge the weapons of war, and have also made the very many material sacrifices necessary to maintain our financial strength and to keep our national life economically and socially healthy. They are like those who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah:
      "Everyone with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon."
      It is indeed a great sign and a good augury that whatever sterner trials may still lie ahead, we shall meet them with that staying power and confidence which have always been our strength, and with that persistence and determination which will assuredly give us the victory.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I had not intended to intervene after the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Debate, but the exceedingly interesting speech of my right hon. Friend has induced me to say just a few words. In the first place I should like to add my welcome to that which has already been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the illustrious Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, from the United States. We welcome him here personally as a friend of this country, and we welcome too the collaboration between the two Finance Ministers of this country and of the other great democracy across the Atlantic. I personally regard it as of supreme importance that in this matter of finance our country and the United

      1867
      States should keep in step, as the Chancellor correctly said, not only during the war but after the war. My mind goes back to the last war, and I remember the tragic results of being out of step financially with the United States. In the first place, owing to the fact that there was no Lend-Lease in those days, we found ourselves with a very heavy monetary debt which played a very serious part in the after-war situation. Further than that, when the war came to an end there was definitely a competitive movement in the two countries with regard to finance which led to the most disastrous consequences.
      I, for one, attribute a great deal of the economic misfortunes of the early years after the war to the fact that this country and the United States were out of step with each other. Had that been avoided, not only would the financial position of this country have been a great deal better but the economic position of Europe as a whole would have been entirely different, and it may even be that the present calamitous war would never have arisen at all. Therefore I very much hope that the coming of Mr. Morgenthau to this country will help to keep our finances and those of the United States in step, and enable the two Finance Ministers to take those precautions in advance which will mean that after the war a satisfactory financial policy in common is adopted. Added to that, I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleague from the United States will put their heads together, not merely to extract all they can out of the taxpayer but to see whether they cannot learn some lessons from one another for preventing the yoke from chafing. The public have to bear this enormous burden and pull the heavy load of the war expenditure, but it is very important that there should be no unnecessary injury to them in so doing.
      My right hon. Friend told us of his proposals with regard to Savings Certificates. We have known for a long time that a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon him to extend the possibility of taking out Savings Certificates from the original limit of 500 £1 certificates bought for 15s. each to a larger figure. Some of those suggestions were prompted by people who wanted to enable themselves to obtain income free of taxation. The Chancellor could not have yielded directly to that proposal, because
      1868
      it is well known that many certificate holders are people of, broadly, two classes—people genuinely making an effort to save, and people who for themselves and their families were putting what wealth they had into Saving Certificates in order to obtain a monetary advantage for themselves, which they were perfectly entitled to do but which was not the main purpose of the creation of these certificates.
      I confess it came as a great surprise to me how very small a proportion of people had the full amount of certificates, showing that, in fact, Savings. Certificates were being used mainly, overwhelmingly, for the object for which they were created. I think the Chancellor has found a very happy solution of the difficulty. He says, "Very well, we will extend the number of Savings Certificates an individual may hold, but, of course, we cannot allow this reduction in taxation because it is quite clear it might be quite considerable." A man in some cases has taken out 500 Certificates for himself, 500 for his wife and 500 for each of seven children and thereby evaded, not merely Income Tax but Surtax. The £4,000 or £5,000 he has invested may represent a very large sum indeed for a man who is very well off and is perhaps paying Surtax of 5s., 6s. or 7s. in the £ in addition to 10s. Income Tax. I think the Chancellor's proposals are a happy compromise along these lines.
      The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out that the discussion of Surtax and matters like that cannot come under this Vote, which comes under another heading.
      Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sorry to have offended, but I was only saying that I thought the proposal with regard to Savings Certificates announced by the Chancellor was sound, because if he had taken another course he would have been going against his own revenue. I quite appreciate that if I were to go further, I should be going further than you, Colonel Clifton Brown, would wish. I conclude by saying I think that what the Chancellor has told us about war savings which have been put by is a very remarkable tribute to what I might call the common people of this country, because I would remind the House that they come on top of the very heavy taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed in successive Budgets, and therefore the fact that there is this saving on this sevenfold scale

      1869
      by the small investors as against the last war is a remarkable tribute to the fact that the people of this country feel that it is their war which they have been forced to support by their determination to preserve the' liberties of this country and of the world intact.
      Mr. Lewis: I was very interested to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say about small savings. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this question. We have only to see how great a proportion of this immense sum which we are asked to vote will be paid out in the form of wages, to realise the perpetual danger of inflation, particularly having regard to the fact that a large proportion of the money has been raised not by taxation, but by borrowing. It is impossible therefore to exaggerate the importance of getting small savings to diminish what would otherwise be a dangerous increase in spending power. It seems to me important for two other reasons. The possession of small savings after the war will be of great value, not only to the owner but to the State. Secondly, I am one who believes profoundly that the creation of what will be to a large extent a new class of small capitalists will tend to make for stability.
      The Deputy-Chairman: This is a Supplementary Estimate for spending this sum. Reference to the question of small capitalists would not be in Order on a Vote which relates to the spending of the money and not to the creation of capitalists.
      Mr. Lewis: I will conclude then by saying that I am very pleased to see that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Colonel Stanley) has joined the organisation which is responsible for these savings, and by expressing the hope that he will be successful in infusing still greater energy into that body.
      Sir Percy Harris: If we were to allow these colossal figures to go through without discussion, we should be open to reproof, quite rightly, from the Leader of the House, who, incidentally, is absent himself. A larger House would have been justified by the most interesting and attractive statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be that Members
      1870
      are staggered by the size of the expenditure. The figures are almost beyond our comprehension. They sound large enough in sterling, but if our American friends had to present this Supplementary Estimate in their currency, they would be talking of an expenditure of 20,000,000,000 dollars a year and of a total expenditure since the beginning of the war of 60,000,000,000 dollars. I have a vivid memory of the discussions during the last war, when I was a Member of this House. It was thought that those comparatively modest figures could not be shouldered without something like bankruptcy resulting, but we have been educated to realise that, provided that along with this expenditure goes control of commodities and of prices, a determined people, ready to back the Government, can carry on without serious inconvenience.
      I am glad the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the common people, for their patience in submitting to the cutting-down of their expenditure and willingly exercising economy in ordinary life, and also for their contributions in Savings Certificates and in other directions. It is suggested by many people that we live in an extravagant age, and that if people have more money in their pockets, they are likely to use it in wasteful expenditure. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has yet stated the number of persons, men, women and children, who have taken certificates in one form or another, and I would like to hear the figure. It is remarkable that the rank and file of the people are prepared, from their earnings, which in many cases are very scanty, to take up Savings Certificates. I have seen in the country how agricultural labourers, who have a very hard struggle to make ends meet, are taking up such certificates.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): So far as certificates are concerned, my right hon. Friend gave the figure of 15,500,000 holders.
      Sir P. Harris: It is very remarkable how the common people, many of whom have a hard struggle to make ends meet, are doing their bit in one way or another, and not always doing it from a selfish point of view, although it is, of course, a wise provision for the future. It is their

      1871
      patriotism and their desire to bear a fair share of the burden which are being appealed to. My right hon. Friend gave a very satisfactory statement on how the financial provisions of his Budget are working out. I would be out of Order, I am sure, if I attempted to follow him, but I am glad to know that his finance is proving sound. When he assumed office he did a very wise thing. He got the assistance of certain distinguished economists and outside experts, and so widened his outlook. Some thought that people with unorthodox ideas might lead him down perilous paths. It may be that, on the contrary, he has converted some of them. At any rate, it is not unfair to say that his finance has been justified by results. Compare the rates of interest in the last war and now. I do not believe that one person in a million would have thought we could have carried on this great war, with colossal borrowing, and have kept the rate of interest to 2½ per cent. Certainly no one thought it possible in the last war. That it has been done is a tribute not only to the wisdom of my right hon. Friend, but to the various financial interests, bankers and others, who have played the game, who have cooperated with him, and who have shown willingness to try to prevent some of the disastrous experiences of the last war.
      I was also interested in his comparison between the amount of taxation in this war and in the last, and the fact that we now submit to four times the amount of taxation which we had then. That is one of the greatest safeguards against inflation. We always have the danger of inflation ahead. As long as we submit to bearing the burden in this generation instead of handing it on to the future, so long we may hope to control expenditure and prevent a serious amount of inflation. I only got up to congratulate my right hon. Friend—I think it is due to him—and to promise him our cooperation as long as he continues on his present path.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
Mr. Bellenger: I suppose the Committee may think it somewhat "small beer" if one gets away from the large aspect of this Vote of Credit and deals with one or two details which I should like to present to the Committee
1872
to-day. The particular aspect with which I wish to deal is the issue of Service pensions for which we shall be providing some of the money in this Vote of Credit. I would like to deal with the administration of the Pensions Warrant in one respect which has recently come to the fore very much as the result of some newspaper comment on these particular cases. We are conversant with the anomalies which arise in the Services, but it seems that not only is the Service man to have these anomalies during his lifetime, but his dependants have to put up with them after he has gone to his grave. The particular issue is the way in which pensions should be granted and the eligibility of widows and other dependants for these pensions.
A national newspaper—I have no doubt the Minister has had his attention drawn to it—recently gave prominence to a case which is by no means rare. I have reason to believe from correspondence that I am receiving that this particular type of case is constantly occurring. If the Committee will bear with me for a few moments, I will give an outline of this case. It concerns a man who was killed while serving overseas. His widow was informed by the War Office that it was their painful duty to say that a report had been received notifying the death of her husband, which occurred in the Middle East on 12th June, 1942. I would like the Committee to keep that date in mind, because only in October, 1942, probably as a result of this case being brought prominently, before the Minister—
The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I do not think that it would be wise to go into this case, which has been completely answered, and the editor of the paper concerned has had to admit that the case has been cleared up. I do not think the hon. Member should continue with this case unless he hands that paper over to me. I have a complete answer.
Mr. Belleng: I do not wish to do so except to state it as an example of numerous similar cases which have occurred. I am prepared to give the Minister the full benefit of the action he took when this case was brought to his attention.
Sir W. Womersley: The action was taken before the case was published in the paper at all.
Mr. Belleng: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the action was too long deferred.
Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir.
Mr. Belleng: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case, he will see what I mean. This man was killed on 12th June, 1942, and later on, in October, 1942, the widow received a pension. Hon. Members can work out for themselves how long it took for the Minister, however the case was brought to his attention, to grant the pension. But this is the fact that I want to stress. The report was that the man died as a result of injuries received in an accidental explosion. When these cases occur—and this is only one of a number of cases that I want to cite—an inquiry takes place, and the Minister has to be convinced within the limits of the Pensions Warrant, 1940, that the man's death was directly attributable to military service. That is the point I want to bring out from the case I have just quoted. My right hon. Friend takes some exception to my mentioning this case in the Committee. I shall quote some other cases which perhaps have not come to his attention but which are all on somewhat similar lines. I hope that I shall not take too long in developing my main point.
Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. On a matter dealing with a Vote of Credit of £1,000,000,000 such as this, should not either the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer be on the Front Bench to deal with it?
The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order. It is not for me to say what Minister should or should not sit on the Front Bench. The Minister of Pensions is here, and at the moment I understood that the hon. Member was discussing pensions, which seems appropriate. Perhaps when other aspects are discussed the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be here to answer.
Mr. Belleng: I am satisfied that my case is being adequately attended to in so far as the presence of the Minister of Pensions on the Front Bench can have that effect. I understood that, after the general Debate had more or less ceased, we were to be given an opportunity of raising these detailed points.
Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member has no right to suppose that.
Mr. Belleng: That was my supposition, and evidently it is right. Another case I want to bring to the attention of the Committee is the case of a leading steward, who was 50 years of age, and for 23 years was in the Navy and came out with a pension in 1930. In December, 1939, he was recalled to the Navy and was passed medically fit, and that is what I want to emphasize. So many of these doubtful cases which the Minister has had to refuse have been accepted by the Forces as A.1. The man was in the evacuation of Dunkirk and his ship was hit by a bomb. He was transferred to a ship at Harwich, and on the night of 7th November, 1941, he died suddenly on board, and the authorities notified his wife that his death was due to heart failure. I suppose that the Minister is literally right in refusing a pension under the Pensions Warrant, because he was not convinced that the man's death was directly attributable to his service, but I should have thought—and I suppose most people would have thought—that this man's death was attributable to his service even to some degree. His wife was refused a military pension, and the only alternative she has is to seek a pension under the National Health Insurance Acts. There is another somewhat similar case of a man who was killed in action on the Western Front. Let the Committee bear in mind that these men whose cases I have spoken of were on active service. If they had committed any misdemeanour, they would have been tried for committing the misdemeanour on active service. But the wife of this man was refused her pension.
The last case I want to cite is one connected with the R.A.F. He was assisting in unloading cases from a lorry when one case slipped and caught him in the stomach. A pension was refused on the ground, I understand, that his later disability was not caused by his service. Let me refer to the Pensions Warrant, because it is within the ambit of that Warrant that the right hon. Gentleman operates. In Article 39 we are told that pensions to widows may be granted if it can be satisfied that the husband's death was due to, or materially hastened by, wound, injury or disease which was directly attributable to military service during the war. That is the burden of my complaint—that those words are too rigid and exclude many deserving cases

1875
of men who have given practically their all, even their lives, and whose widows are treated in this scurvy fashion. We are told that under Article 51 pensions and gratuities in respect of deceased soldiers cannot be claimed as a right but may be given as a reward for their services. I suggest to the Committee and to the Minister that that is not good enough. If a man enlists voluntarily, or is called up, he is asked to give everything. That is his contribution to the State. If, unfortunately, in the stress of war he loses his life, how can we adequately compensate him or those whom he leaves behind? We cannot do it in the way in which the Pensions Warrant lays it down.
Who decides this question? That is what I want to know. Has the Minister complete authority to say whether a widow is entitled to a pension under this Pensions Warrant, or is he dependent on rules by another Government Department? It is the Minister's right to make Regulations on which, presumably, he bases his refusal, in numerous cases, to grant a pension. What should be the relationship between Service men and the State? There are two points of relationship I would like to mention to the Committee. First, is the moral basis. When a man joins up he says, "I am fighting for my country, and I am prepared to give everything, even if my country is not prepared to look after my dependants properly." That is the moral basis, and most men do their duty without thought whether their dependants will be affected afterwards.
The other aspect is the legal one. I submit to the Committee that there is a legal contract between serving men and the State, that it is binding on the State and that it should be binding to a far more rigid extent on the State than happens under the present Pensions Warrant. What is the contract a recruit enters into when he is attested or joins the Service? He has to swear an oath of allegiance and loyalty to the Crown. He swears that he will defend the Crown with his body. Although he does not say so, that is implied. In other words, the soldier pays the premium for his pension or any disability allowance with his blood and not with money. I submit that that is just as much an adequate consideration as any money premium paid to an insur-
1876
ance company which will entitle a man or his dependants, after he is dead, to the benefit of that policy, either in a lump sum or in a continuing annuity. That is the basis which should exist between a serving man and the State. The State owes to the dependants of men who are killed in action, or in serving their country, just as much as any commercial insurance company owes to the dependants of individuals who pay a premium. Let us consider the other aspect. Suppose a man is not called up but is a worker in industry, where, to-day, earnings, on the whole, are fairly substantial. That man is able to insure his dependants against his death by paying a premium to an insurance company, and generally speaking no question is raised when the man dies, unless, of course, it is by his own hand. The money is paid out to his legal representatives. I suggest that the consideration which an industrial worker pays in money should apply to the Service man who cannot afford to pay money and so often pays with his life.
Now I come to my constructive suggestion about the Pensions Warrant. I hope Members will agree with me that the Pensions Warrant must be revised, because its words are too narrow and prevent many dependants from receiving the pensions to which most of us would say they are entitled by the deaths of their husbands in action or on active service. Then there is the question of parents. At the present moment they are not granted a pension in the same way as a widow. They are only given a pension if they can show need. Article 49 states that a soldier who has died in circumstances which I have dealt with previously may be granted a pension subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine if any pecuniary need arises, such as old age, etc., or other adverse conditions, not being merely of a temporary character. Those who drew up that Article obviously did not understand the financial economy of working-class households. They do not know that in many cases these young people were contributing to the household and that parents quite reasonably expect the same contributions to continue until the date when the young man or woman is married. In some cases even after marriage they still contribute to the upkeep of their parents' home. What do we offer to these

1877
parents? Possibly a pension ranging from 5s. to 12s. 6d. a week with the little extra the Minister may be able to give if he thinks fit.
This is causing a great deal of sadness in many working-class homes throughout the country. The Minister should give this matter his consideration. Too often he gives us the impression that he is looking after the interests of all these dependants, that he is their trustee. Too often, with that geniality which seems to exude from him on all occasions, he lets us think that everything is all right in his Department and that there is no need for us to question him. I suggest that the examples I have given show that in many respects the Minister is not administering his Department, even within the terms of the Royal Warrant, as he ought to do; if he had been doing that, he would never have allowed cases such as those I have quoted to get the publicity they have received and only then to take some action in granting a pension.
I suggest that all doubtful cases ought to go to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary before the officials write cold and almost callous letters to dependants telling them to go to the Public Assistance authorities or to register their claim for a widow's pension. This is not good enough. If the Minister wants to retain our goodwill and our belief in his efforts, he must convince us that he is putting to the Treasury—for obviously the proposals I have made will need the sanction of the Treasury and possibly, later on, even some legislation—the points of view that are constantly being put to him, some of which I have mentioned and many of which are mentioned by my hon. Friends from time to time in the House. Unless the Minister gives a satisfactory answer to these points, it may be necessary on some future occasion to take more stringent action than we propose to take to-day. These cases are by no means rare. I have at least twenty cases that I could give to the Minister, and they are coming in every day. It will not be sufficient for the Minister to ride off, as he so often does, in a spirit of genial bonhomie, because we want him to deal with the facts, some of which I have stated in my remarks.
Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I am afraid that the speech I make will
1878
be more than usually inadequate, because, having just come back to work after being unwell, I have not been able to work out any speech in detail, as I would have liked to do. I want very warmly to support everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger). There are two categories, in particular, concerning which I would ask the Minister to give us further and more encouraging details. One hears of very many cases of men who are killed while they are out on evening passes or while they are away on leave. It seems to me that once a man has become a servant of the State in the particular way in which he does when he joins the Armed Forces, the State then has an obligation towards him, and the fact that he may be killed in a lorry accident when coming back from an evening's leave in the town is no reason why the State should say it has no financial responsibilities towards him. That seems to me to be a completely scandalous position. We are told it is good for a soldier's morale that when he can get away from camp on short evening leave he should do so. Yet, if there happens to be some accident while he is out on a pass, as I understand the position and as cases that have come to me show, his widow is told that she is not entitled to a pension.
There is, then, the category of the man who is passed into the Army A.1, and who within a few months is passed out as permanently unfit, and dies a very short time afterwards. Unless he has done a substantial period of service and unless it can be proved that during that period of service the state of his health was very seriously aggravated, his widow is not entitled to a pension. Surely, once a man is passed A.1 into one of the Fighting Services, ipso facto the State has a responsibility for him. A case was brought to my attention not long ago. In this case, in the end, the Minister did find himself able to grant a pension. It was the case of a man who had been passed A.1 into the Army, although it was quite clear to anybody who knew him he was not fit. He was out of the Army within less than 3 months and within a year he died, and for a long time the Minister said he was not entitled to a pension. Surely, the shorter the man's period of service the more obvious it is that the state of his health has been aggravated by military life, and there-

1879
fore, I should have thought that the obligation of the State was all the more obvious. I think that in those two categories to which I have referred the Minister should be able to give us some satisfactory assurance. In dealing with these matters, we are in great difficulty because we do not know now about the latitude which is given to the Minister under the Royal Warrant. From the Warrant as I read it, it is left to the good-will and judgment of the Minister to decide whether or not a pension can be granted.
The Minister gives us the impression—if he will allow me to say so—that he is a Minister who is working very loyally in the interests of the State, or rather of one particular section of the State—that is to say, he is very anxious, and rightly anxious, that there should not be a waste of public money, and so on. As I see things, he is a man who works very closely with the Treasury, whose job it is to see that a lot of money is not unnecessarily expended. We often hear about watertight and rival compartments in the State. I sometimes wonder whether the Minister of Pensions is not the worst enemy that the Minister of Information has in this country at the present time. There is not a town and hardly a village in the country where there is not some pensions case, where a pension has been granted very late after an enormous amount of unhappy wrangling or where it has been refused altogether. Ministry of Information speakers go round the country saying what a grand world we are going to build after the war—although they are not allowed to talk too much about the future—and trying to keep up the morale of the people; but in every place there is that case, that dirty, mean little instance—I do not accuse the Minister personally, for I believe that probably he does interpret the Warrant as generously as he can—where, somebody has made the ultimate sacrifice and his dependants are left in absolute destitution or misery, or are subjected to a means test of one sort or another. That is not good enough. It is true that it is serving the interests of the Treasury, but it is directly against the interests of the maintenance of morale. I beg the Minister to give us a little more assurance and proof that in all these cases he does
1880
show the utmost generosity that he can; in other words, that he does work as closely as he can with the Ministry of Information, and does not simply think, "I am working with the Treasury and I will see that no money goes out of the public purse if I can possibly avoid it, even though I spread alarm and despondency in the country."
Mr. Ellis Smith: On behalf of the people to whom I belong, it was arranged that we should raise the question of the scale of allowances to wives and dependants and the administration of the Ministry of Pensions and adduce evidence which would prove the need for investigation and for amending the Royal Warrant. Twenty-four years ago I served as a private in the South Lancashires, the Machine Gun Corps and the Tank Corps. I never thought at that time that I should have the privilege of speaking here on behalf of the men that I served with. I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the sons of my generation, many of whom were cut off in the flower of their youth. Others, as good as any of us, were wounded and came home and suffered and never got elementary justice. I hope the House is going to be determined that no matter what Government is in power the experience of 20 years ago is not to be repeated, and I believe it will unless we insist that a fundamental alteration is made in the Royal Warrant. I will not cast any reflection on the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. I say that because of my experience of them. I contrast my experience with the present Minister with dealings I have had with other Ministers who had held office in the past few years. Strong feeling was expressed on this matter at the last Trades Union Congress, and I want to reflect that feeling. The 1941 report of the British Legion states:
"The rates of pension and the right of appeal are two important questions which still call for settlement. The Legion is convinced as to the justice of its policy on this matter and will not rest until equal fates and the right of appeal have been conceded."
Those who move much about the country cannot but be struck by what takes place on railway platforms. When I come up here weekly and pass through such stations as Rugby, Stafford, Stoke and Crewe I cannot help observing groups of people waiting for their relatives returning on leave. When they meet, what a

1881
welcome is given, and how the child looks up to its father and mother and is eager to help by carrying some of the luggage. When I am travelling the other way I see the groups again, the men smiling at one another and saying that it will not be long before they meet again. As the train moves away the joy on their faces gives place to tears. The last few words are, "We look forward to the end of the war." This also finds expression in broadcasts from abroad, which are welcomed throughout the country. At the end of nearly every message from the Near or Middle East they say they are looking forward to a reunion. In modern war, especially of a mechanised description, the percentage of cripples will be greater than it has been in any previous war.
Thinking about this trouble against that background of the joy of reunion and people looking forward to living the life they want to live, it brings us to this, that those who suffer in the nation's defence should be defended by the nation. We are all in this war, and we must see that those who suffer get at least elementary justice and not merely charity or grants from benevolent funds. The whole nation ought to accept the responsibility for the maintenance of these men that we see on the station platforms, with their relatives looking forward to their return. If they return crippled or suffering as the result of their service, it ought to be the duty of the whole country to maintain them as well as we possibly can. In the past 20 years we have seen men wearing ribbons and disability badges begging, playing instruments, displaying pictures, and displaying their poverty at the same time, outside cinemas and football grounds. There are very few thinking people who have not felt a cold shudder when passing people like that. They were incapacitated in the service of the nation, and I am pleading that we should prevent a repetition of that and see that they are decently maintained in the future. They should not have to depend on passers-by or en charitable organisations. To have to beg is undignified. It is humiliating. It saps their manhood. To-day we ask for justice. When it is granted men ought to be prevented from displaying their disability on the streets to the extent that they have done in the past. Here are a few sound principles to be found in the
1882
1940 publication of the International Labour Office. In the preface it states:
"Making certain changes, sometimes of a far-reaching kind in order to take account of the lessons of experience."
That is what we are asking for to-day. Later it says:
"When the service required by the community of an individual involves an injury greater than the sacrifice required of all other members of the community the obligation arises for the community to distribute over all its members the burden of the injury in question."
I should think that is a principle with which most people would agree, and, if so, it ought to find expression in the Royal Warrant and in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. It is a democratic principle, and it should be applied as soon as possible. When a man is accepted for military service he is deemed to be in good health. If he is passed A1, that ought to be the basis for an application for a grant from the Ministry of Pensions. As soon as a man is under the supervision of his commanding officer, he has no possibility of evading his obligations and all the risks imposed on him. These are principles which are accepted by the people of the country. That being so, we ought to see that the administration is conducted in accordance with them. When a man is certified Al on his attestation paper, it should be a legal obligation on the part of the State to accept responsibility for him and his dependants should his health be affected while in the service of the State.
Here is a contradiction. Under the Royal Warrant a man's pre-enlistment responsibilities are the basis for pension scale purposes, but the pre-enlistment medical record is not the basis for medical purposes. This has serious consequences. Suppose a man joins the Forces between 20 and 30 when he is single. He is put on disablement pay, but later he marries and rightly has children. His disablement pay remains the same irrespective of his domestic responsibilties, in spite of the fact that he has been injured in defending the whole country and the whole of the people. It is a reasonable principle that the whole country should maintain him in later life. At the present time men who have served the country are deprived of the joys of life because they happen to have been born either in my generation or the generation of the young men

1883
who are serving now. If that is accepted, surely when he marries and has children the children should not suffer because of the disability of the father who happened to have been living in a period when his generation were called upon to serve the country. The contrary principle is supplied in regard to medical records. A man's pre-enlistment medical record should be the basis for consideration. If a man is declared A.1 and later has to apply for a pension, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the experience of my hon. Friends and of Members in general, very seldom is the man given that benefit. I know some men who were serving in the anti-aircraft units during the past few winters. These men, as a result of having to be out at all times of the night during the heavy blitzes, were subject to cold more than they would otherwise have been, and many of them got wet through. These conditions tend to undermine the constitution of the strongest man. You cannot measure the effect of service in these conditions until a man reaches later life. Then he is subject to illnesses, to premature age, to rheumatism and to physical disabilities of that character. They cannot be measured when the man is undergoing service.
Can we be informed to-day on what basis attributability is determined in matters of this kind? Can an allowance be made for the period from when a man is discharged from hospital until he finds employment? Why is there delay in some cases in the payment of National Health Insurance benefits? I know nothing worse than for a man, having served the country, to have to receive hospital treatment and all that it means, to be subject to the inconvenience of having to go from one place to another, and to have to fill up one form after another. One Would have thought that the best treatment and the most sympathetic consideration would be given to our men when they come home after serving the country. Their treatment is causing a good deal of unnecessary friction and it is undermining the morale of the people, especially in the industrial centres. It appears to me that there is some lack of co-ordination between the various Ministries. Do the Ministry of Health co-operate in a satisfactory manner with the Ministry of
1884
Pensions in these matters? Is the Minister satisfied with the medical advice he receives, and are the regulations or the interpretations that form the basis of the medical aspects of applications for pensions satisfactory?
There is great concern at the unsatisfactory attitude of the medical advisers of the Ministry. We are not competent to enter into that because we are not medical specialists. We have to be guided by the advice of the medical men in our own localities, and we often find that their advice differs from the advice of the Ministry's medical advisers. Therefore, we feel that the medical advice which the Minister receives should be subject to some neutral opinion. It is common in many cases for a man to attend the same doctor throughout his life. The doctor has his record and knows what he is subject to. When a man has to apply for a pension we often find that the medical advice received by the Ministry is a complete denial of the record of the man's own doctor. Can more consideration be shown when ailments are consequential on service? Many men have difficulty in proving that their state of health is due to war service. I want to make a strong point about what I am about to say. It should be presumed in a man's favour that his physical condition is due to war service unless the opposite can be proved; at least, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Take the case of a man who was in the Dieppe raid or at Dunkirk. Many of them were waist deep in water for hours. They may be all right for months, but the result of getting wet does not often show itself until later life when they begin to suffer physically. I maintain that it should be presumed in their favour that their ill-health is due to their war service unless the opposite can be proved.
A fundamental change is required in the Royal Warrant. This is a legacy of the dark days, the days of the Poor Law. We have moved along the road quickly from the acceptance of the Poor Law and are now moving towards social security. Therefore, there should be a fundamental change in the Royal Warrant so that it will be consistent with the changes that are occurring in other social services. We should remember that we are a democracy, that we are fighting for democracy, and, therefore, simultaneously with the successful prosecution of the war, there

1885
should be a development of democracy and an improvement in the treatment of our people. As a result of our experiences during the last 20 years we say that the Royal Warrant has not been found satisfactory and ought to be examined in order that there may be fundamental improvements.
Here are some examples of anomalies and of the very low rates of pensions. I consider that it is a disgrace that anyone should be prepared to acquiesce in or to support these pension rates. A man who is 100 per cent disabled, and his wife, receive £2 6s. 8d. a week. Will any hon. Member justify such a payment to the men we are all cheering, to the men to whom we are all expressing our good will, to men who are leaving some of the best homes in the land—the cream of our men—to men who are looking forward, as is shown in their messages over the wireless from the Far East, to rejoining their wives—and they all think well of their wives? All we offer these men when they are 100 per cent. disabled is £2 6s. 8d. a week. Take the case of a flight-sergeant. Flight-sergeants are trained men. As we look into their faces, look into their eyes, we cannot help admiring them. They are the men who are going over Germany night after night, doing the work of everyone of us and defending us. If this war is not won many of us will be finished altogether, and as we all know what is at stake we cannot help admiring these men. We feel that we cannot do too much for them. When they board a train we all move up in order to give them a seat. In the streets the women all look at them and admire them. Yet all we do for them if they are 100 per cent. disabled is to give them £2 6s. 8d. per week. For the widow of such a man, if over 40, all we offer is 25s. a week. For each child we pay, according to the new rates, 7s. 1d. a week, although for children transferred from their homes under the evacuation scheme we allow 10s. 6d. a week.
These figures are evidence proving the need for an investigation into the Royal Warrant, and I hope that, as in the case of soldiers' pay, Members of all parties in the House will insist that there is a fundamental change and that the Royal Warrant is brought up to date. Speaking for myself only, because on this I have no authority to speak for anyone else, I think no one can support the present differences
1886
in the treatment of officers and ordinary men in the Services. In these days many flight-sergeants and many other men serving in the Army are as competent as and come from as good walks of life as any officers, but under the Royal Warrant there is a considerable difference in the way they are treated. For the loss of a thumb, for example, an officer receives £120, while one of the other ranks—and that means me—would receive £60. The loss of a thumb may seriously affect the earning capacity of a man who uses his hands in manual labour. In the trade to which I belong a man who loses a thumb or finger can no longer do his work properly, and therefore his earning capacity is affected, whereas a lawyer or a banker or anyone in one of the many other professions could carry on just the same in spite of the lost thumb. There is something wrong with that position, and it too needs to be examined.
Then take the position under total disablement awards. A colonel receives £300 a year, his wife £25 and for the first child £25. A lieutenant receives £175 and a private receives £88. That is wrong in these clays of democracy. There ought to be more equality of treatment. I would like this point to be noted, like to have these figures impressed indelibly upon the mind of every hon. Member. The widow of a general receives £450 a year, the widow of a colonel £200, the widow of a lieutenant £90, while the widow of a private receives only £40 or, if over 40 years of age, £58. Nobody can justify such inequalities in treatment. It is as a result of an analysis of the Royal Warrant that I said earlier that this is a legacy of the dark days of this country. It goes back to the year 1884. In addition to a pension, a gratuity may be granted to a widow. A general's widow can receive a gratuity of £1,500. a colonel's widow £600, a lieutenant's widow £150, a private's widow—that means the widows of men like us here—nothing.
Sir W. Womersley: Tell the whole story. The hon. Member says that the widow of a soldier receives nothing at all, yet she has something that the officer's widow does not get.
Mr. Smith: What is that?
Sir W. Womersley: It is a gratuity if she remarries. In the case of the officer's

1887
wife there is no gratuity if she remarries. She has had her gratuity.
Mr. Smith: If we get involved in that question, it will take a long time to go into it. But surely there is not much in that. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that at the beginning of my speech I paid tribute to the present administration of the Ministry so far as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are concerned, and I do not want to get involved in a controversy of this kind, because I doubt if we should really do justice to the position. After this war—I am sorry to say it, but I am forced to say it—there will be a large number of widows, and we know what the position will probably be. Therefore, rather than arouse any misunderstandings as a result of what we have got involved in, I would ask the Minister not to press that aspect of the affair.
Sir W. Womersley: All I wanted was that the Committee should know the exact position. I am not going to enter into any controversy about class distinction, and I am sorry it has been introduced; but as the hon. Member is stating what is in the Royal Warrant surely he ought to give the complete story and not half the story.
Mr. Smith: I agree, but we are getting involved, and then it will take a long while to deal with it. I also do not want to raise class distinctions. I was only giving concrete facts from the Royal Warrant. All that I have said is in the Royal Warrant, and if there are any class distinctions then they are the result of this legacy of the dark past which still finds expression in the Royal Warrant. All that I am asking for is that as we have brought our administration up to date in other respects so this Royal Warrant should be brought up to date. I want to make a special appeal for mothers who have lost their sons in this war. I was addressing a meeting on Sunday and I was surprised at the depth of feeling there is on this point—well, I should not say that I was surprised, because it is understandable, but I would assure the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other members of the Government that there is a good deal of feeling about it. If they do not accept my view they should themselves go
1888
among the ordinary people who have lost sons or have sons missing and they will then see for themselves what depth of feeling there is.
This is what takes place and it ought to be put on record. In many cases the people that we belong to make a great struggle in early life to give their children a better chance than they themselves have had. They want them to have a good education; they look forward to their having a good trade or becoming teachers. They look forward to seeing them assisting the rest of the family, in order that the younger children can have a better chance. Then war comes and the country calls for the services of those sons and daughters. They go to defend us all. If they are lost, their loss should be shared by all. You hear mothers say: "Our sons cannot be returned to us, but the least the nation can do is to compensate us for the loss of them."
I ask that parents should receive some compensation in the form of a pension. The strongest point I am making is that this should be done as rapidly as possible because of the concern which is being caused in the country. I have here a letter from a man who lost a son on one of the biggest ships that went down. The whole of the letter is ringing with indignation at the way in which people have been treated. I ask the Minister to give special consideration to this matter and to see that it is raised with the Government in order that early attention may be given to it. I recently met a number of women, among them many mothers whose sons were lost or missing, and widows who had lost their husbands. The greatest consideration should be extended to these people. There is a need for a great change in the administration of the country in this respect; the best attention and courtesy should be given to women and others who are suffering as a result of serving their country. They need, and they deserve to have, the greatest possible sympathy. The Minister should consider setting up in every area visiting welfare councils, composed of officials from the Ministry, the Assistance Board and local organisations. They should carry out a policy, based upon public spirit, of making visits to people who have lost, say, sons or husbands, in order to advise them on pensions and welfare and to take up their complaints. In addition, the Government should ensure that public officials are as considerate,

1889
sympathetic and courteous as possible to all such people.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I listened to speeches recorded in the Albert Hall by a number of prominent people. When the recording was over, my wife and I looked at each other and we both said, "We have heard this story all before." I happen to have lived in the area in which one of the speakers spent many years. After the last war, when we came home, and before we were disillusioned, we thought that what was said was really meant. There is no need to recall at this moment the experiences we had during those 20 years, but it is true to say that people are now asking whether we really mean what is being said. It behoves us, when such issues as these are raised, to see that concrete expression is given to the aspirations voiced by these politicians in the Albert Hall. Unless some fundamental change is made in the Royal Warrant, people will be more sceptical than they have been when they hear speeches of that character.
Let me give one or two examples. On 8th July, 1916, the "Observer" newspaper, reflecting speeches made at that time by statesmen and politicians of this country when they were needing the support of our men, said that a grandeur of being beyond all that our country had known before was being purchased for those who lived by those who had died. In January, 1922, the same paper recorded that the same armies were now besieging the employment exchanges. I agree with the Prime Minister of Canada in saying that if a new world is not on its way before the war is over, we may look for it in vain. Therefore we are asking that not too much should be said about after the war and that, if we really mean what we say, we should give concrete expression to it now, by improving the treatment of dependants of men who have served their country in the war. If we cannot get justice for ex-Servicemen now, we shall not be able to get it after the war. With the prosecution of the war, there should be a simultaneous social advancement towards the development of Democracy. We are promised a better world; to-day we are asking for an instalment of that better world and for justice for those who have suffered for their country.
1890
This is my final point. On 24th June I asked the Minister of Pensions a Question. I had received a letter, and I was referred by the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour, because
"as it was stated that the subject matter of your question is one for the consideration of the Ministry of Labour, arrangements have been made for a reply to be given by that Department."
Many young men of my generation were allowed to suffer after the last war. What sorry stories we could relate if we had the time. I remember some men who were just becoming professional footballers. To become a professional footballer you have to be of the very best physique. They were cut off, and many of those who came home never got the treatment they deserved.
Not long ago I visited the Royal Air Force centre at Leeds. This place is a credit to all concerned. It is run by young, competent, virile and enthusiastic young men, and there is no trace of the old idea that treatment means lying in bed or limping to hospital, such as our men did for 20 years in this country. In the Royal Air Force centre science has been applied, and men receive the very best possible treatment, as a result of which the use of limbs and muscles is actually restored. The whole body is tuned up, and confidence is restored. The men receive electrical treatment to stimulate the muscles, and the reactions of the different stimuli are measured. Records are kept daily. What a difference this is from what we knew before. For 20 years our men sold matches or went into small businesses of all kinds and authorities did not bother about them—except for a few public-spirited people. I saw the difference in these Royal Air Force men. Some were being returned for flying duties in the Royal Air Force.
I want the same attitude and policy to be pursued for all people who have suffered in the service of their country. I saw, at the Royal Air Force centre, the importance of environment and of pleasant and beautiful surroundings—light, flowers, music and sport. I saw young men between the ages of 19 and 25 who had had their necks broken, or spines, legs, or arms broken. Others had been badly burned. As I sat and looked at them I could not help thinking what we owed to them, and tears of emotion came into my eyes. I thought then,

1891
"These men have suffered for every one of us. They have fought for their country and we should see that they get justice." It is the duty of us all to fight for them until they do get justice. Never did so many owe so much to so few. The relatively few who have served in the Armed Forces are composed of thousands of the best of our sons. Therefore, we are raising this issue to-day, we are appealing to the whole of the Committee, to see that we shall all bear the burdens of the men and women who suffer and those who have suffered as a result of this war in service for us all.
Mr. Craik Henderson: First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on the obvious sincerity with which he spoke. On a great many matters he will have sympathy on the points he has put forward. I would also like to congratulate the Minister. I think we all feel he is in charge of a very efficient Department, and he certainly always does his best to meet any case of hardship if it is at all possible. I wish to deal with one or two cases of hardship. I think one should bring such matters up, because it is inevitable, with so many Regulations and Orders, that there will be cases of hardship, and if we can bring up specific cases and get the sympathetic consideration of Ministers, we shall be doing something concrete.
I want to deal with two cases of hardship to dependants of serving men. Both these cases come from constituents, and I know there are similar cases. The first is a fairly simple one. As the Committee knows, before an allowance can be made to a dependant the soldier must have made a payment during the qualifying period pre-war. In the ordinary course that may be quite a wise proviso, but there are cases where it is hard and, I suggest, rather unfair. The case I particularly had in mind was of a man who, in the qualifying period pre-war, made a payment to his parents of 14s. a week. At that time the father was alive and earning a certain amount of money. The father died subsequent to the outbreak of war, and, of course, the position of the mother financially was very much worse. But that point could not be taken into consideration—the fact that she required more money and that the son contributed
1892
more during that period. The qualifying period was pre-war, and so she was excluded from benefit. I suggest that there ought to be some method by which, where there is some change of circumstances between the qualifying period and a man being called into the Service, there should be power to give an allowance when it is shown that there is real hardship created by the withholding of such payment.
The second case is, I think, more startling. Personally, I have never been able to understand it. The scheme of dependants' allowances for the three Services is based on a system of allowances at flat rates, which was adopted in the interest of simplicity of administration. That is what one is told. Under this scheme a dependant's allowance is not admissible where the lowest rate of allowance added to the net income of the dependant exceeds the overriding income limit allowed. Let me explain exactly what this means. In the case to which I am referring the overriding income was 25s. I should explain that the lowest rate of allowance was 13s. Under this rule if the lowest rate plus the net income exceeds 25s., no allowance is payable at all. That means that where the net income is over 12s. there is no allowance payable at all.
Now see the startling results that happen. To take one example which I know myself. There are two women in exactly the some position; one of them does nothing, she relies upon her allowance and gets 25s. The other woman goes out and does charing. Her own income from that work comes to net 14s. a week. That plus the lowest rate of 13s. makes 27s., and therefore she is getting no allowance at all. Thus, the woman who goes out and does work and makes a net income of 14s. receives no allowance, while the woman who does not go out to work gets up to 25s. I suggest that that is very unfair and unreasonable. The rates may have been changed by a shilling or two in the interval, but the principle that results in no allowance at all in such cases as I have described is very unfair and creates great hardship. Some of my friends in the House have had instances of this same question. I hope these points will receive consideration in a sympathetic manner. It seems to me that there is no reason at all why the limit should be put at 13s. I am sure the De-

1893
partments are quite efficient enough to be able to work out proportionate allowances and that flat rates are not necessary. I ask for sympathetic consideration.
Major Milner: We have had quite an interesting and, I hope, a useful Debate and one which will impress the' Minister, which is the essential thing. I should like to express my general agreement with what my hon. Friend in front of me has said. It is perfectly clear to the Committee that the Government are doing, in regard to pensions, precisely what they have done with regard to pay and allowances. That is to say, they are running the Ministry on the cheap as long as the House and the country will stand it. I am not blaming the Minister of Pensions for that. He has, I know, made very valuable representations, and I imagine that in general he is entirely in agreement with what has been said from these benches, but it is necessary for him to make further representations. I do not believe the country is prepared to stand after this war the state of affairs which existed after the last war. The present rates are quite inadequate. I recognise that there are many claims, many equally important claims, on the public purse, but this is one of the most urgent and necessary of them. I impress on the Minister and the Government the necessity for giving very early consideration indeed to an increase of the rates of pensions.
I wish to raise one or two other points, one of which has been touched upon by more than one of my hon. Friends. I want to deal first with the question of widows of men in the Services who at present receive no pension at all. The Ministry of Pensions pay only when the husband's death results from war service, and the Ministry of Health pay only when the husband had a sufficient number of stamps on his card. A substantial number of widows do not come within either category, and many suffer great hardship as a result. We are all in the war together, and it is surely necessary to provide that no widow of a man who died while serving in the Forces should be left without a pension. If it is not possible to grant a pension under the Royal Warrant, I submit, the Ministry of Health should grant one. I know that my right hon. Friend has been in consultation from time to time with the Ministry of
1894
Health on the subject; and I would ask him what has been the result, and whether the Ministry of Health are willing to help. If it is not possible to prevail upon the Ministry of Health to pay a pension, I suggest that the Minister of Pensions ought to obtain authority, if he has not got it already, to pay a pension at least equal to the pension which would have been payable under the Contributory Pensions Acts. Failing that, he should be able to do what was done in the last war, and pay a temporary pension, during the war and for some time after.
I new want to deal with the question of the eligibility of parents. There are other classes of dependants, but this is the more usual case. It is the case where a son who had contributed perhaps before the war to the maintenance of his parents, and certainly during his war service, is killed. Article 49 of the Royal Warrant sets out the conditions under which a parent can receive a pension. The parents may receive a pension if in pecuniary need arising from old age or from infirmity or from other adverse conditions, not being merely of a temporary character. Then follows this condition, which, in my opinion, has not been adequately and properly interpreted by the Ministry—provided that, in determining the need, regard shall be had to the extent of the support which the deceased son gave before and during his war service, and which he might reasonably have been expected to continue had he survived. I submit that that question, of the extent of the support or contribution is a material factor, which the Ministry have very largely disregarded. The Minister has sought to impose his own means test. Perhaps he will tell the House the figures which he uses by way of a scale. In my submission, the Minister is not the appropriate judge of means in these cases: the appropriate judge is the son, who makes the contribution since the Article lays it down that regard shall be had to the extent of the support which the son gave. This suggestion was originally made by the Select Committee of 1919, which laid it down that need was not what the Minister now construes it to be, in the sense of an ordinary means test, but that it should be interpreted as being what the son would reasonably have been expected to contribute had he lived. Whenever a son co-aid be said to have been making a

1895
contribution, and could reasonably have been expected to continue that contribution, a pension should be given to the mother.
What are the factors which would enable a conclusion to be reached in that matter of expectation of continuation? One question might be, what were the civilian occupations of the soldier and his parents? For example, if a soldier before the war was in a much better paid job than his parents had and was making a contribution to them, it would probably be said that that contribution was likely to continue. Another factor might well be whether the son was engaged to be married: that might be a reason for saying that the contribution might not have continued for long. My submission is that the primary test of need should be the contribution which the son had been making, and not a means test, imposed according to the Minister's own will. It is clear that the income of the family is reduced if a son dies after he has been making a contribution to the household. The State should then step in in place of the son. No parent who loses a son who was contributing to the household should be asked to be content with a mere telegram from one of the Service Departments and a message, however gracious, from His Majesty. There should be some tangible recognition of the fact that the parents had brought a son into the world and had supported him until his manhood, and that his life had been given to his country.
Now I would like the Minister to give us particulars of the number of pensions applied for during the present war, the number granted, and the number refused. That is information which the House ought to have before it. I know that I am not allowed in this Debate to discuss the setting up of pensions appeals tribunals, because that is a matter which will require legislation. But I think I am in order in asking the Minister what steps are taken to inform applicants who are refused a pension, of the grounds of refusal, and what steps have been taken to indicate the necessity of obtaining evidence in order that if and when pensions appeal tribunals are set up evidence may be brought before such tribunals. We all know that one result of the delay in setting up such tribunals is that evidence is lost, that indeed those who have pensions
1896
refused may die before they have an opportunity of coming before a tribunal with resulting great hardship to many widows. Therefore, it is essential that advice should be given to them as to what steps they may take to collect and prepare evidence to be brought forward if and when tribunals are set up. For example, will a sworn statement of a comrade in arms be accepted? Would it be helpful for the Minister to advise that some steps of that sort should be taken by applicants for pension whom the right hon. Gentleman has refused, and generally, what is the Minister doing to avoid possibly fatal prejudice to applicants owing to the delay of the Government in setting up Appeal Tribunals? I would ask the Minister to look at the report of the Select Committee on Pensions which sat after the last war. The right hon. Gentleman would there see that the delay in setting up such tribunals was stated by the Committee to be absolutely inexcusable and I want to relieve the right hon. Gentleman of anything of that sort being said about him in the future if it is possible.
Finally, it can fairly be said that those who know most of the troubles involved in these pension questions, and especially in the matter of entitlement, are convinced that the various objections which the Minister has raised from time to time to the setting up of some independent body or bodies are wholly indefensible and the appeal is made on every ground of humanity and justice, that preparatory steps should be taken by the right hon. Gentleman without delay with a view to setting up pensions appeal tribunals at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I do not intend to detain the Committee, because, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and the most eloquent manner in which he presented his case and handled his brief, I do not think that one need advance many more arguments along those lines. Therefore, it behoves Members now rather to present to the Minister some definite cases or concrete illustrations for his consideration where we have good reason to disagree with him and the decision he makes, despite his geniality. I do hot wish to appear severe and unkind to him, but I have always regarded him as a sort of bluff King Hal. Whenever Members meet

1897
him in the Lobby he is undoubtedly kind and considerate and genial, and when they approach him with individual cases they could never believe that as Minister of Pensions he had cheated them. I ventured to use the term the other day that Servicemen's wives felt that they had been cheated by reason of the form of departmental arithmetic, but there are other people too who feel that they have been cheated. I maintain that there is not a parent in the country who, having received notice of the death of a son on active service, when he has come to present his case for pension has not found that he is not only to be subject to a means test but that he is likely to get no pension at all. Every one of such parents feels that he has been cheated.
In my little front room at home—I live in a little corner of Surrey—I have had at least half-a-dozen mothers come to see me. It is a most difficult task to explain to these people why they cannot have anything unless they suffer hardship or are subject to a means test and that if they fall by the wayside later on they may get something. I use my own terms in speaking to these mothers. I have introduced a term and suggested to them that the notice they receive from the Minister of Pensions is a sort of insurance policy and that if they fall by the wayside or suffer hardship, the Minister will at least consider them later on. But they do not feel at all satisfied and convinced. They feel most unhappy. The Minister tells them what they are going to get on a given date if they are in need or that later on they will get something. That is actually the interpretation the Minister will give to the case. A woman said to me only a fortnight ago, "Mr. Walkden, you can take it from me, and you can put out all the Ministry of Information speeches you like, that we mothers are justified in telling you that we feel like the lions in Stanley Holloway's song—we are not going to spend all our lives rearing children to feed the lions." I leave the rest out. They feel like that, and they are entitled to feel like that. They feel most uncomfortable, because the Minister said in reply to a Question one day, "Would you really value your son at only 5s.?" That was the Minister's reply.
Sir W. Womersley: I repeat it.
Mr. Walkden: I say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was measuring the value of my son, I would not get 5d., but he would give me nothing for my son because I preferred to give him a decent education. Would he say to me that I was not in need? He has never earned a penny piece for me, and there are thousands like me in working-class homesteads who would not get a penny because they cannot prove that they are in need. We cannot tolerate this kind of thing. In a newspaper yesterday I noticed a picture entitled "Seven sons out of one family in the Services." If that mother and father are not in need and they lose all their seven sons, they will not even get 5d., let alone 5s. That is a statement of fact. They have to prove hardship to the right hon. Gentleman. But there are worse circumstances.
May I draw the attention of the Minister to something that is not covered in the Royal Warrant, but it is something which, unfortunately, causes his name to have rather an unsavoury odour in my division? It is the recent case of an airman, a flight-lieutenant, a bomber-pilot, who married secretly. He had a romance. As in so many love stories, he did not wish his family, for certain reasons best known to himself, to know that he was married. Just before he went on his last trip, from which he did not return, he tried to make arrangements for his wife to have an allotment. For practically two years that officer did not allot any money at all to his wife, but, whatever one might say, he did maintain her. The R.A.F. did not recognise her as a wife. Similarly the Ministry of Pensions cannot recognise her as a wife. Unfortunately, in view of the circumstances, a baby was born, so that the wife and the baby are not recognised either by the R.A.F. or the Air Ministry. A pension has been applied for. The man recognised the child in his will. There is no doubt about that, because I have seen the papers. But because they never made any kind of allotment there is no recognition' in the records, either in the Air Ministry or anywhere else, that they were married. The Minister will not recognise that this child exists or that the wife is the wife of the airman who did not return from a raid on Germany.
Sir W. Womersley: Surely there is a marriage certificate.
Mr. Walkden: Yes, the woman has a marriage certificate, and it may be that the Air Ministry are playing ducks and drakes and that probably I am blaming him more than the Air Ministry. But the papers have been to and fro, and if the Minister wishes to re-examine the case, I will bring them to him. The circumstances are as I have related, and whatever may have been said, this woman is left penniless and is receiving no pension because of the twist under the Royal Warrant. The man is a flight-lieutenant in the Royal Air Force, and the name of the town is Doncaster.
I want to carry a stage further this kind of twist under the Regulations. My trade union raised with me a few days ago a case of a man who was in the Merchant Navy and who, I believe, had been torpedoed twice. He was away from work through ill-health, suffering from a mysterious disease the name of which I will not attempt to pronounce, although I know that the Minister has had the facts before him. A general practitioner gave the opinion that the fact that this man had been immersed in the sea on at least two occasions would have contributed to this mysterious disease. But not so the Minister's advisers. So my trade union sent the case on to an impartial expert in London. Again substantial opinion was offered that this man undoubtedly suffered through immersion and that this disease—although not directly due to immersion but at least combined with it—would contribute to his death. The Minister begins arguing with the correspondent, and finally his decision is that this peculiarly mysterious disease cannot be in any way related to immersion in the sea. Consequently there can be no pension. Does the Minister feel that he can convince the country on these cases, let alone those who are suffering? When we have two cases of this kind in a mining village everybody knows about them. They say, "Have you had a chat with your Member of Parliament?" and the answer is "Yes, we have tried him, and he has failed." These stories pass from mouth to mouth down the mine and through the workshops and so on. I am sure Members on this side could quote to the Minister case after case where disappointment is being expressed and the way in which widows and parents feel they have been let down because of these Regulations.
1900
I do not know how the Royal Warrant was drafted or how it originated. I have tried to understand it—and it is mostly in good plain English—but the fact remains that our people do not understand the detail which is referred to when we mention the term "Royal Warrant." But they do understand that there is no pension for them and no pension for parents for the loss of a son unless real hardship can be proved. Merchant seamen's widows know that they are not getting a pension because by some twist it is stated that death was not directly attributable to war circumstances. In the case of the airman I have mentioned, I will qualify the allegation against the Minister. I will put the blame at the door of the Air Ministry. Maybe they are to blame and not the Minister. Nevertheless, I submit that it ought not to be left to a Member of Parliament to determine whether or not a case is worth putting forward. It should be a right of a husband in such circumstances that if anything happens to him, his widow gets a pension, and if he has a child, the child should receive a pension up to the age of 16. We do not argue with the Minister as to whether he is kindly, generous or considerate. We do not know anything to the contrary; indeed, I do not know anybody who would make an accusation against him. I, for one, am most grateful for some of the decisions which he has given, but something is wrong with the terms of the Royal Warrant, and so far as we are concerned we are determined to effect great changes.
Mr. Mathers: To-day the Committee are taking advantage of this Vote of Credit to deal with a very great human issue, and I am glad to have an opportunity of making a short contribution to the Debate. There are certain small points which I wish to emphasise before I come to the main issue. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) stressed the demand that once a man who had been passed A1 into the Armed Forces was discharged as physically unfit, the responsibility should be accepted that his service in the Forces entitles him to some compensation. I have had cases brought to my notice recently of men who have been discharged and who are now completely blind. In one case the man is completely deaf yet no acceptance of

1901
liability has been agreed to by the Ministry of Pensions.
There is one point in this respect that I would put to the Minister. When these men come forward and make their claims for pensions they are questioned very closely about their life history prior to joining the Forces. They are asked whether anything has happened to them that might conduce to the condition in which they find themselves. If they make a very small admission of anything of that kind it is taken as sufficient to disqualify them completely for any pension allowance. I think that is wrong. If the medical men who make these decisions could come into contact with the men themselves, the human cases, instead of dealing only with the documentary evidence that is put forward on the men's behalf, they might possibly take a different view. That is why so many of us, although we cannot stress it to-day, are keen on the setting up of tribunals to enable these cases to be more carefully considered than is possible in present conditions.
I come now to the main point I want to raise. On several occasions I have tried at Question Time, over a period of 12 months or more, to impress upon the Minister the desirability of taking account of the position in which a widow of a man who falls in this war finds herself after her Army allowances and War Service Grants cease. I do not want to give many figures but to state the principle for which I am contending by making reference to a concrete case. A widow residing in my constituency found herself, after her allowances and War Service Grant had ended, in receipt of £2 12s. 3d. a week for herself and five children. She had been accustomed to a wage, when her husband was working before going into the Army, of roughly £4 a week. If the Regulations that were put in force in respect of allowances about the time she became entitled to the £2 12s. 3d. had applied, she would have had the minimum allowance of an average of 16s. for each unit, which means that she would have had 16s. for herself, plus £2 for five children as half units at 8s., making £2 16s. in all. She would have got rent, insurance and instalment payments in addition to the £2 16s. She was below that minimum figure to cover every commitment that she had to meet, and she had, as it happened, some very
1902
heavy commitments. I got a note from her giving her budget for a week, and it amounted to £3 17s. 9d. Taking the items on top of the £2 16s. she would have been entitled to as allowances under the minimum basis, the rent and other allowances, she would have had that £2 16s. made up to £3 15s. That means that she had 19s. other commitments that would have been disregarded in giving her this minimum allowance, so that instead of having £2 12s. 3d., as she was given at the time her pension was granted, she would have had in allowances £3 15s.
I suggest to the Committee that that is much too serious a drop for us to contemplate with any feeling of equanimity. The Minister, in answering questions about this point, has sought to push me off by saying that I am mixing up two different things. There is no question of mixing up in my mind. I was trying to bring before the Minister the plight of this widow and her children. I am glad that it is quite in order for me in this Debate to make reference to these two means of subsistence side by side and to bring the matter before the Minister in this way. The commitments which the widow had in respect of instalments were very heavy. I am glad to say that the Minister did not completely disregard those commitments, and when she reached the end of her allowances and therefore, the end of her War Service Grants, he made a grant of £5 to help in meeting the position in which she was with regard to heavy instalment commitments. But that did not anything like clear off those instalment payments. She was also given an allowance because of children being ill and requiring special nourishment; that allowance was 7s. 6d. a week for three months, a total of £4 17s. 6d. Therefore, from the King's Fund the Minister met the position of that widow to the extent of £9 17s. 6d. But after that was done, she had still a very serious burden upon her to meet out of her all-too-meagre pension of £2 12s. 3d., and the Minister could not go any further in meeting it. The problem was put to me to endeavour to find from charitable funds some means of meeting the position. I saw the firm with whom her husband had contracted an instalment debt for furniture and arranged with them that they would reduce the outstanding amount from something like £18 to about £13, and from charitable funds I was able finally, and only last week, to get the £13 and clear that particular debt.

1903
The point I am trying to make is that it should not be left to Members of Parliament, it should not be left to charity, to meet cases of this kind, and that at the very minimum, if the Minister cannot increase these pension rates—and I am claiming that they ought to be increased—he ought to see that there is a War Service Grant made in order to meet heavy payments of any kind that are apart from the ordinary everyday upkeep of the home. The Minister should at the very least see that the War Service Grants are continued until that particular commitment is completely extinguished. I suggest that no less than that ought to be done, and that we are entitled to press considerations of that kind upon the Minister. I have used a single case in order to prove the undoubted hardship in which widows of men who lose their lives in the war are placed when they come to the end of their ordinary allowances, plus War Service Grants. I hope, as I trust with regard to other speeches that have been made in the Debate, the Minister will be impressed and will use any opportunity that he has of pressing on the Government as a whole the desirability of removing these undoubted and unjustifiable hardships that are placed upon the widows of men who have given their lives in the service of the country.
The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Buchanan.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: On a point of Order. Are not the rights of independent Members to be considered? We have had three Members of one party in succession.
The Temporary Chairman: I called the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
Mr. Buchanan: This Debate, to me, is slightly disappointing. I am still a believer in some of the old ways of Parliament and I do not like to hear every speaker saying what a fine man the Minister is. I think it would be better if we expressed ourselves a little more forcibly about each other than we are doing to-day. This almost fulsome flattery of the Minister is being overdone. I neither condemn nor praise him. All I know is that he is getting a salary in his post. No one who is running a business,
1904
a trade union or a Government Department or any other flatters his assistants. He pays them a salary and expects the work to be done. That is what I want from the Minister. I will not go into his qualities. I do not want to be the odd boy out, but I do not feel like joining in the chorus of "Do not blame the Minister."
If men are not getting pensions, who is to blame? It is not the War Office or the Service Departments. We all walk on to the public platform and say, "These men should have pensions" and we come here and say no one is to blame. The feeling is not deep at the moment because the war has not been fought on anything like the scale of the last war, and the question of pensions has not yet arisen nearly so acutely as it did then. The great bulk of the men concerned say they were carefully examined when they joined and were passed as fit and capable men. After 12 months, or even longer, they were discharged as medically unfit. They had been given a clean bill of health by their approved societies and their own doctors and they had always been fit before their Army service. Everyone says the Minister is not to blame, so we must blame someone unseen, because in these days we must not differ from one another. The Army says a man is suffering from something that could not be connected with military service. If doctors pass men as A.1, the Government must take the responsibility. These men who were passed as A.1 and were afterwards thrown out ought to have a greater claim to a pension than has been recognised so far. With regard to widows' claims, the Minister in reply to a Question said something to the effect that he could not make a recompense of 5s. a week for a son killed. Medals do not recompense. A medal is a token. If a man gives voluntary service and at the end of the day someone gives him a medal that does not recompense him. It is merely a token that something has been done.
The practice of the last war should be resumed. There was a pension of 4s. 2d. for each son killed. It was a token payment. Subsequently the Labour Government increased it to 5s. and the payment was made without regard to a means test and without regard to the past or the present. Every woman who has lost a son ought to have a token payment free from the iniquity of a means test investi-

1905
gation, as a recognition by the State that she reared the boy and gave him to the State. In some cases 6s. a week is paid—1s. more than I am asking. In the great mass of cases people would rather have 5s. without a means test than the 6s. with all the inquisition that is involved.
Let me turn to another point and say a word on the running of the hardship committees. There is still the 16s. unit. In spite of all the flattery indulged in here to-day, I cannot praise the Minister on this. I do not know that I can blame the Minister so much, however, because the Under-Secretary runs this side of the Ministry's work and what I have to say I will say to him, because he and I have been colleagues for a long time and have been in many battles together. A case happened in my constituency where the total income for a wife and two children was 38s. 6d. This is made up of the 16s. unit for the wife and two 8s. for the children, making the total 32s., plus rent which is 6s. Let us stop walking round in circles. In politics we can walk round in circles and nobody is the better for it. I have done it myself on occasion. Let us stop that and talk of the facts as they stand. All the woman has is 32s. to keep her two children, provide food, clothes and coal. I defy any man to think of his wife living on 16s. That is the unit which has been fixed. The Minister can sneer and laugh as much as he likes, but I take it seriously. If he feels like taking it that way, it is his business.
Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. I have sat here since the beginning of the Debate, and surely I have a right to ask the Whip a question. I emphatically deny what the hon. Member says and I object to it.
Mr. Buchanan: If I have taken the right hon. Gentleman wrong, I am sorry, and I hope that he will accept my apology. I say to any hon. Member that a 16s. unit for a woman to live on is an impossibility with prices as they are. Take the case of a typical Glasgow family. The Parliamentary Secretary writes me to say that nothing more can be paid in addition to the 38s. 6d. which is their income. That includes 6s. for rent. In a normal winter in Glasgow a family has to have two bags of coal a week, with coals at 2s. 10d. a cwt. It is an impossible standard on which to live,
1906
and I say to the Minister and to those who are running the hardship committees that they must re-examine the unit. It is impossible to expect a human being to live on it and it imposes on people an impossible burden.
I have found that men who joined the Services before the outbreak of hostilities cannot get a hardship grant. When I heard of this I was astounded, and hon. Members may find it difficult to believe what I am saying. When I get a bad case I often think the folk are not telling me the facts, because I cannot conceive of officials being so very bad. When I got the case to which I am referring I really felt the people had made a mistake. The facts, however, are not in dispute. A woman, a widow, was in receipt of a widow's pension of 10s. Her son joined the Air Force 12 months before hostilities broke cut. He contributes 11s. 6d. a week for his mother, which is not a bad proportion of his pay. She thus has a total income of 21s. 6d. I went to the office of the hardship committee, and they told me they could not pay the ordinary allowance because the son was in the Air Force before the war broke out. I followed it up by going to the Parliamentary Secretary, thinking that with our past associations he would be more sympathetic. He gave me the same reply, however, that because the boy had joined the Air Force before the war that was his career, and nothing could be done about a hardship grant. Is there any defence for treating a boy like that? In 1938 the hoardings were covered by appeals from the Government to men to join the Forces voluntarily. Is there any defence for treating men who joined voluntarily differently from those who joined later? In order to eke out her income, this boy's mother has to go to the Poor Law. It is not creditable to have on Poor Law relief a woman whose only crime is that her son joined the Forces too early.
Issues such as those that arise with regard to pensions frequently move Governments much more than issues that we think are of great depth and significance. I remember in the old days of unemployment insurance what small things such issues seemed in comparison with great world movements concerning trade barriers, commercial agreements, and so on. They were little things but at the end of the day they were frequently the

1907
things that made and unmade Governments. I say to the Minister of Pensions that these folk have a claim on him that should be much better met than it has hitherto been. In my early days I was not unfriendly with the present Minister. At one time when he was being attacked I was one of his supporters, because he was a colleague of mine in the early days of Unemployment Insurance. But I say to him to-day that I am not here to judge him on some of his past performances or to make flattering references to him. He receives a salary for the post that he occupies. We have no right in Parliament to look for some scapegoat who is not present and then, when he is present to say, "It is somebody else." The Department responsible here is the Ministry of Pensions, and if these people are not getting the justice to which we think they are entitled the man responsible is the Minister of Pensions, and it is his duty to put things right.
Mr. Lipson: I do not know whether there is any answer to the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) regarding men who volunteered for the Services before the war, but to me the position seems absolutely indefensible, and I do not think the Minister ought to allow it to continue now that attention has been drawn to it. I want also to support the plea which has been made regarding the men who were accepted as A.1 when they joined the Forces but afterwards have been refused a pension. I do so because of a particularly bad case to which I have drawn the attention of the Minister within the last few days. It was that of a man of 42 who died last September. He served for two years in the last war, joined up again in November, 1939, and served for three years, and then died in hospital last September. He had two sons, one 20 and another 21. The boy of 20 is in the Navy and the boy of 21 is in the Air Force. His widow has been refused a pension on the ground that his death was not due to his military service and that his military service had not contributed to it. I do not see how the Minister can justify a decision of that kind. Here was a man who joined up and served for three years. He had been accepted as A.1 and his record of health between the two wars was first-class. He was a miner and his widow tells me that apart from an occa-
1908
sional cold or influenza he never had a day's illness in his life, and yet after she has given her husband to the country and when her only two boys are serving in the Forces, she receives the answer which I have indicated.
I say, frankly, to the minister that no fifth columnist could do more harm to the war effort than a decision of this kind does. What is the effect of that decision not only on the widow but on the two boys who are now in the Services? What is the effect when the boy in the Navy tells his comrades how his mother has been treated—and remember how much the safety and security of this Empire depend upon the Navy—and when the boy in the Air Force tells his comrades who are risking their lives every day for our sakes that this is how the Minister of Pensions replies to his mother's application for a pension? There is something wrong with an administration which makes a decision of this kind possible. We shall never convince anybody with any feelings of humanity, anybody with any common sense, anybody with any sense of the duty this country owes to the men who have volunteered to fight for her, that a decision of this kind can be justified. I ask the Minister of Pensions whether he will not now accept straight away the responsibility for paying pensions in respect of men who have once been classed as A.1 and have since died during their service or have had to be discharged as medically unfit. There is very strong feeling in the country over instances of this kind, they do infinite harm to the war effort, and I am sure that it is not the wish of Parliament or of the country that our pensions' scheme should be so administered as to produce decisions of the kind to which I have drawn attention.
Mr. Viant: The speeches made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) have raised a most important point in regard to men and women being accepted for service as A.1 and the State then going back on its obligations to them and their dependants should their health fail during their service. There is an increasing feeling among the public that these men are not being treated fairly. This has been a very useful Debate. It has spread over a wide field of administration, and

1909
anomalies and disparities in the Royal Warrant have been made evident. I ask the Minister of Pensions whether he is not already persuaded of the need to make representations to the Government that the Royal Warrant should be recast. One meets few Members who are satisfied that the Royal Warrant gives anything like justice to those who seek assistance under it. While I might be prepared to admit that the Minister does his best to administer the law impartially and in a spirit of humanity, yet the experience of the last three years has convinced most hon. Members who have had occasion to make representations to his Department that we are not getting anything like justice for the men and women in the Services.
There is one point I particularly want to make in regard to the appeals made by parents for pensions. At the present moment, hardship or need has to be proved, and that depends very largely upon the allowance that has been made by the lad or young woman who was in the home prior to going into the Services. I want to put the case of apprentices continuing their education for a professional career. Instead of being able to contribute to the home, they have to be maintained by their parents. In some cases the parents have embarked upon raising a loan for the purpose of putting the young persons into apprenticeship or enabling them to continue their education. Under the present conditions of the Royal Warrant, it is apparently not possible for the Minister of Pensions to give a pension to parents of such young people who are killed on service. This is a cause of great hardship, because no means test will permit the Minister to grant a pension. Most of us are becoming convinced that there is no way out of the difficulty except that of laying down a minimum pension for parents such as was laid down during the last war. In the light of the anomalies, which are apparently increasing, and of the shortcomings of this Royal Warrant, I ask whether the Minister of Pensions will consider the need to make representations to the Government for the recasting of the Royal Warrant.
Sir Henry Fildes: I do not propose to intervene at any length. I welcome the protests that have come from all parts of the Committee with regard to this Royal Warrant, but whoever else
1910
may be to blame for its shortcomings, the Minister of Pensions is not to be blamed on this occasion. In the very early days of the war the Royal Warrant was carefully investigated by a committee over which the Minister of Pensions presided and I can testify, from my own knowledge, that in every case he has strained his powers to the utmost to remedy the existing state of affairs. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, the Minister may be given greater powers to carry out what he recognises as acts of justice to those who have taken part in the war effort and have suffered very dire consequences I know of the case of a young lawyer who joined the Forces. He was a Rugby player, a good golfer and a man of fine physique. He was in the Army for 12 months, but he developed a very serious complaint, something like cancer of the ear. He was dismissed from the Army. His father has since spent over £300 on operations to try to save the young man's life. With the utmost good will on the part of the Minister of Pensions, the right hon. Gentleman has no power to make any contribution to those expenses. I, therefore, join with previous speakers in expressing what I believe to be the unanimous opinion of the Committee, that the Minister of Pensions should have greater powers to deal with hard cases which are a reflection upon the justice and generosity of Parliament. I repeat, that the Minister of Pensions has done his utmost, under the present powers, to help such cases. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind and will strengthen his hand to enable him to do more than the present Royal Warrant enables him to do.
Miss Ward: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend and to the Committee for coming in rather late and for not having heard the earlier part of the Debate. I came straight from the train here. I want to deal only with two points, but, as a general background, I would say that we have had to fight for every concession we have so far obtained on behalf of the Serviceman. That is a reflection not so much upon the Minister as upon the Government. We have had a Debate about nearly every concession which has been obtained and even, as far as allowances are concerned, we have had to exert pressure. I am driven to the conclusion—whether it is right or wrong

1911
I do not know—that the real enemy of the Serviceman is the Treasury. I hope that Ministers who have listened to the speeches made in this Debate and in the past, and to Parliamentary Questions which have been addressed to various Ministries on this subject, will impress those views upon the Government. If the Service Ministers and my right hon. Friend think that there is some truth in what we have said, I suggest that a resignation on this Question might do the Government and the Treasury a great deal of good and teach them lessons that they need teaching. Believe me, the country is incensed at the treatment which has been meted out by responsible Ministers to those who are serving in the Forces.
My first point is with regard to pensions to dependant parents. I cannot understand why when the terms governing the payment of these pensions were laid down my right hon. Friend did not negotiate with other Government Departments concerned with pay and allowances, to ensure that, when a pension was granted to a dependant parent, no deduction would be made in any other allowance. I cannot now go into the whole question of the grant of pensions subject to a needs test, but I assure my right hon. Friend that those deductions produced a disastrous effect upon the families concerned, not only from the monetary point of view but from the point of view of ordinary morale. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make urgent representations to the Service Departments so that when a pension is granted in future by his Department, all other allowances will remain intact.
May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Government did not even take the trouble to see that allowances from the Assistance Board were not reduced when a pension was granted? It is true, however, that when the question was raised the matter was remedied straight away. I use that as an illustration of the psychology of the Government in handling this whole question, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that if the Government want any peace at all in relation to these matters, they had better give in gracefully now because the volume of criticism is growing and growing. I hope that the Treasury Bench realises that once the House of Commons takes the bit between its teeth, as we are the greatest
1912
democracy in the world, we can enforce our opinion on the Government. It is just as well for them to accept the inevitable, before the country has got the iron driven into its soul. Believe me, it is not very good in the mining villages or the shipyards or the agricultural areas, when men and women have gone forth in the service of their country for them to see the House of Commons having to make representations to the Government to secure for people what we, their representatives, believe to be their just right and due.
There is just one other point, and it is in relation to the War Service Grants Committee. As a member of the War Service Grants Committee, I wish again to put the case in this way. It seems to me that psychologically, a dire mistake has been made by the Government, not on the part of my right hon. Friend because I have a sort of hunch that he does quite a lot of battling behind the scenes, though unfortunately he does not appear to get the understanding from some Members of the War Cabinet that he ought to get. If the War Cabinet handled some of these human problems a little more frequently they would understand better what the country is thinking. Therefore, I put this point on a broader aspect, not as a criticism of my right hon. Friend. I cannot understand how, after the pressure of the House of Commons had produced an increase in the allowances—which, after all, are still unacceptable to the House of Commons and the country and I think we shall be getting something more in the not far distant future—my right hon. Friend did not ensure that the people drawing war service grants would get the benefit of the increases. This is not the place and I have not the time, as I realise other hon. Members wish to speak, to go into the whole method of assessing incomes for the payment of grants. I quite understand the argument put up by my right hon. Friend in the House last week. Technically speaking, I am absolutely certain that answer was correct. That is not the point. The point is that however technically right he may be, the effect on the people who will have their grants reduced will again be disastrous. The whole purpose of the Government's decision, after pressure, to increase allowances to the Services was that the wives and families, the dependants of the Services, should

1913
benefit. For anyone to have a reduction in a War Service Grant allowance, however right my right hon. Friend might be, undermines the general feeling of confidence of the Services in the Government. Psychologically it is a mistaken position to pursue.
My right hon. Friend, in answer to a Supplementary Question in the House last week, indicated that it might be possible to increase from 16s. to 17s. the minimum basic figure which the War Service Grants Committee allow. I shall not go into a discussion on that, but I want to say that if that is my right hon. Friend's way of squaring up the account—and whether I agree with him or not does not really matter at the moment—the fact remains that that decision should have been taken before the increase in allowances was announced. The Government are always behind. They should have examined the whole question very carefully. They should have called their War Service Grants Committee together. They should have asked the members of the committee what they thought of the matter.
I think it is perfectly fair and legitimate for me to say this, and I hope it will help the Minister; the War Service Grants Committee is not composed entirely of independent members, because some of the members of that committee are departmental members. My right hon. Friend knows sufficient about the machinery of Government to know how difficult it is for those members representing Departments, whatever their opinions may be, to put up an independent fight. It is a very cleverly constituted committee. Perhaps it might be a good idea if my right hon. Friend were to add some of the members of the Serving Members Committee of this House to it. I notice that in the recommendations they put forward for consideration by the Service Departments they have made some suggestions with regard to the policy which they recommend should be followed by the War Service Grants Committee.
I want to emphasise that whatever the Minister may be able to do, whatever we may be able to do in the future, will not alter in the eyes of the country the fact that every concession to the Service men up to date has had to be fought for penny by penny, sixpence by sixpence, shilling by shilling. I tell the Government here and now that they are on the wrong tack.
1914
They are making the most disastrous psychological mistake any Government has ever made, and I am sure I know the reason for it. It is because the Service men cannot fight for themselves and that in the background sit the Treasury directing this parsimonious policy. Trade unions can make their representations, industry can fight for itself, we women can fight for ourselves so long as we are not in the Services. But the people in the Services are tied hand and foot, and if the Government are running away with the thought that the Services are pleased with their treatment, believe me they are living in a fool's paradise. So I do beg them in the interests of the country, not in the interests of the Government or in the interests of the House of Commons, to have a more realistic, a more understanding and a more human approach to Service matters. That would help a great deal in enabling the country to do what it desires to do by those men and women who are serving in His Majesty's Forces.
Mr. Hutchinson: I only intervene at this stage of the Debate for the purpose of inviting the attention of my right hon. Friend to one particular aspect of this matter which has, I think, received insufficient attention in this discussion. Whatever may be said of the adequacy or otherwise of the existing scales of pensions, as they operate over the country as a whole, there seems to be very little doubt that in those parts or the country where the cost of living is exceptionally high the present flat-rate scales fail to provide an adequate family maintenance. In the case of a man during his service, that matter is to some extent adjusted by the operation of the War Service grants system, and in the London postal area by the additional family allowance. But when the family pass to the pensions scales, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) pointed out, there is a very substantial difference in the family income.
In those parts of the country where the cost of living is high, and particularly in Greater London, there is no doubt that the existing scales of pensions are at present insufficient to provide adequate maintenance. In the Greater London area this is likely to become a problem of considerable magnitude. It is not possible to get satisfactory figures, but,

1915
so far as I have been able to find out, there are in Greater London something like 100,000 families in receipt of War Service Grants. As casualties occur we shall find in that area a growing number of families who will be in the position to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred, passing from an income based on family allowances and War Service Grants to a pensions scale in which nothing in the nature of the War Service Grant operates. I can appreciate that my right hon. Friend may be reluctant at this stage to make any substantial alteration in the existing flat-rate scale; therefore, I would invite him to consider whether, in the case of widows who received War Service Grants before their husbands became casualties, he could not either continue the War Service Grant or substitute something of a similar nature in order to offset the great difference between the income received while the husband is alive and that received after he becomes a casualty.
The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I have waited very patiently and have heard all the speeches that have been delivered, and I think it is about time that I made a reply. Hon. Members who have put questions are waiting to hear my reply, and I sympathise with them. As far as the Debate is concerned, I personally, and the Parliamentary Secretary, cannot possibly have any complaint. It is true what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, that there have been a few compliments paid at any rate to the way in which we administer the Department, even if Members are not satisfied with the instruments we have to use, On the other hand, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to hide behind any other Department or any other Minister. As Minister of Pensions, I am responsible to this House for the Royal Warrant and anything that is contained in it, and, personally, I have not the slightest objection to any reasonable criticism against either the Warrant or the work of my Department. I have a perfect right to take exception to hon. Members, in a Debate such as this, quoting individual cases without giving me notice so that I could have the necessary papers here with which to deal with them. It is well known to hon. Members that I and the
1916
Parliamentary Secretary are prepared to discuss any particular case with any Member. In the administration of a big Department such as this, there are bound to be some cases which have been dealt with in the Department and probably not dealt with quite as sympathetically as I myself or the Parliamentary Secretary would have dealt with them. We have laid it down in the Department, and it is recognised by those in the Department and, in the main, faithfully carried out, that our duty is not to examine cases in the light of how we can refuse a person a pension, but to consider how under the Royal Warrant and other schemes for pensions we can give a person a pension. I say that emphatically and without fear of contradiction.
Mr. Stephen: You make a very poor job of it.
Sir W. Womersley: If hon. Members will bring cases of hardship to my notice or to that of the Parliamentary Secretary, we can deal with them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is not now in his place, because his was an instance of bringing forward individual cases when we are here to discuss principles. He should have furnished details. He brought forward a case in a newspaper called the "Sunday Pictorial," in which he wanted to know why the woman did not receive a pension until 13 weeks after receiving notification of her husband being killed. The answer is simple. She was receiving during all those 13 weeks the full allotment from the Army according to arrangements' made and approved by this House, Where a man is killed Service allowance and War Service Grants continue for 13 weeks. That is in order to make sure that our pension is issued to follow on so that there is not a gap between the two, and that is what happened in this case.
Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that is paid in the event of a man dying after sickness?
Sir W. Womersley: If he is a war casualty, it is continued for 13 weeks until we have issued our pension.
Mr. Lipson: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the point. Would it apply to a man who fell sick and died in the Army?
Sir W. Womersley: As far as I know it does. There are always exceptional cases, and if my hon. Friend will bring any case where it has not been applied, I will see into it.
Mr. Stephen: It is the principle.
Sir W. Womersley: I am dealing with the principle, and if the hon. Member will give me time, I will deal with the principles involved in this matter. I would clearly once again emphasise the fact that I welcome these Debates. I am sorry that we have not had more of them. They help me in the work of my Department. I am anxious to hear all the weaknesses or deficiencies in the scheme which I operate. While it is suggested that if I travelled up and down the country, I should hear more about these things, I would say that I do travel up and down the country a good deal and go into every quarter. I have representatives in the whole of the United Kingdom, and I get reports from them. We do not get the discontent and dissatisfaction about which we hear so much in this House, but I will deal with that when I come to the question of the committees. I could reply to the majority of these cases now. A case was quoted by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden), and I have inquired into it in the short space of time which has elapsed since he has referred to it. It is a case where the man is missing, not presumed killed—an entirely different matter. It concerns the Air Ministry and not my Department. But if the man did not make an allotment, how can you expect the Air Ministry to make one?
Mr. E. Walkden: There might have been a secret reason why he did not make an allotment.
Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member must agree with me that it is an exceptional case. It does not involve a principle at all. If he had brought it to my notice, I would have had it seen to at once.
Mr. Walkden: I am grateful for the explanation, but does the Minister deny the principle that I raised?
Sir W. Womersley: There is no principle involved at all. If a man is married and makes an allotment in the ordinary way, the Service Department adds to the allotment, and there is no difficulty. If
1918
a man is missing and not declared killed, his widow's case does not come to me until such a declaration is made. In the meantime she draws full allowances. But in this case the marriage was kept secret; the man would not even let the authorities know he was married. How can you blame the authorities in a case like that? We must be fair and reasonable in these matters. However, I will get the matter squared up.
Mr. Walkden: I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will.
Sir W. Womersley: When having these Debates I hope we shall deal with general principles. I will deal with cases. In 99 per cent. of these cases there is a far different story when the papers are obtained and the real position is made known. I can assure hon. Members that cases do not escape our notice if there is any merit in them. I am only too anxious to see that they are put right before they are brought to the notice of the House of Commons and the country at large. That is the only sensible way of administering my Department.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), who took part in the Debate, is a very good special pleader, but I suggest to him that it might be just as well to make a few inquiries about what we were doing in the Department. If he had done that, it would have helped him to-day. He told us about a man who, after the last war, had to beg, sell matches, and so on. Well, I admit that there were men who had to do that after the last war, and I agree that we must look at what happened, note the mistakes that were made and see that they are not repeated after this war. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they will not be repeated, at any rate so long as I am in charge of this Department. What is the position? We must all agree that whatever we do for those men who have served their country and suffered as a result, it cannot be enough. Our new slogan in the Ministry is, "Money payment is not enough and never will be enough, however much is given." We have to help a man to keep his self-respect so that he does not get an inferiority complex because he is disabled, and make him feel that he is a citizen taking part in the civic life of his country, and able to stand alongside his

1919
fellow men. That is our duty, and that is what we are doing.
The hon. Member described a visit he had paid to a Royal Air Force rehabilitation centre. I would remind him that we were in this business before any Service Department took it up. I am glad to know what they are doing, but I would like the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, to come down to Roehampton and see what we have been doing for some considerable time in regard to this matter. We have arranged rehabilitation, training, employment—a far different thing from just rehabilitation. In conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, we have made tremendous progress in this matter. Last Wednesday we had an exhibition at the Mansion House. I am glad to say that some hon. Members were present, and also a large number of employers of labour and trade union representatives. They saw demonstrated what we have been able to do for limbless men and women in the way of training them for occupations and rehabilitating them so that they could play their proper part in public life and enjoy the amenities of life just as those who have not the misfortune to be crippled.
We have gone further—and I think this is most important. I am glad to say that, as a result of the help of the trade unions, we are able to place these men in employment, and up to the present time—the scheme has been working only a short time, not as long as I would have liked, but there was a great deal of organisation to be done—25,000 discharged men who otherwise would have been on the scrap heap have been put into useful occupations. That is not a bad record, and we shall build on it. It may be said that it is not difficult to find jobs for them now because in war-time there is a scarcity of labour and plenty of jobs available. There is something in that, but we are trying to put the men, not into blind alley jobs or purely war jobs, but into jobs that will continue after the war is over. We are getting offers from employers of labour to take these men and train them and give them a guarantee of employment after the war. The trade unions have been good enough to relax their rules and regulations, and allow these men to work alongside those who
1920
have served an apprenticeship, for the period of the war. I shall have to make an appeal to them—and I am certain it will not fall on deaf ears—that when the war is over they should continue that concession, so that the men we have to train in future can also be found places. I know this is a very vexed question, but it is the crux of the whole matter, because it is of no use training the men unless we can find them employment. They want employment.
I want also to make it clear, as I did in my speech at the Mansion House, that this is not a subtle scheme by the Government or the Ministry to try to whittle down pensions. The pension is paid irrespective of what the man earns. I want to make that point very clear. I shall never be a party to any alternative pensions scheme which means more for one man than for another because of something that happened before they joined up. I am all for equality of sacrifice and compensation. If we departed from the standard rate, we should be on a very stony path and there would be considerable trouble in dealing with these matters. I think it is clear to the House that we are trying to do many things in addition to simply paying out pensions.' We have made enormous improvements on the methods that were adopted after the last war and during it. We have been learning from experience. I think we have done very valuable work in that regard; I am very hopeful that we shall be able to continue this good work, and I am certain that we shall get full support and help from hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Stoke dealt with the question of the A1 man who is discharged from the Army suffering from some constitutional disease and therefore not eligible for a pension. I am certain the hon. Member remembers the concession that I announced in July, 1941, whereby in the case of any man taken into the Service A1, if any aggravation of any kind could be shown, we would regard it as a material aggravation and grant a pension. We reviewed all the cases in which men were dissatisfied with previous decisions and applied for their cases to be re-heard under the new concession. Over 70 per cent. of them were accepted. That is a very high figure when you bear in mind that there are certain constitutional diseases which no doctor on earth will agree are due to any service,

1921
either in civil life or in Army, Air Force or Navy life. If you get to the point that, if once a man has donned uniform, the Government are responsible for anything that happens to him, we are of different minds, but I am dealing with facts and things as they are. We get cases which would astonish Members. There was one case in which we granted a 70 per cent. pension under this concession. The man wanted 100 per cent. Everyone outside has the idea that that means the man cannot do anything—that he cannot even walk. But it does not always follow. We had this man medically examined to see if there was any difference between the granting of the pension and the application for 100 per cent. The medical board found that he had been treated very generously with 70 per cent. I got a letter from the man complaining bitterly that he had only been allowed 9s. 6d. for his expenses, whereas he had lost s day's work, amounting to 17s. 6d. He was working regularly, and his claim was to be 100 per cent. disabled I do not think I could justify going to the taxpayer and saying we should pay 100 per cent. to a man in that condition.
The hon. Member brought forward a very good point in regard to medical cases. He said there had been cases where a man's own medical adviser, or the adviser to his trade union or friendly society, had told him that whatever he was suffering from might be constitutional but that it had been aggravated by service. There are cases which I can deal with effectively, because where there is a conflict of medical opinion of any kind I have the power conferred upon me by the House to refer those cases to an independent medical specialist, who is regarded as superior to both, and quite independent of the Ministry, nominated either by the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, and he decides as between them. I have taken advantage of that method and have had quite a large number of cases, where there has been a genuine dispute as between two medical men, submitted to him.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is that the same as the right hon. Gentleman's principal medical officers?
Sir W. Womersley: No. I cannot issue a pension without the certification of my own principal medical officers unless it has been to an independent medical expert, whose decision is overriding.
Mr. Lindsay: At what point does it go to this tribunal? I have a terrible case here, and I can get no help over it.
Mr. Mathers: Does the specialist see the man?
Sir W. Womersley: He can if he desires it. I have to leave it to the medical expert to say whether it is necessary to see the man or whether it can be settled according to the papers. As to the question of the hon. Member opposite, if it is a case where he can bring medical evidence rebutting the medical opinion of my man, it goes to an independent expert at once.
Mr. Lindsay: The medical evidence has been supplied by the doctors privately and also by your own medical officer.
Sir W. Womersley: That goes to the independent medical expert at once.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the independent expert see the man without having first seen the papers and the previous history of the case?
Sir W. Womersley: I have announced time and time again that these men are independent of my Ministry, and I am sure hon. Members will agree that if I started laying down rules and regulations under which they should work, they would cease to be independent. I must leave to them and their judgment what methods they should adopt. We can leave it to the medical profession to adopt the right practice.
Mr. Hall: The answer is that they do see the previous medical history?
Sir W. Womersley: There is no answer at all. I say that it is left to the experts to decide what methods they should adopt. [Interruption.] Are hon. Members dissatisfied with this system? I find that if a case goes in favour of the appellant, the medical expert is a first-class man, but if it goes against the appellant, hon. Members say he is no good. We had tribunals in the last war, but I get numerous letters from hon. Members

1923
about cases that were settled by the old tribunals asking me to reopen them, although the House laid it down that the decisions of those tribunals must be final and binding. It will be the same with this system. You can have any tribunal you like or any expert you like, but it will not satisfy the people who get a refusal.
Major Milner: Is the specialist given a sight of the Ministry's file, or does he act without seeing it?
Sir W. Womersley: The file is quite fair to the man. It contains his hospital record, the medical certificates of his own doctor, all the evidence that the man can produce in his own favour, and the report of our own medical boards. The whole of the evidence is therefore available, and we invariably invite the man to submit further evidence if he can obtain it. The medical experts decide whether he shall examine the man or not. There are many cases, however, where it will not help the experts to examine the man. The question is whether his condition is due to service, and in certain types of disease it is a question of knowing what the disease is, and that is sufficient.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: If a man dies abroad on service and the medical authorities there say it was a disease that had nothing to do with active service, what is the good of an independent doctor, and how can we bring such a case forward, because I have one now?
Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member should bring that case to my notice, and. I shall be pleased to look into it and see what can be done. In the case of a man dying abroad there is a full report of the investigation that is made, a full report from the hospital and a full report of the post mortem examination. It is not difficult to discover whether the man's death was due to service or not. I used to think it was difficult, but after my long experience I do not think it is.
Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member asked if the medical expert who is finally called in saw the man, and the Minister replied that the expert decided whether or not he would see the man; but surely the controversy about whether he sees the man before seeing the papers is beside the point. He sees the man only after he has studied the evidence that can be produced
1924
to him on paper; that decides him as to whether he needs to have the guidance of his own observation of the man's condition.
Sir W. Womersley: I do not think the hon. Member can take any exception to that. I am not going to get into a controversy as to what a man in the medical profession should or should not do. All I can say is that an independent medical expert is appointed, and we must leave it to his judgment; otherwise, he would cease to be independent. I would not say whether what the doctor does is right or wrong. All I can say is that so far I am satisfied that the decisions arrived at have been very sound, because the reasons for coming to those decisions are given to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke and many other hon. Members have referred to the question of parents' pensions, and I think we had better get down to that right away, because that seems to be the most important point of principle which we have been discussing. The other matters have been by the way. The Committee will remember that this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 16th June last. I am sure that we all realise the importance of the mission he is now engaged upon, and we wish him good luck and God-speed, and I have no doubt that when he gets the news through that we have had a Debate on his favourite subject he will be quite pleased, because he threatened me with a Debate before he went away. He then advocated, as some of my hon. Friends have, the re-establishment of a flat-rate pension for all parents who lose sons as a result of war service. It is clear that that is what he did advocate, because I had a discussion with him afterwards, as I could not think he was advocating such a thing. Many hon. Members have said, "Why do you not do as you did in the last war?" and I think it is as well to remind hon. Members of what happened. The flat-rate pension was paid automatically to all parents who had lost sons in the war, but there were provisos. These pensions were paid where the soldier was under the age of 26 at the outbreak of war or at the date of enlistment, if later, was unmarried, and if no pension or allowances were in payment to a child or dependants in respect of him. The pension was hedged round with all sorts of restrictions.

1925
The general and popular idea is that all parents got a pension of 5s. a week. They did not—only those parents whose sons were under 26 at the time they enlisted, or at the outbreak of war, and who had no other obligations. It meant that a flat-rate pension of 5s. was awarded in those cases where the son was under 26, irrespective of pre-war dependants, age, infirmity or pecuniary need. There is also a mistaken idea, although it has been corrected by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), that that was the only kind of parents' pension in existence in the last war. There were three kinds of pensions for parents, two besides the one I have explained, the flat-rate pension. The first of the two others rested solely on pre-war dependence. A parent could not claim anything unless he could prove pre-war dependence. That provision did not seem to give a great deal of satisfaction, either during or after the war. The third was based upon the parents' needs and incapacity for self-support. Those were the three types of pensions that were given in the last war.
There were people who thought that those provisions were not working well, and the Select Committee which was set up in 1919 to deal with the matter, and reported in 1920, paid very special attention to it, because of the complaints of inequality between one parent and another arising out of this triple system. I will read to the Committee a recommendation-. It is no good paraphrasing it. We want to have it word for word, because it is really important. This Select Committee is generally acknowledged to be one of the most representative that ever studied pensions' law and pensions' cases. It took a good deal of time and trouble and heard witnesses. It finally came to certain decisions, which, in most cases, the Government accepted. On the question of parents' pensions, the Committee recommended:
"The whole system should be reconsidered as early as possible with a view to revision and the assimilation of all three classes of case on the basis of need, broadly interpreted, i.e., a reasonable expectation of what the son would have contributed had he lived."
The Committee added:
"We believe that it is only by some such plan that the present inequalities can be remedied."
1926
This recommendation was accepted by the Government and adopted on 1st April, 1922. From then onwards all new awards of pension to parents were conditional upon the claimant being able to show that he or she was wholly or partially incapable of self-support and in pecuniary need. This has gone on from 1922 down to the present war period, and, so far as I know, without a single complaint from anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I watched it very carefully until the war broke out, and then we began to have quite a number of cases coming forward.
In the present war we adopted the practice laid down by the Select Committee and put into operation in 1922. It was included in the Royal Warrant of 1939. Then, in the light of experience, I reconsidered the whole matter in consultation with my central Advisory Committee. Hon. Gentlemen who were members of that Committee will remember that we threshed the thing out pretty well. We went into the matter minutely. We doubted very much whether the Warrant gave full effect to the Select Committee's recommendations. Surely we ought to see that their true intentions were carried out. In 1940 a revised Warrant was introduced which contained the following improvements in respect of parents' pensions. I want to read them, with the permission of the Committee, so that there will be no misconception:
"We abolished altogether the test of incapacity for self-support. We embodied the definite provision that, in determining need, regard should be had to the extent of support that the deceased son gave before and during his war service and might reasonably be expected to continue, or where he did not so give, might have been expected to give."
In other words, if he had not been contributing to his parents, we might grant them a pension, as in most cases the son might make some contribution if he survived the war. I think we covered every type of case for which any plea could be put forward, except the flate-rate pension for everybody, irrespective of means.
We now come to the question whether there should be some form of means test. I call it a needs test, but hon. Members can call it what they like. It is a question of 5s. a week to a man who may be on the Income-Tax-paying rate. There are men who are having it, and they get 2s. 6d. I say again that money compensation of these cases is not the proper recognition. Unfortunately, where parents

1927
are in need and where you would expect that a boy would come to their help, whether they are married or unmarried, we have made it so that the widowed mother of a married man can participate in the benefit. That assurance is given to all of them, that, if they are in need, they shall receive the pension. I should have thought that if a person was working at his own trade and earning his standard rate, he was not in need. Then we come to this point. If because of adverse circumstances, old age or anything else, he is not able to continue his employment and is in need, his pension is there for him, guaranteed to him. Surely that is better than giving 5s. a week pension just because on the old scale it would have been given to anyone irrespective of income,
Mr. Belleng: Before the Minister leaves that point—
Sir W. Womersley: I have not left it.
Mr. Belleng: The Minister said that he was coming to another point. Will he kindly tell us what the need has to be? Has she to be destitute before she can be assessed for pension of 5s. or more?
Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member had only waited, I was coming to that. I am not afraid to meet the situation at all, but I think I ought to be allowed to approach it in my own way. I have got so far on the road as to explain why we adopted this system, and how we carried out the recommendation of the Select Committee, and have got so far as to mention that where a married soldier's parents were really dependent on him to a substantial extent for a reasonable period before his death, they are also eligible for some consideration for pension, though he had not been able to make an allotment to his parent or parents because of marriage. That meets the point of one hon. Member. We come to the question of the general principles governing the granting of these parents' pensions. It has been represented to me that there is a good deal of discontent about this. I have been all round my war pension committee areas. I have had chairman of war pension committees from all parts of the country at those conferences. This is one of the questions that there is not a lot of discontent about. There are other questions where there is
1928
some, but I have specially inquired into this matter, and I do not find that it happens that the country is seething with discontent. I do say there are people who feel they ought to have something, and if something happens to somebody, they ought to get something of a monetary nature. I do not think we should encourage that. Really it is better to give most where it is most needed.
As to the pensions themselves the present rates provide that the minimum pension is 5s. and the maximum for one parent is 10s., and for two parents 12s. 6d., but where there are exceptional circumstances I am empowered to increase that by 6s. 6d. a week, making 16s. 6d. in the case of one parent and 19s. in the case of two. In arriving at what the pension should be, there are disregards, and those disregards are really considerable. I want Members to know them, so that they know what we are really giving. No regard is taken of any public assistance which is being received by the parents. If a public assistance committee is making any allowance, we do not take that into account at all. No regard is taken of any relief under the P.R.D. scheme; no account is taken of unemployment assistance relief; no account is taken of supplementary pensions paid under the 1940 Act, and where a parent is drawing a disability pension we ignore the first £1 a week. The first 5s. of friendly society sick pay is ignored and the first 10s. 6d. of National Health Insurance. We ignore half of workmen's compensation in assessing the income going into the household, and we ignore sickness payments under the Old Age Pensions and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, to the extent of the first 7s. 6d. War Savings up to £375 are ignored. So I think we have tried to meet the position fairly.
Another question which was raised was that of off-duty accidents, resulting in disability or death. We have made a big alteration in this matter since the Royal Warrant of 1939 was brought before the House, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will receive the approval of hon. Members. But it is not by any means an easy question whether compensation should be given for an accident which occurs while a man is not on duty, while he is able to do what he likes and is taking the risks which an ordinary citizen takes. I have gone into the matter very care-

1929
fully and have consulted my Advisory Committee, who have given me various opinions on the matter. I have tried to relax the rules as much as possible. Let me describe the wide range of circumstances in which the State takes responsibility. There is no question of dispute in respect of accidents which result from enemy action, or in cases where the accident may be attributed to the special circumstances of His Majesty's Forces—and this is very broadly interpreted—or where the accident occurs in barracks or stations, or on the direct journey, there or back, when the man is given compassionate leave to go to his own home, or where he is exposed to exceptional dangers in his place of duty. Cases which we reject are those which arise from the ordinary risks of everyday life, which are equally shared by civilians. If the risks of injury are in no way increased by a man's wearing uniform there is no reason, I suggest, why we should take responsibility. We pay pension to Servicemen for the extra dangers of their duties; but when it is a question of dealing with every accident which may happen, irrespective of the cause, it is a different matter.
There again, you have to take into account the conduct of the man. I could mention many instances in which the man concerned was very foolish. Possibly he was not just as straight up as he ought to have been at the time—he might have been visiting. Men have done the most foolish things, such as climbing on to railways, and trying to stop engines. I doubt whether Members, if they went into all the cases, would have any complaints to make. I know that when a Member gets a case from his own constituency he regards it, quite rightly, as being more important than all the others. I have done the same in the days when I was doing my best from the other side of the House to get pensions for my constituents. I do not say that I favour my constituents now but I see that they get fair play. But there are cases where, with all the sympathy in the world, one could not justify granting a pension.
There is one aspect of this matter on which we are better off than we were during and after the last war. We have a widows', orphans', and old age pensions scheme, which was passed by this House in 1925 and brought into operation early in 1926. That provides for the
1930
widows of insured persons a pension of 10s. a week, with allowances for children. That is not nearly so good as the pension we give Servicemen, and those who have lost their men while serving in the Forces much prefer to have our pension scales. However, the other pension is there. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds has touched a vital spot, and I thank him for bringing the matter forward, because I want it cleared up. Where we cannot give the pension we always do the best we can to see that the case is put up in the proper way to the Ministry of Health, and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend's Department deal with these cases very sympathetically and quickly, and in most cases a pension is awarded. But for the life of me I cannot understand this, and I want it put right. A man who joins the Army, Navy or Air Force immediately has so much stopped from his pay for National Health Insurance, so that he is obviously a contributor, and there is no question about it.
Mr. Belleng: Is the right hon. Gentleman right there? Surely, the man pays 6d. for old age and widows' pension and not National Health Insurance?
Sir W. Womersley: He is insured for National Health Insurance and pension. Officers have it deducted. National Health Insurance contribution is deducted from officers' pay, and I have seen the accounts and checked them for myself. I looked for myself to see if it was true. If a man was a contributor before he joined the Army, his widow would get a pension under the National Health Insurance contributory scheme. If a man was not insured before he joined the Army and had not been in long enough to qualify, his widow would receive no pension either from my Department or the Ministry of Health. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that this is a matter which we ought to square up. I do not say that there are a large number of these women, but there are some, and we get cases frequently. They ought to be admitted into National Health Insurance full benefit right away, or there should be a relaxation of the five years period. There are cases where they have been in for two years, and sometimes nearly three years, and pension has been denied them. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that there ought to be some new provision in the Royal Warrant

1931
so that I could deal with them on the same basis. I look at it from the widow's point of view. It does not matter how her husband lost his life, she has lost the breadwinner, and seeing that there is provision as regards civilian cases, then cases on all fours with civilian cases ought to receive the same pension. I have taken up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. He is very sympathetic. It is a subject that requires legislation before it could be put into effect. It would mean an amendment by this House of the National Health Insurance Acts or of the Royal Warrant. My view is that the simplest and easiest way to deal with it would be to see that these men were declared into full benefit when they joined the Services. That is an addition that we could make, and I hope that we shall make it.
The hon. lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) mentioned the question of War Service Grants. I assure her that I am carrying out what I said I would do in the House last week. That was the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) about the question of increasing the minimum unit figure. I have thought of that matter before. Still, I was grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it, because it brought it to the attention of the House. I promised to give the matter consideration, and later last Thursday the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House, who gave an assurance that these matters were being considered. I cannot discuss them to-day, and I hope the hon. Lady will not object because they say it is sub judice at the moment. But I shall take notice of what she said, just as I take notice of those billets doux she sends me now and then.
Miss Ward: Does the Minister intend to consult his War Service Grants Committee on this matter?
Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Lady knows that the War Service Grants Committee advises on many things and considers cases of difficulty arid doubt. They have done valuable work, and I want to pay tribute to the members of the Committee for what they have been doing week after week. But there are occasions when matters of Government policy arise,
1932
and if I went to committee after committee and a decision was not arrived at, I would soon be in trouble in this House. I would be told to give up going to committees. However, as I have said, I want to pay a great tribute to the work which this Committee have been doing.
Miss Ward: Will the Minister let me know whether he intends to consult his War Service Grants Committee, because I think it is vital? It is very nice of him to talk about tributes, but I want to know whether—
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time.
Sir W. Womersley: We will have this little controversy somewhere else, Colonel Clifton Brown. It is a sort of family quarrel. The hon. Lady belongs to my Committee, and I do not want her to leave. In conclusion, I would like to say—
Mr. Buchanan: Does not the Minister intend to say a word on the question which I have previously raised, namely, that of a man who has joined the Forces before hostilities commenced?
Sir W. Womersley: I mentioned that earlier in my speech. I shall be repeating myself if I mention it again, but if hon. Members do not mind, I will do it. I explained that in the light of our experience I obtained permission from this House regarding the question of men taken into the Forces as A.1 and afterwards discharged because of some constitutional disease—
Mr. Buchanan: The Minister does not seem to have my point clearly in his mind. It is this: A man joins the Services before the outbreak of hostilities and loses his life. His widowed mother appeals for a grant, and it is refused on the ground that her son was in the Services before the outbreak of war.
Sir W. Womersley: It is quite right for the hon. Member to bring that case forward on behalf of his constituent—
Hon. Members: It is a general issue.
Sir W. Womersley: I hope hon. Members will not run away with the idea that there are many cases like this, because there are not.
Mr. Buchanan: Then it is all the easier to put them right.
Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Gentleman must have a little patience. He is a first-class debater, but he does not believe that anybody else should state his views. I cannot alter the terms of the conditions under which War Service Grants are made. I have suggested improvements and alterations from time to time, and they have been carried out, and I am prepared to consider any suggestion where it is felt there is some real dissatisfaction. The whole principle of the War Service Grants scheme is that it lays down the difference between a man's position and liabilities before he joins the Forces and the position of those whom he leaves behind after joining the Forces. Although I cannot depart from that principle, I shall be pleased to consider the matter and give the fullest consideration to it. At the moment I am not able to make a grant in the case that has been brought forward by the hon. Member, although, as I have said, I will consider the matter fully in consultation with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
In conclusion, I want to reaffirm what I said in the earlier part of my speech. I welcome criticisms and suggestions from hon. Members, whether they are made in the course of Debate or sent into me without waiting for a Debate. I am only too anxious to do the best that is possible for those who have suffered from and those who have been bereaved by war services. I think hon. Members will agree, if they look through their postbags, that the cases they have put to me and to the Parliamentary Secretary have received personal and careful consideration. I see that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is now present. I am sorry I had to refer in his absence to the case he mentioned, but it fitted into that part of my speech. I want to repeat in his presence that we get our pensions into issue immediately the grant from the Navy, Army or Air Force ceases. In the case which the hon. Member quoted from a newspaper, the woman concerned was drawing full allowances from the Air Force all the time, and when they ceased our pension was in issue the very next week, so that there was no gap whatever. What happened was that she was afraid she was not going to get a pension and got hold of some very smart Aleck
1934
of a reporter, and he said, "Here is something on which I can beat even the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in his newspaper." Let me repeat that I am prepared at any time to receive cases from hon. Members. I want to look into these things and have them put right. I shall benefit considerably from the Debate that has taken place—I shall make a careful study of the OFFICIAL REPORT—and I hope that as a result of the Debate something of real value will accrue to those who have served their country and suffered thereby—those who have given their best to the country.
Mr. Mathers: Arising from what the Minister has just said, may I expect that the reply he has not given me will be given alter he has considered what I put to him in the course of the Debate, and that I shall have a letter from him on the point?
Sir W. Womersley: Certainly, I will look into the matter.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: The sum of £1,000,000,000 is a lot of money, but a lot of purposes are included in this Vote. I notice that this Supplementary Estimate is for the securing of public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of the war. It is also for maintaining services essential to the life of the community, and so forth. I want to show how expenditure is not justified for the following purposes. Various political prisoners are having money expended upon them that is unjustified. Prince Paul of Yugoslavia is justifiably—
The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that Prince Paul of Yugoslavia is outside this Vote of Credit. Prince Paul is interned in Kenya, and the expenses are incurred by that Government and not by the Government of this country. Therefore, that matter is not in Order.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: There are others matters with reference to Prince Paul of Yugoslavia that would be appropriate on this Vote of Credit. I want to ask for your guidance on this matter, Colonel Clifton Brown. Prince Paul's wife, Princess Olga, came over to this country only recently, and I have no doubt that the expenditure for that journey was defrayed by this nation.
The Deputy-Chairman: It is no good the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying he has no doubt that the expenditure comes under the Vote of Credit. It is up to him to prove that it comes under it.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: The terms of this Vote are somewhat vague and all-embracing. Surely this expenditure is also for money which is about to be spent. In that event I should like to know who is to pay for her going back.
The Deputy-Chairman: That would come under the Estimates of the Department which are not included in the Vote of Credit.
Mr. William Brown: I want to take advantage of the opportunity which this Vote gives us to secure from the Government some assurance in respect of the manner in which these moneys will be administered. We are voting £1,000,000,000, and to a large extent the administration of that very large sum will be in the hands of the Civil Service. It is my view that that money is not likely to be spent to the best advantage unless certain reforms are carried through.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that here again the hon. Member is somewhat unfortunate, because Civil Service matters come under the separate Estimates. Civil Service Class VIII (4) is the Estimate under which those matters could be discussed, but not this Vote of Credit.
Mr. Brown: The last thing I want to do is to run counter to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but is it not the case that a similar argument might have been advanced in respect of the whole discussion of the last five hours?
The Deputy-Chairman: The discussion of the last five hours has been on the Ministry of Pensions, which is one of the token Votes that come under the Vote of Credit. That is the difference. Pensions for the Civil Service come under one of the Estimates that I have quoted.
Mr. Brown: It was not pensions for the Civil Service that I wanted to discuss, but the question of the make-up and administration of the Civil Service, which will be handling this money and which will be paid for in part from this money.
The Deputy-Chairman: That will come on the Treasury Vote and not on this.
Mr. Brown: Could you tell me what I should be in Order in raising?
Mr. Gallacher: I will not be tempted to question the conduct of the Chair, but I will make the remark that the Minister was sufficiently courteous to Members of the House to look around and see that there was no other Member on his feet but myself before he took the Box. It is obvious that anyone who cared to wander in had an opportunity to get in before I did. But I should like to mention that the Minister, whatever he was lacking, was not lacking in mendacity. In the course of the very interesting and important speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) he intervened and suggested that the hon. Member was introducing a class argument, forgetting, perhaps desiring to forget, that the full Royal Warrant is class from beginning to end, and the whole attitude of the Minister and the Government is class from beginning to end. If they want to avoid class arguments, let them refrain from class actions. Let them cease to distinguish between one soldier and another and one widow and another. The Minister was full of evasions. One of the most striking was when he was talking of the means test.
The means test has been introduced against the working class and the poorer section of the community. It does not apply to other sections of the community. The fact that the Government are so insistent on maintaining it is an indication that all the talk about a new world after the war is so much wind. It means nothing at all. The Minister says that, if a man is earning a standard wage, surely there is no reason why he should get anything from the Government. The only thing that we can take from that is that the standard wage is the determining factor and even though a man has sons in the Army, he should not get anything. There are working-class mothers who have two sons and two daughters in the Forces, maybe have four sons and two or three daughters in the Forces, but they do not get anything. It is not because there is a standard wage. Forms are handed to them. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied these forms, or whether they have ever seen these people getting their neighbours to come in to help them fill in the forms. It is not the standard Wage which is the determining factor. One has to be very far down

1937
in the poverty scale before there is any allowance, no matter how many children one has in the Army.
Then there was the argument of the Minister that the flat-rate pension during the last war was not as good as many hon. Members thought it ought to be. Of course it was not good. But there should be a flat-rate pension for every mother or father who has a son or daughter in the Forces, and it ought to be sufficient to ensure that they will not be in want, because it is only when they are in want that they have to make an appeal. If they do make an appeal they are subject to all kinds of undesirable questions and to supercilious and arrogant conduct on the part of these people. I recall the experience of an hon. member on the other side of the House, one of the most douce, quiet and respectable Tories there is in Parliament, a very quiet man and very loth to express himself in an angry or vehement manner. Only once have I seen him angry and excited, and that was when I heard him talking about one of his constituents who was interviewed by some of these people. I have never seen a man so enraged.
He said that a constituent went to him in a state of hysteria, crying and breaking her heart because of the language and arrogant attitude of some official who had been interviewing her. No man is less prone than this Member to violent language, but I never heard such violent language as he used about this case. I would have liked the interviewer to have heard what he said. Why should the poorer people have to suffer that? I remember that when we were discussing the means test on another occasion a Member opposite was arguing that a means test was essential where public money was being spent. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) interjected, "What about your own pension? Did you have a means test?" The Member replied, "That is an entirely different matter." Of course it is, because they are entirely different types of people who are concerned. There is no means test for his class. They may have hundreds of thousands of pounds invested in different undertakings, they may have bank books that would choke a horse, and sons earning salaries of all kinds, but no questions are asked when pensions are paid to them. If they were asked ques-
1938
tions about their means they would rend the heavens at such an insult. There should be a flat rate that would eliminate the means test. If any member of the Government is earnest and genuine in talking about the new world, he should get up and say, "We will get rid of the means test as a start."
There are two questions about which I would have taken only two minutes if I could have spoken before the Minister rose. I have written to the Minister scores of letters and have received some very sympathetic replies. He is a sympathetic Minister. In one of the stories of Dickens I seem to remember that he tells of a lot of poor people who lived in Bleeding Heart Yard. There was a nice benevolent old gentleman, and when they went to him and told him their tales of hardship and woe, his heart wept, but he always said, "There is a fellow next door who is a monster of iniquity, and he will not allow me to help you in any way." The Minister is full of sympathy in the same way. He says, "The Royal Warrant and the Regulations are there; the man next door will not let me do anything." Why does he not come forward and get rid of the Royal Warrant and the Regulations? Why does he not open the door and let us see what is behind it? In Dickens' story, when the door was opened nobody was there.
I had a letter from the Minister last week and I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read it. It was about a man who was discharged from the Army. The medical report was that his trouble had not been caused or aggravated by his service and therefore he was to get nothing. The Minister wrote to me to say that he had gone into the matter again and had decided to set aside the medical decision and to give this man a pension. I had to read the letter three or four times. I showed it to several other Members and I asked them: "Will you read this letter for me? Is it true?" It was the first time I had ever known such a thing. I say to the Minister and to the Government that there is no doctor in this country capable of saying whether a man's trouble has or has not been aggravated by his service. If a man has been in the Army, there may have been a period, when he should not have gone through the heavy physical training and exercises, because of his condition. He might have required a certain diet. Months later,

1939
when he has collapsed, no doctor can decide. I often think that the only decent doctor is a horse doctor, because a veterinary surgeon has to discover what is wrong with the animal whereas, when a doctor comes to us, we have to tell him what is the matter with us. I have asked several doctors and they say that no one is capable of giving a judgment on this question.
What should be our attitude towards a man who has been discharged from the Army in those circumstances? The man is classed physically fit, and A.1 when he joins, but six months or 12 months afterwards he is discharged as of no use. The only test which a doctor might be able to make is whether the man concerned is now less able to earn his livelihood than he was when he joined the Army. That is the only test capable of discussion and proof. If the man is less capable, he should be given a measure of compensation in the form of a pension. There will never be any satisfactory solution on the existing lines, and there will always be a feeling of injustice. Two things particularly should be done. The hon. member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) referred to the differentiation among various classes of soldiers and of widows. That should not be tolerated in the circumstances under which we are carrying on at the present time. But apart from all these other matters there is the necessity for ensuring that medical officers are only asked to do a job they are capable of doing, that is, to say whether a man is as fit as he was when he went into the Army. If the man is not, he should be compensated for that. As for the dependants of soldiers, the mother or the father who has one lad or two lads, or lads and lasses, in the Forces, should get, without any hesitation, a substantial flat rate—when we discussed Servicemen's pay I put it at 25s. a week—and the means test should be completely abolished so far as the Servicemen are concerned.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."

CIVIL ESTIMATES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1942.
  CLASS V

    SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions."
    Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
Resolved,
"That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £1,007,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Crookshank.]
Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS
  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]
  ATLANTIC CHARTER (HONG KONG)
  ATLANTIC CHARTER (HONG KONG)
  POST-WAR SETTLEMENT (DISARMAMENT)
  POST-WAR SETTLEMENT (DISARMAMENT)
BRITISH ARMY
  Leave, Northern Ireland
  Leave, Northern Ireland
  Army Bureau of Current Affairs
  Army Bureau of Current Affairs
FUEL AND POWER
  Gas (Restricted Consumption)
  Gas (Restricted Consumption)
  Lost Coal Output (Cost)
  Lost Coal Output (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old Age Pensions
  Old Age Pensions
  Coal Mining Statistics, North Staffordshire
  Coal Mining Statistics, North Staffordshire
  Purchase Tax (Stationery)
  Purchase Tax (Stationery)
  Former Prime Ministers (Pensions)
  Former Prime Ministers (Pensions)
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Building Operatives, Greenock (Transfers)
  Building Operatives, Greenock (Transfers)
  New Factories (Location)
  New Factories (Location)
  Factory Workers (Dental Treatment)
  Factory Workers (Dental Treatment)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk (Collection and Delivery)
  Milk (Collection and Delivery)
  Ministry of Food (Scientific Adviser's Division)
  Ministry of Food (Scientific Adviser's Division)
  Milk Powder
  Milk Powder
  Feeding-Stuffs (Horse-Hiring Establishments)
  Feeding-Stuffs (Horse-Hiring Establishments)
  Aged Women Pensioners (Milk Supplies)
  Aged Women Pensioners (Milk Supplies)
  Director of Oils and Fats (Staff)
  Director of Oils and Fats (Staff)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Industrial Dermatitis
  Industrial Dermatitis
  Nutrition (Research)
  Nutrition (Research)
  Medical Certificates (Fees)
  Medical Certificates (Fees)
  Smallpox Outbreak, Glasgow
  Smallpox Outbreak, Glasgow
  PENSION APPEALS TRIBUNALS (MEDICAL MEMBERS)
  PENSION APPEALS TRIBUNALS (MEDICAL MEMBERS)
  RAILINGS REMOVAL (CEMETERY, LONDON)
  RAILINGS REMOVAL (CEMETERY, LONDON)
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, OXFORD
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, OXFORD

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Mancroft—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do sit in Secret Session.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Secret Session to consider a statement as to future business.—(Viscount cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, in the momentary absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who is in charge of the India and Burma (Temporary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, may I ask on a point of Order, whether it would be possible to proceed with another Bill on the Paper and later revert to the Order of Business on the Order Paper?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the noble Duke is not yet here. I think therefore it would be for the convenience of the House if we took other Orders first, and we could later proceed with the main debate.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Unless this measure, which has already passed the House of Commons, receives your Lordships' assent, there will inevitably be an end of this present Parliament next month at the latest, followed, of course, by a General Election. Whatever may be the argument to be made on the other side, I do not expect that any of your Lordships will doubt that in these circumstances some further prolongation of this Parliament is necessary. Consideration is being given, I believe, by a Committee to the question whether and what reform might be made with a view to simplifying the Register, but as things are the Register is hopelessly out of date, and apart altogether from that, it surely would be a most serious departure from the main and immediate duty of all of us if we were thrown into the turmoil of a General Election, when we have no assurance whatever that, while the General Election was going on, even more critical events might not happen. I therefore submit to this House without any doubt or hesitation that on this ground the measure should be accepted by your Lordships' House.
The second clause of the Bill is of a more special description. It deals with the Lower House in Northern Ireland. By the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Constitution of the Parliament of Northern Ireland is laid down and the House of Commons in Northern Ireland has a maximum life of five years. Those five years would expire in March of next year. It is not competent for the Parliament of Northern Ireland itself to extend that term. They do not of course possess those sovereign powers which we possess, which enable the British Parliament to extend its own life, and we have thought that the proper method to deal with the matter is to provide that there may be an extension for a year of the life of the House of Commons in Northern Ireland but that the decision whether that shall be, or shall not be, shall be left to them by Resolution. No question arises about the Higher House in Northern Ireland because the Senate in Northern Ireland is not directly elected but is chosen by the House of Commons in two halves every four years, the ordinary life of the Senate being eight years. No immediate question arises about that.
These, then, are the two provisions of this Bill—first, the extension of the life of
662
the present Parliament for a maximum of another twelve months, without of course in any way diminishing the Prerogative right to dissolve Parliament sooner should circumstances make it right to do so; and, secondly, this provision for the House of Commons of Northern Ireland will correspond with the provision we are making for ourselves, except that we leave it to them by Resolution to determine whether they will, or will not, take advantage of the power of prolonging their life which this Bill will give them.
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.

WELSH COURTS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which also comes to us from the House of Commons and it contains an interesting provision with which I hope the House will have full sympathy. It is a provision that in the Courts of Wales, which for this purpose includes Monmouthshire, any party or any witness may claim the right to speak in the Welsh language. There are supplementary provisions for interpretation, which, of course, are necessary. I call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill confers this facility as a right. There may be some who might think it more reasonable to have said that the Court or the judge should decide whether, in a given case, the individual really needed this facility. We have thought it better to go further. I would ask your Lordships special attention to this fact. It does not at all follow, because a man or a woman can use a language like English with apparent facility for social purposes or other purposes, that if that person's natural language is not English—is Welsh—it would be fair to expect the use of English by that individual in a court of law. It may be very easy at the beginning of the examination of a witness. In my experience the first few questions are nearly always answered correctly—"What is your name?" "Where do you live?" "What is your occupation?" It is seldom that the witness goes wrong in answering that sort of question; but when we come to

663
more precise matters, whether in examination or cross-examination, it is a great thing to be entitled to use your native tongue.
I fancy that though this House includes many members accomplished in modern foreign languages, it would be found, if some of your Lordships were giving evidence in a foreign court of law, no matter how accomplished you were in that tongue, you would prefer none the less to use your own. This is the claim that is made, and it is a claim with which I entirely sympathize. I believe it is right that we should make this provision, and thereby remove what is beyond all question a real sense of grievance. How far the existing situation has led to more than a sense of grievance I shall not discuss, because I am sure there has been a general effort made to see that the administration of the law in Wales should not be surrounded by difficulties in the matter of language. None the less, it is an obstacle to the proper conduct of justice that people in any area should honestly feel a sense of grievance, and it is the earnest desire of the Government to remove that grievance once and for all.
The other provision of the Bill has a curious and archaic appearance. It is the repeal of a section of a particular Statute of King Henry VIII. It is remarkable that though King Henry VIII belonged to the only dynasty which was definitely Welsh in our history, he none the less succeeded—or Parliament did in his time—in legislating in terms which are regarded by many Welshmen as extremely offensive. There is no question that the vigorous language of the Tudors is hardly what one expects in the modern Statute Book, and would be entirely contrary to the traditions of your Lordships' House. We propose, therefore, to repeal this section outright, and thereby to remove a sense of grievance which has been genuinely entertained by many in Wales. The provision as to interpreters will be seen on the face of the Bill. It is manifestly wrong to require the individual to pay for the interpreter. That will be one of the charges—comparatively small in these cases—which will fall on the Exchequer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, in view of the position in which we stand in our discussions this afternoon, I shall condense into a few sentences what I have to say in reference to this Bill. But the House will understand that I have some special interest in the matter. I am one of the few Welsh-speaking members of this House. I have had a long experience of Parliamentary life in both Houses, and I should like to say that the question which is dealt with in this Bill has had a large place in the mind of Wales for many years. Further, I happen to have had the honour for many years of being Chairman of the bench of magistrates in my division, and I have, therefore, a close knowledge of the situation which this Bill is designed to remedy. I fully concur in what the Lord Chancellor has said in reference to the difficulty and the injustice involved in the ban upon the Welsh language in giving evidence. It is perfectly true that most Welsh-speaking witnesses are able to speak on ordinary topics of the day in English, but that is a very different matter from giving evidence in a court of law in English. I need not pursue that matter because it is a wrong that is to be put right by this Bill.
I should, however, like before I sit down to say how glad I was to hear the Home Secretary, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, state that in his opinion the prohibition of the Welsh language in the Courts in Wales was offensive to national sentiment. I quite understand there may be a number of members of this House who have not had a full opportunity of understanding Wales, but no one can understand Wales unless he recognizes that the Welsh language to the people of Wales is a matter of supreme importance, and is a matter which they consider essential to the development of the best national characteristics. I do not intend to delay this debate by any further remarks except to say again that, in my view, this is a measure of reform which is considerably overdue, and which is appreciated by the people of Wales. I hope also that it will be remembered in connexion with the larger issue which lies behind this Bill—the question of nationality. I hope that we shall in future, in regard to the development of nationality, either in Wales or elsewhere, keep our eyes upon the wider significance of nationality, as we must do

665
if we are to face the future with any degree of success. I am of opinion that Wales can and will play a not unimportant part in that achievement—the achievement of bringing into the life of the future in connexion with nationality, not only the development of its own interests, but the making of a contribution to the service and stability of international interests as well. I desire to thank the Government for bringing in this Bill at this time particularly, a time of considerable difficulty, and for giving the necessary facilities for passing it into law.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, although this Bill had a rapid and unopposed passage in another place, and although it will doubtless receive the same treatment in this House, will you permit me who, as a junior counsel on the South Wales circuit, practised in the local Welsh Courts, and who, as one of His Majesty's Judges of Assize, has presided at Assizes in every Welsh county, to join in the chorus of congratulation and thanks to the Lord Chancellor and the Government for reform of a system which has for too long created a feeling of soreness and injustice amongst Welshmen and those who sympathize with them? I do so for two short reasons. First, this Bill is right and just. Do not, my Lords, imagine that Welsh is a dead language, that it is an object for scholars only, to be acquired by the laborious use of dictionary and grammar or by the easier aid of books with the Welsh on one side and the English on the other. It is a living language spoken by thousands of Welsh men and women, it is the language of their homes, and with many of them it is the language of their first and last thoughts. It is the vehicle with which they express their most sacred hopes and wishes, and in many of the Christian churches in Wales the Welsh Bible is constantly read. They have their Welsh Prayer Books and hymn books. Do not imagine that those books are the books of a generation which has passed away. The latest Welsh hymn book was published as recently as last year and contains as many as 750 Welsh hymns and Welsh translations. It has always seemed to me strange that although Welshmen praise God in their own language, they should not be permitted to speak their own tongue as a right in a court of law.
Secondly, this Bill will facilitate and promote the administration of justice.
666
Many Welshman who speak English think in Welsh. I have often observed that in this House even some of our most eloquent speakers and skilful debaters pause for a moment to get the precise word or to find the exact expression. No doubt many members of this House read French easily and speak it well; many speak it perfectly; yet how should we like to be examined and cross-examined in French? Should we not be rather nervous and embarrassed witnesses and fail to do ourselves justice? We should possibly be thinking in English and having to answer in French. Those who have heard, as I have heard, hundreds and hundreds of cases in Welsh Courts will appreciate the position. I for one welcome this long-delayed reform, and I rejoice, as I am sure your Lordships will rejoice, that the dream of generations of Welshmen has come true at last.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, may I add a few words in support of the views expressed by my two noble friends? I think the Government is to be congratulated on having introduced this Bill. It is a measure which is long overdue, for, as the Lord Chancellor has stated, ever since the clays of Henry VIII the language of my country has been more or less ostracized in His Majesty's courts of law. Those of us who speak from these Benches welcome this Bill because for many years past it has been sponsored by the Liberal Party and has been included in its programmes. To-day, although we are in the throes of a world war, the Government propose to remove this grievance and to confer the status of equality upon the English and Welsh languages in the administration of justice. As I have indicated, the grievance is a long-standing one, and it is a grievance in two senses. In the first place it casts a slur upon Wales, and it is an affront to every patriotic Welshman. Secondly, it impedes, and in some cases has frustrated, the administration of justice in our Courts. I need not remind your Lordships that equality in the sight of the law is one of the most cherished principles in every free and democratic country. As noble Lords have already pointed out, in the case of citizens who are accustomed in their daily life to think in Welsh and to express themselves in their own language, how is it possible

667
to secure this equality and to arrive at the truth and administer justice unless they are allowed to speak in their native tongue? Consequently I submit that from the practical standpoint this Bill will facilitate the administration of the law in our Courts.
There is another equally important principle underlying this Bill: the principle of toleration. No free or democratic community can function properly unless it is prepared to practise toleration. That is surely one of the essential differences between democratic countries and totalitarian States. In the Atlantic Charter this principle finds its expression in our war aims. It is satisfactory to note that the Government have recognized the need for its application here at home and that they have decided to promote this Bill. I recollect that a few years after the last war an International Conference, which included representatives almost from every country in Europe, was held at Aberystwyth, and the Conference paid a visit to the town of Tregaron, the birthplace of Henry Richard, who used to be known as the member for Wales, and who acted as secretary of the Peace Society of Great Britain for a great many years. At this meeting several speeches were delivered in Welsh, and our continental friends were deeply impressed. They expressed great surprise that in a country which they imagined was an English-speaking country speeches should be tolerated in any other language. This Bill is in effect a recognition of the right to free expression.
It may also, I think, be regarded as an admission on the part of the Government and of Parliament of the claims of Welshmen for a larger measure of freedom in the conduct of their domestic affairs. I hope that this Bill will be the fore-runner of other Bills and other measures, and that the Government will shortly introduce a Bill, long overdue, establishing a Welsh Office and a Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is not an unreasonable demand. The Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland are part and parcel of our national life. Why, therefore, I would ask, should Wales be left out in the cold? Why should we be deprived of a status equal to that of Scotland? If the arrangements have worked so well for so many years
668
in the case of Scotland, why should they not do so in the case of Wales? I submit that this is also overdue. It is only an elementary act of justice to the Welsh people, and I would very respectfully urge upon the Government the importance of acceding to this request at the earliest possible moment. I think your Lordships will agree that nothing is to be gained by ignoring the reasonable demands of my fellow-countrymen for such a measure of devolution which will not only enable them to exercise greater control over their own affairs, but will also tend to lighten the burdens of Parliament. To delay is merely to play into the hands of extremists and separatists who at present only represent a small and irresponsible fraction of our people.
Wales played her part nobly in winning the last war. To-day her sons are fighting in every theatre of war. I believe that they will welcome this Bill as a gesture on the part of the Government. They will regard it as an assurance that Parliament is favourably disposed towards the claims of their native land, and that in helping to defeat the common enemy they are creating conditions which will enable the smaller nations to make their contributions to the sum of human progress and the advancement of civilization. Fy Arglwyddi, Diolch eto ir Llywodraeth; Cawson ateb i'n cais ar adeg anodd; Maent wedi cydnabod cyfiawnder ein howl, i gydraddoldeb yng ngolwg y gyfraith, gan ei gorffori yn y Mesur hwn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA AND BURMA (TEMPORARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I owe an apology to your Lordships for having been somewhat late in arriving and for having been responsible for an alteration in the order of the business before the House. I apologize most sincerely. I had been led to believe that the Secret Session would last somewhat longer than it did and that my presence would not be required so soon.

669
Perhaps, after the debate to which your Lordships have just listened, I ought also to apologize for being unable to address you in Welsh. I can promise your Lordships that I will not do so until I have attained far greater facility in that language than the noble Lord who has just made his peroration.
I think the convenience of the House will best be served if I first take your Lordships briefly through the clauses of the Bill, then make a brief statement on the condition of affairs in India which has, unhappily, made its introduction necessary, and then leave it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to any points that may be raised. The object of Section 1 of the Bill is to extend the present statutory limits on the period during which temporary arrangements may be made to meet a failure of the normal constitutional machinery in the Provinces. Section 93 of the Government of India Act, which makes provision for this situation, was first invoked in the autumn of 1939, when the Congress Party Ministries which then held office in eight of the eleven Provinces of India resigned. The three Provinces not affected were Bengal, the Punjab and Sind. In Assam an alternative Ministry was formed. In the remaining seven Provinces no alternative Ministry could be found and the Governors were therefore obliged, on dates varying between October 30 and November 10, 1939, to issue Proclamations taking over control of the Administration.
These Proclamations are dependent on Parliamentary approval for their continuance in force, firstly, after an initial period of six months and, secondly, thereafter after periods of twelve months, but no Proclamation may, in any event, under the Act now in force, be continued for a total period exceeding three years. In one of the seven Provinces, generally called the Section 93 Provinces—namely, Orissa—the Governor found it possible in November, 1941, to cancel his predecessor's Proclamation and to return to the normal constitutional machinery of Ministerial government. There remain six Provinces — Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, Central Provinces and Berar, Bihar and the North-West Frontier Province—in which there is at present no prospect of a Ministry being formed to take over the Administration. In those Provinces no statutory sanction will re-
670
main for the present or for any alternative Administration, and arrangements are necessary whereby the Section 93 Proclamations, which will lapse in the course of a few days now, can be replaced. The simplest and indeed the only solution in present circumstances is to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, so as to enable existing, or any subsequent, Proclamations to remain in force, subject always, as now, to periodic review by Parliament. That arrangement is to hold good until twelve months after the end of the war. That is the main provision of the Bill before your Lordships.
The purpose of Clause 2 is to assist the authorities in India in their task of maintaining law and order under conditions of emergency arising out of the war, by facilitating the prompt execution of death sentences and thereby investing them with their full deterrent value. In view of the near approach of the enemy to India, the Governor-General has promulgated Ordinances this year which enable Provincial Governments to introduce the death penalty for various crimes, such as sabotage and looting, and to set up Special Criminal Courts like War Zone Courts when an emergency occurs in or near India. I hope your Lordships will not think that repressive measures are to be taken. The measures resemble very closely those measures which were made possible in this country when invasion seemed imminent or at least possible. Sentences, including death sentences, passed by such Criminal Courts are final after confirmation by a reviewing Judge, who must be a High Court Judge.
There is no appeal to a High Court from the latter's judgment, but persons sentenced by these Special Courts may exercise the same rights as persons sentenced by ordinary Courts. That is to say, they may petition the Crown for mercy and they may apply to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. Petitions for mercy are disposed of in India by the Governor-General in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative which has been delegated to him. This Bill leaves those petitions where they were, and the disposal of them entails no undue delay. The position about applications to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal is somewhat different. But very substantial delay might, in fact would almost certainly, be caused if the execution of the sentences of these

671
Special Courts had to be deferred until application to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal had been considered and disposed of. Such applications are, under the existing normal law, received every year by the Privy Council in very considerable numbers, but instances of special leave to appeal being granted—that is, instances of cases in which some special cause for appeal, some irregularity in the law almost may possibly exist—are extremely rare. It is a fact that the only practical result of these appeals, and indeed, the only result which encourages prisoners under sentence to make these appeals, is that the execution of their sentence is deferred for some months. Now this substantial delay must tend to nullify the deterrent effect of death sentences passed by the Emergency Courts, and passed under conditions of grave emergency where most prompt and energetic measures are necessary to deal with such offences—and very grave offences they are in time of war—as looting or sabotage. That is the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill.
I need not keep your Lordships more than a moment on Clause 3. This clause enables the Central Legislature in India to declare that an office of profit under the Crown does not, or need not, disqualify its holder from being a member of either House of Parliament in India. Provincial Legislatures already have this power, but although it was intended to be conferred upon the Central Legislature in India by the Act of 1935, the fact that Federation has not yet come about has rendered inoperative the sections of that Act conferring this power, and non-official members are, in fact, unable to retain their seats if they accept offices in the service of the Crown in India. The Government of India have, in fact, found that their lack of power to remove this disqualification has hampered their war effort. Several members of the Central Legislature have been deterred from accepting important war-time positions, such as Commissions in the Army or as recruiting officers, for fear of losing their seats. The clause is given retrospective effect in order to deal with the cases of some members who have accepted war-time appointments such as Commissions or positions as recruiting officers or hold Commissions in the Indian Army Reserve, and have been called up for duty from time to time. It
672
is really a drafting amendment in a way, in that the Government of India Act, which was intended to control these powers, for purely technical reasons has not conferred them, and this is designed to put that matter right. It is already within the power of the Provincial Legislatures but not in the power of the Central Legislature.
Clause 4 is designed to remedy certain drafting defects in the Government of India Act which experience has brought to light. The declared intention of subsection (2) of Section 298 of that Act was to prevent the alienation, and to preserve the possession by the traditional agricultural owners, of rural land in India. Such legislation is a fundamental part of the social and economic structure of certain parts of India, and more especially of the Punjab. Opposition to it comes mostly from the moneylenders or Bunnia class. It has been found in practice that the purpose of the Act can be, and in fact frequently is, nullified by fictitious transactions and this clause is designed to close this loophole, the existence of which, in the view of the Punjab Government, may have far-reaching repercussions and lead to grave discontent among those classes from which the greatest number of Army recruits are obtained. The opportunity is taken of improving the drafting of the paragraph in sonic respects, but these are purely matters of drafting with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
Clause 5 deals with various matters arising from the facts that there is to-day in India a Government of Burma, functioning on the soil of India and engaged in the reorganization of the Burma Army, and also that there are a certain number of cases pending before the Burma Courts which it is desirable to have settled. The clause provides for the function and duties of the Burma Government to be exercised on Indian soil, and for those cases which were already before the Burma Courts to be concluded before Indian Courts.
That, my Lords, is the. Bill. I have explained the clauses, I think, tolerably fully, and as your Lordships will have seen, the majority of them, except Clause 1, are really matters of drafting, or of technical amendment to existing legislation. But Clause 1 does deal with the whole question of the political situation

673
in India, and about that your Lordships will expect me to say something. We last debated this subject some six months ago, very soon after the return of the Lord Privy Seal from India. As your Lordships will remember, the position then was that one more, the last, of our sustained and continuous efforts to endow India with full self-government had broken down and had stuck upon the sandbank of the Congress Party's unwillingness to come to any compromise, either with other Indian Parties or sections of opinion or with the Government of India or with the Government here at home. I want to make it very clear to your Lordships that that was the obstacle to agreement being reached. It was the absolute nature of the Congress Party's claim to be the one and only heir of the Raj which the British Government were not only willing but anxious to transfer to Indian hands; it was the Congress Party's claim to be the sole mouthpiece of Indian nationalism, the only representative of Indian opinion. That, of course, is very far indeed from being the fact.
The Congress Party, it is true, is the largest political Party in India, but there are other vast elements in India which it is quite impossible to ignore. To have handed over to the Congress Party the Government of India without having balanced and harmonized the claims of these various elements—in the aggregate greatly outnumbering the Congress Party and still more vastly exceeding that Party in their contribution to India's war effort—could have, and would have, led to nothing but chaos. On the other hand, to attempt to form a Government representative of the other Indian Parties without the co-operation of Congress would have provided a far less satisfactory solution. But even that solution seems to be ruled out by the mutually incompatible claims of the Mahasabha—the second largest Hindu Party—and the Moslem League. Hence the deadlock, a deadlock for which the British Government are most unreasonably being blamed. Since the breakdown which the Congress Party quite deliberately brought about, the Government of India have been confronted with a formidable conspiracy, a conspiracy designed to paralyse the Government of India. Mr. Gandhi has chosen to call this a non-violent campaign, but phrases do not alter facts, and in
674
fact the campaign could scarcely have had a less non-violent character. Sixty Government servants, the enormous majority of them Indians, have lost their lives, and some 650 have been wounded. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the steadfast courage and resolution with which the vast majority of the Indian Police and the Indian civil servants have faced this time of trial.
I do not want by any words of mine to indicate that the Government of India are out of the wood yet. The position in some parts of India is still serious, and it is a sinister and significant fact that the disorders, which have been principally directed against communications—railways, omnibuses, telegraphs, and so forth—have been most serious in those parts of India where any interruption of communications would have been most paralysing in the event of a Japanese invasion. There is no direct evidence—none whatever, and I should like to emphasize that fact—that any enemy political influences have been at work in India, but there is evidence, and strong evidence, that the Congress Party has so directed its campaign as to do the maximum damage to India's war effort and to render India vulnerable in the most dangerous quarter. As I said before, I have been careful to avoid giving the impression that we are out of the wood in India. The position is still serious, and sporadic outrages occur daily; but there are quite clear indications not only that the vast majority of the people of India are heartily tired of the Congress Party's campaign, but that very many of the Congress Party's own supporters are themselves wearying of it.
I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the Government of India's troubles are at any rate not diminished by political agitation and exhortation from outside India. We—and by "we" I mean the Government here and the Government of India—have for some months past been subject to what I think it is not unreasonable to describe as persistent barracking to make some speculative move. I will come in a few moments to the question of what, if any, spectacular move we might take; but for the moment I want your Lordships to think of the effect not only in India but in Russia, in the United States, in the Dominions, in

675
China and, last but not least, here at home, of the never-ending rain or hail of speeches and articles urging that we should do something—something that is never specified—and do it forthwith. The effect on the Congress Party is undoubtedly a very bad one. There is evidence, as I have said, that the so-called non-violent campaign, which has in fact proved to be a campaign of violence punctuated by occasional incidents of quite abominable atrocities, is on the wane; but when we are being pressed from left, right and centre to make some further spectacular move it is hardly reasonable to hope that that campaign will be called off.
The infinitesimally small minority of the Indian people who are carrying on this campaign are showing signs of weariness, but it is hardly reasonable to hope that they will finally lose heart while they continue to receive so much encouragement as they are receiving from here. So long as articles continue to appear, and so long as speeches continue to be made, whether by Prelates or by politicians, putting the blame for the present deadlock in India upon His Majesty's Governments either here or in India, and urging that the next move lies with them, so long will the organizers of disorder in India continue to believe that they have only a few more telegraph wires to cut, only a few more fishplates to tear up, only a few more packets of phosphorus to put in a few more pillar-boxes, only a few more 'bus or tram depots to attack, to enforce a large-scale retreat on His Majesty's Government and to impose their will on the peoples of India. We are still more or less a free country, and for my own part—I am not speaking now as a member of the Government—I should not only deplore but fight against to the very limits of my ability any restriction whatever on the free expression of opinion either by pressmen, politicians or Prelates.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, the noble Duke looks at me on each occasion. May I ask him to make plainer what he means by "Prelates"? The only time that I have spoken on this matter has been in support of the Government.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I intended to pass no reflection whatever on the most reverend Prelate; I was only looking to see what Prelates were there.
676
I should never countenance any attempt to control the Press; on the other hand, I think it is reasonable that the Press should exercise due responsibility in what it says. I have been nettled, as many of your Lordships have, by expressions of opinion in what, for want of a better or more English description, I may perhaps be allowed to describe as the "Leftish" Press—expressions such as "We cannot undertake offensive operations against the Japanese in Burma with a hostile India behind us." The words "a hostile India behind us" are an actual quotation. Whoever expressed that opinion was grossly wrong. India is not hostile to our cause, not by a very long way. India has made and is making a really magnificent and a constantly growing contribution to the Empire's war effort. I have mentioned this to your Lordships before, and I do not want to weary you by repeating anything that I have said already; but it is a fact that Indian soldiers in this war have fought as well as any soldiers in the world's history have ever fought, and they fight out of loyalty to the King-Emperor; that is their governing motive.
I do not quarrel with expressions of opinion by more or less irresponsible journalists, but I think I am entitled to complain when positive misstatements of fact are made by what is still the most powerful and the most highly respected organ of opinion in the world. The Times newspaper a few days ago published a leading article in which it was stated, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact, that India's war effort could be multiplied ten times over if the political difficulties could be removed; and the article went on to indicate—and here we pass from the realm of fact to the realm of fiction—that the removal of those difficulties lay within the power of His Majesty's Government. The statement of fact is demonstrably and ludicrously false. It cannot seriously be maintained that India could raise, train and equip 700,000 recruits per month, maintain in the field an Army of well over 10,000,000, supply 200 per cent. of the personnel of the Mercantile Marine—I could go on multiplying instances almost indefinitely. At the present moment the limiting factor to the expansion of India's war effort, whether in the field or in the factory, is not the lack of willing recruits—we could take in many more than we are getting now—or

677
of willing workers—unskilled perhaps but willing—but of equipment, machine tools and factory plant, officers and technicians to train and lead. These are limitations imposed not by political considerations but by our want of pre-war preparation. How can it be seriously maintained that a political settlement, however satisfactory, can remedy this?
I do not for one moment maintain that India's effort, gigantic though it is—and it is gigantic—might not be increased, any more than I maintain that our own is incapable of expansion. In war-time we should never be satisfied with any efforts. But if India's war effort is capable of expansion it is also capable of diminution; and I would remind your Lordships of the fact that by concessions to this or that section of India—and that is what we are being asked to make now; we have made all that we can make in this country—by this or that concession it would be a great deal easier to halve or quarter India's war effort by some unwise step than to increase it by 10 per cent., let alone by 1,000 per cent.
What is it that it is proposed we should do next? I confess that I get weary when I hear all these endless exhortations to the Government to "take the initiative," or do something "constructive." These words come very readily to men's lips and pens, but what do they really mean? The Lord Privy Seal went out to India with a full, comprehensive offer of self-government for India, should India be able to accept it. Did that show a lack of initiative? Has anyone yet suggested anything more boldly constructive? He made great and sustained efforts to get that offer accepted—as your Lordships remember, he overstayed his original time-table by a long time—but it was not accepted, not because it was not sufficiently comprehensive—we offered literally all that we had to offer—but because we were not prepared to offer what was not ours. Now it is suggested that we shall do something more, that in some way a further advance shall be initiated from here. I believe that the next move must come from India, that when that fact is realized the next move may come, but that until it is realized the deadlock will continue.
We have in England an old saying that one man can put a cock in a pit but a hundred cannot make him fight if he
678
does not want to. It is rather the same with self-government. It may be offered, or it may be seized; you may endow a country with self-governing institutions, but you most certainly cannot impose them. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the House of Commons a few days ago, our policy in India is not one of reluctant retreat but of willing advance, not one of enforced abdication, but of freely proffered partnership in freedom. That is the fact; self-government for India was the ultimate goal of British statesmanship long before there was any conscious demand for it in India, long before there was such a thing as the Congress Party.
"I most emphatically affirm that for us to preside over this transition from the fifth European century in some parts, in slow, uneven stages, up to the twentieth—so that you have before you all the centuries at once, as it were—for us to preside over that and to be the guide of people in that condition, is if conducted with humanity and sympathy, with wisdom and political courage, not only a human duty and a great national honour, but what was called the other day one of the most glorious tasks ever confided to any country."
Those words were spoken by Lord Morley in this House in 1908. In the years which have intervened great progress has been made, progress greater than has been made in the same number of years at any time or in any country. It is true that India has not vet attained full self-government, but she has made great strides towards it, and the fact that she has not yet attained it is not due to our failure to proffer the prize but to the failure of some, not all, Indian hands to grasp it when proffered.
In surveying a picture of the vastness and complexity of that which is presented by the great sub-continent of India, it is surely a mistake to take a short view. Six months is a long time in the eyes of a politician whose horizon is the next General Election. Six months or a year is not such a very long time in the eyes of an historian. The period of delay which has been imposed upon Indian progress by the recalcitrance of the Congress Party may be longer than six months, longer even that a year. Let no friend of progress lose heart. We should not be deterred from our purpose by a delay of six months or a year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, we have before us to-day two issues, it seems to me—the Bill of which the noble Duke has moved the Second Reading, and the speech which he has delivered. In regard to the Bill, I have to say on behalf of my noble friends and those with whom I am associated that we recognize the necessity and give the Bill our support, and I do not propose to say anything more as to the contents of the Bill itself. But I confess I am not altogether quite so happy about the speech which the noble Duke made. I recognize his difficulties—God forbid that I should seek to add to them. I have in times past been a Minister and received deputations who set out their grievances, sometimes not without exaggeration, and who demanded at the end that something had to be clone about it, without specifying what, or how. I quite recognize that that is the lot of every Government and every Department, but it is the business both of the Government and of the Department to suggest expedients tirelessly and with infinite patience and infinite good will. I am still asking myself why it was that the noble Duke laid about him so vigorously. What have we done to deserve these castigations? Even The Times newspaper and unnamed Prelates were included, as well as those with what the noble Duke called "Leftish" tendencies. Really, with great respect, I do not see how that is going to help matters much. The position is very grave. We all welcomed the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place on October 8, that the offer taken to India by the Lord Privy Seal was a genuine offer then and stands to-day. Since then there has been the breakdown to which the noble Duke referred, but it is legitimate to ask, is it all that the Government can do simply to say, "There is our offer, we stand by it"? I noticed that the noble Duke emphasized the words "last offer." There never is a "last."
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: In process of time—as a matter of history.
LORD ADDISON: If the noble Duke had said "the most recent" I should not have called attention to the adjective.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Perhaps I am unlike the noble Lord in that I never use two words when one will serve.
LORD ADDISON: But the noble Duke used the wrong word. That is what I am complaining about. I do not like the expression "last offer." I am suggesting that there is no "last offer" in progressive government. It is up to the British Government to try and devise an alternative offer. At all events I am protesting against the use of the word "last" at this particular juncture. It was a very unfortunate term. It would have been better if the noble Duke had said "the most recent offer." I was more comforted by what the Deputy Prime Minister said in the other place in the same connexion when he stated we had over and over again invited the Indian leaders to come together and agree. Is that enough either? I wonder. I am not saying anything to minimize in any way the difficulties of the situation, but I cannot but think that the speech of the Prime Minister, which some of us did not like as much as we should have wished, will now be classed with the speech of the noble Duke as not being so helpful as it might be just now. I am not satisfied that the speech of the noble Duke represents all that a wide-minded leadership should provide.
It is true—and I would not differ a word from what was said about this aspect—that the attitude of the Congress Party seems to me, quite frankly, speaking with a Western mind, impossible. The conception of democracy which the Congress Party seems to have is not one with which we can have any affinity. It does, in fact, mean the domination of the rest of the people by a section, which is contrary to every principle embodied in the term "democracy."' We cannot, I agree entirely, leave out those great sections of that sub-continent which Congress does not purport to represent, and with which indeed it is continually at difference. It is also obvious that a Government cannot abdicate its functions in the face of civil disobedience. The noble Duke was right when he said that civil disobedience is bound to be attended by disorder; it could not be otherwise. So far as that aspect of it is concerned, all of us would feel that the Government must be supported. Whilst Mr. Gandhi does, in fact, seem to shirk responsibility, there are, and have been since the beginning of the breakdown, a large number of responsible Indian leaders who, with great cordiality and I am sure good will, have sought to

681
be helpful in finding a way out of the present difficulties.
I think we are entitled to look to the Government to provide something more helpful than the speech which the noble Duke has delivered. He did not exaggerate, I am sure, the immense help we are getting from India, and I am sure he is right when he said that India hates the thought of Japanese aggression, and that in fact the efforts of the civil disobedience movement would help the aggressor. That is obvious. Every indication is that the vast majority of the people of India have no support for action of that kind. Therefore we cannot exaggerate the tribute we pay to the help which India, all over, is voluntarily giving; but that makes the responsibility of the British Government all the greater, not to be too stand-offish, but to make use as far as it can of all the elements of good will which there are in India, not simply to say "This is our last offer," not to adopt that attitude of standing upon a particular position and refusing to depart from it. I cannot but think that it is the duty of the Government to mobilize, and use with every possible resource that may suggest itself, all the good will that is available in India. We are right in asking the Government not to adopt the aggressive tone which the noble Duke has displayed to-day, but to develop to the utmost possible degree every avenue of friendly approach that opens out and becomes possible, because democratic institutions only advance successfully by a display of infinite patience and infinite good will, and I hope we shall see more of both of these in the attitude of the Government on this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we all agree, I think, that there is really no alternative to the introduction of some such measure as this. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I will not attempt to discuss in any way the clauses of the Bill, but confine myself to one or two observations on the general question. Though there may be no alternative to this Bill, there are no doubt many people who, as has been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken, cherish a hope that it may be possible for His Majesty's Government to make some further move, and to adopt that attitude which people describe as conciliation when they approve of it and as appease-
682
ment when they dislike it. I think it will also be generally agreed that to attempt appeasement on the Government's part in the sense in which that word is now used would be wrong and futile.
There is one definite fact that divides His Majesty's o Government from the extreme attitude of the Congress Party. In matters of policy or matters of administration somebody must have the final decision, must have the last word, and the Congress Party so far has not budged from the attitude of demanding that they should have that last word. The last word now is not, as some would say, with the Viceroy, or even with the Viceroy's Council or even with the India Office here. The last word is with Parliament, with the other place and ourselves, and, whether it be the Viceroy or the Secretary of State, he has to obey the direction of Parliament or disappear from office. That I think shows that the alteration on which some people have based their hopes, that the administration of India in this country should be transferred from the India Office to the Dominions Office, is not a course which it is possible to take. If the present functions and powers of the India Office were to be transferred to the Dominions Office, that of course would mean from the Congress point of view that the change was a mere imposture. If, on the other hand, the powers relating to India were only to be exercised as they are exercised in the case of the other Dominions, that of course would mean a complete surrender to the Congress Party Will. Therefore I think that that particular solution will have to be dismissed.
Some people say, "After all, these extreme leaders of Congress may be anti-British, but that does not mean that they are pro-Nazi, and they would object quite as strongly to a German victory as we should ourselves." Well, that may be so. Congress leaders would not welcome a German domination to take the place of what they consider to be a British domination; they would probably adopt the view of the Spanish: "The devil you know is better than the devil you do not know." But in some cases I am sure it is the fact that they are not so much anti-British as anti-European. What they desire is to see India. independent as a part of the great continent of Asia, and I do not think it is at all impossible that if

683
the events of the war tended in that direction they would be quite willing, and even more than willing, to attempt to make a bargain with Japan even at the cost of assuming a somewhat inferior position in Asia, still with complete severance of ties with Europe. I should be sorry to believe that there is no hope of any kind of renewal of understanding with India before the close of the war, although I cannot go so far as Lord Addison did in hoping that it would not be difficult apparently for the Government to make terms with the more moderate elements in India.
As I have often said in this House and elsewhere, I have always believed that the road to a freer and self-governing India could be found rather by the extension of provincial administration and powers than by adding strength at the centre. I have sometimes gone as far as to wonder whether we have not in the whole course of our administration in India begun at the wrong end, and attempted to institute something in imitation of our Parliamentary system, instead of working up from the bottom and developing first the village councils, and then going on to the larger areas before we thought of giving the greater legislative powers at all. However, that is a subject upon which it is not possible to dwell now. But I do wonder whether, even before the whole reconstitution of India can be considered, it might not be possible to recreate something in the shape of self-governing Provinces. The difficulties are, of course, obvious. The noble Duke explained that five Provinces are still holding out for the views of the extreme Congress Party. Only one, Orissa, has been able to be reconstituted as a self-governing Province. If in the course of events it is found that that example can be followed by some other Provinces—and I entirely agree that in the long run the boundaries of the existing Presidencies and Provinces might well be reconsidered—it might be a start towards a closer understanding with India. I was greatly encouraged in reading the book lately published by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has had first-hand experience of Indian administration, to find that he believes that the future Constitution of India would have to be worked out on some such lines. Meanwhile I agree most fully that we must not despair merely because of these serious and even alarming
684
events which are occurring in many parts of India. The exercise of patience will, I trust, lead to a satisfactory end of these most difficult and most complicated questions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure you will have been very much interested in the closing words of the observations of the noble Marquess, in which he said that he greatly doubted whether we had not made a mistake all through our history in paying attention to the centre instead of first arranging for self-government in the Provinces. I agree with the noble Marquess. I can only express regret that in our debates on the Government of India Bill we did not hear from the noble Marquess those observations, which would have been most useful to us in our struggle for the very thing which he now says ought to have been carried out. However, I do not want to detain your Lordships with observations on old history. We are face to face with practical issues of such moment that we cannot spare more than a very few moments to reflect upon the past.
I listened as well as I was able to the speech of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. I regret very much that he did not seem to have appreciated the appeal which was made to him and to others by the noble Duke, the Under-Secretary, not to disturb the efforts of His Majesty's Government and of the Government of India, for stability in that country, by indiscreet speeches and indiscreet utterances here. We see examples of that not merely in your Lordships' House but in the daily Press—pressure put upon the Government to take a further step of some kind, a fresh initiative, another offer, a gesture. I would urge upon your Lordships that the great hope of arrangements proving satisfactory in India is that there should be stability now. The perpetual suggestion that something more ought to be done is the very way to defeat the object which we have in view. I regret it very much, because those who are advocating these further steps are men of great influence, of great experience, like the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. They are men of great position, and when they make these utterances they resound all through India, and the local agitators, the Congress Party, and their leader Gandhi, think that only a little

685
more pressure is needed. "England is in a bad way," they say, "give her another kick and she will give way." Of course the noble Lord who, as I know from long experience is a great patriot, does not intend that at all, but his influence when he makes a speech is in that direction. I profoundly regret that.
But please do not think that we, any of us, desire to go back on the position which this country has taken up in reference to the future of India. We have accepted self-government; we have accepted Dominion status. Subject to two conditions—first, that nothing more can be done whilst the war lasts; and secondly, that nothing can be done which does not respect the rights and interests of the minorities—we are all of us willing to accept Dominion status, that is to say, to give to India precisely the same rights and authorities which the other great British Dominions possess at this moment. That is our position. Why not leave it there? Why be always pressing for further concessions? It is quite plain. The present position is as clear as it can be. We have made our promise and of course we shall loyally abide by it. To put more pressure on the British Government to go further is merely to create more agitation in India. We have made a great advance. What we want is a moderate policy in India, a tolerant and sympathetic policy, and we want, of course, a loyal and sincere policy. All these things, of course, we must have. Above all, we do not want a weak policy. We want stability and we want stability now. The very fact that we are fighting this tremendous struggle strengthens the argument in favour of stability. Let us forswear forever the policy of appeasement. I should have thought that almost everybody in this country now knew what a policy of appeasement led to. Let us have no appeasement. Let us do what we believe to be right. Let us not do what our judgment tells us is unwise in order to conciliate somebody who is unreasonable. Let us do what is right and not go any further.
Is there anything else which we have to consider? I think it was the noble Lord—or was it the noble Marquess?—who said that we have to consider other opinion, not merely Indian opinion but opinion in China, opinion in America as well as opinion in this country. I re-
686
cognize the importance of that, and especially the importance of making our position clear to American public opinion. I have always wondered why the American Government are not pleased to send representatives to India; official representatives, to watch events there. I am not in favour, of course, of asking the United States Government, or any foreign Government, to arbitrate in India. That would seem to me to be an absurdity. But there is no reason why there should not be official representatives who would watch events and report to Washington exactly what they saw—something corresponding to the officer at the front in the late war who held the position of an eye witness, his duty being to watch what was going on and to report it. Why should something similar not be done now for the benefit of American opinion? We have nothing to hide, we have nothing to be ashamed of. By all means let the United States Government see what is going on in India and the infinite benefits that we have conferred upon India in the course of our administration there. Let them see and let them report what they see. I have no doubt, indeed I have great confidence, that American opinion when it is informed of the truth, will realize what we have done for India and how greatly the efforts of the British Government now ought to be supported in that country.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise to intervene for a very few minutes only. I should not have risen at all had it not been for the fact that the noble Duke referred to opinion expressed by Prelates. Silence on my part might, therefore, be misunderstood. I, of course, am unable to say that all Bishops would be of one opinion on this or any other measure. I do not read with care all the utterances of my fellow Bishops, and some utterances may have been made on this subject with which I should profoundly disagree. But I think I am expressing the opinion certainly of a very large body of Churchmen when I say that I agree with the steps which have been taken by the Government. I thought that Sir Stafford Cripps's Mission was a very brave step carried out with courage, patience and wisdom. I do not see how he, or any Government, could possibly have given way to the demand of Congress. If they had yielded to Congress it would have been a betrayal of the Moslems and other minorities, and I

687
think it would have led to chaos, and, possibly, even to civil war. Therefore, I find myself, in general, supporting the steps which the Government have taken in this matter. I hope, however, that the Government will continue to make it plain, as it has been made plain by some of the Government spokesmen, that we have not withdrawn the offer which was conveyed by Sir Stafford Cripps. There is, undoubtedly, widespread suspicion in India at the present time as to whether this offer is genuine, and the more frequently we repeat that we stand by the offer, the more rapidly will come a settlement.
I feel that I am expressing here the great mass of opinion of the Churches when I say that the Indians themselves—the different Parties in India—must come together and make some more definite, constructive proposals than they have made up to the present time. There is nothing which we desire more earnestly than to see the different Indian Parties meeting together and to hear them tell us what settlement they require. So far as I can make out from what has been stated in Parliament and in the Press, these steps have not yet been taken. There is plenty of statesmanship in India, and I think that one of the wisest things which could be done by the friends of India to-day—those who like myself wish to see India happy and contented—is to appeal again and again to the Indian leaders to come together and reach agreement among themselves. Until that agreement is reached it is really impossible for the Government to go forward with the policy which was announced by Sir Stafford Cripps. We are anxious—and I believe that the great masses of the people in England are most anxious—that India should be happy, contented and prosperous under a form of government on which its own people are agreed.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, one of the most disquieting features of the situation to me is the lack of knowledge and lack of realization among the people in this country of what is happening in India and of how it will affect every one of them. The noble Duke has referred to the fact that The Times has published various articles suggesting that the Government should take
688
more active steps in this matter. I happened to pick up The Times about a fortnight ago and I saw in it that a special correspondent had written concerning the situation in India with regard to the war, that it "can hardly be regarded as satisfactory." That, I think, is a masterly piece of understatement. Unfortunately, the veil of consorship between the British public and Indian events is so drawn that the average man in the street, who ought to be interested in this problem, knows very little about it, and does not understand the real bones of contention. Yet the future of every person in this country will be vitally affected by the course of events in India.
India, I submit is the key both to the victory of the Allied Nations and to the future development of the world. I do not think that that is an overstatement. I hardly need remind your Lordships of the importance strategically of India in relation to China, Russia, Australia and the sea routes. What its loss would mean! Its importance from a military and naval point of view is as obvious as it is immense. I would like, however, to stress one other aspect. That is, that India has become the touchstone on which our real motives, our real war aims are being tested. This is through no desire of ours; it has just happened. Public opinion in the United States, which has never, I am afraid, looked with entire sympathy on our rule in India, is now profoundly disquieted and disturbed with events there. This feeling finds its way into the Press and is being discussed on all sides.
Americans cannot understand how it is that we are fighting a war for freedom and liberation and yet are repressing in the most violent way the national movement in India. This is also being felt even more strongly in China and in the Soviet Union. Your Lordships will remember Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek's statement about the wisdom of power being given to India even before the Indians asked for it. There has always been a tremendous bond of sympathy between China and India, and the Chinese are very disturbed about the way in which we are handling this terrible situation. The matter is even more important, I think, from the point of view of the millions of potential allies whom we need in Europe, and who will be abso-

689
lutely necessary for our victory. I submit that we cannot allow this state of feeling to exist among our Allies.
What is happening in India? I think that two things are perfectly clear. One is that India is in a ferment. A large part of the country has been in active revolt against us; there has been enormous material damage to property, and very serious less of life. The second point which cannot be disputed is that almost all sections of Indian opinion are agreed on two things. Indian opinion has expressed itself very strongly as being against the Axis and against Japan, and equally strongly as desiring independence arid a free India. The Indian people desire to defeat Japan and the Axis, and so do we. They also desire independence and a Government of their own choosing; and that, after all, is one of our war aims, and is expressly stated in the Atlantic Charter. Yet we have the unfortunate position that the Government of India are at complete loggerheads not only with Congress but with almost every other section in the country, including the much-publicized Mr. Jinnah's Moslem League, which the B.B.C. constantly asserts represents 90,000,000 Moslems in India, but which in the 1937 Elections polled, I believe, under 5 per cent. of the total Moslem votes cast. Even the Moslem League has repudiated our offer, and I was very grieved to see in the Press the other day that the Moslem Premier of Sind has been removed from his Premiership by the Governor for disagreeing with British policy. This seems to me unfortunate. Surely there must be something wrong with a policy which delights no one but our enemies.
The British Government and the people of India are agreed on the defeat of the Axis, which is our main interest at the moment, and on the independence of India, to which we have officially agreed. That being so, what is the basis of disagreement which has led to this upheaval? Briefly, I think it is this. The people of India—this came out in the negotiations—wish above all things for independence and freedom now. The British Government have absolutely refused this, but have offered instead Dominion status after the war. That is the big point of disagreement. The Indians want freedom now; but we say: "You cannot have a Government of your own now, because that is impossible, but we will give you Dominion
690
status after the war." That is why this vast continent, instead of being whole-heartedly on our side, contains a large proportion of people who are actively hostile to us, and a still larger proportion who are apathetically neutral. It has been asserted that such constitutional changes would be impossible during the war, because they would be too big to be undertaken. It seems strange that the Prime Minister, at the time of the most acute crisis in this country, was able to propose amalgamation with France—the biggest proposal for constitutional change, I suppose, in the history of this country—and yet it is impossible to hand over power in India.
LORD WINSTER: And that was done without consulting Parliament!
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There would be a certain dislocation, with new men coming into new jobs, but there would have been less dislocation than will be caused by the continual hostility of the mass of the Indian people. There is one misapprehension with which I should like to deal. Many people in England believe that the proposals conveyed by Sir Stafford Cripps when he went out to India could not be accepted because of the disagreement of did' other Parties in India. It is widely believed that freedom and independence were offered to India, but, because the Moslems could not agree with the Hindus, this offer could not be accepted. Your Lordships are well aware that nothing could be further from the truth. During the negotiations, in which serious and genuine misunderstandings seem to have arisen on both sides, at least one point came out clearly. The Congress leaders demanded that power should be transferred from the Government of India to a National Indian Government. The reason was that they considered that in this way alone could they rouse the masses of India to a genuine war effort. The Congress leaders went on to say that they thought that the masses of India would not fight for the British Empire as they knew it, but would fight as an Ally of the United Nations for a free and independent India. That was the stand of Congress. This demand was absolutely refused, and not because other Indian Parties objected to it, because other Indian Parties were never given the chance. It was made perfectly clear that no transference of

691
power could take place during the war, and so negotiations broke down.
However, one ought not to leave the matter there. Various concessions, and very big concessions, were offered. One was, as your Lordships will remember, that Indians from the Nationalist Parties should be included in the Viceroy's Council. This was refused, and I imagine that the reason was this. The Viceroy's Council is composed of a majority of Indian members, but those members are very carefully selected. They are not elected by Indians, nor are they responsible to an Indian Legislature. So far as I know, none of them represents any of the main Nationalist Parties. So well do they carry out the English policy that as Sir Firoz Khan Noon, the Defence Member, recently pointed out publicly, in all his years of office on the Council never once had the Viceroy's overriding power of veto had to be used. Obviously the Congress leaders, or Mr. Jinnah and his associates, would in such a Council always have been outvoted, and they would have had full responsibility and no power. It was no doubt for that reason that they refused to accept the offer.
The other and much more far-reaching concession offered was that of Dominion status after the war. I gather that the objection to that was that the clause allowing various Provinces to contract out, and thus remain under English rule, or even to form a separate unit, was a very serious blow at the vision of a united India which has always been dear to the hearts of nationalists. The American Civil War was very largely fought on that one issue of a united America, and this provision in the British offer therefore struck a very serious blow at the conception of a united, democratic India. Also the arrangements for elections were not very democratic and seemed to perpetuate for ever the rule of the Princes, because the Princes of India were to be allowed their voting power proportionate to their subjects, but there was no provision made for any representation of those 95,000,000 subjects of the Princes. So it really was, from the Congress point of view, the most undemocratic arrangement that could have been devised.
The final drawback to that proposal was the chance, which I am afraid many
692
Indians believed, that it would allow for what we may call delay or even quibbling after the war, and, frankly, a lot of them, I more than regret to say, did not believe in this offer and did not really believe in the sincere intention of the Government to carry this promise out. I suppose the origin of that was an unfortunate event which happened in past history. You will remember that in 1917, a time of trouble equivalent to the present time of anxiety, various promises were made more or less conveying that Indians would be given Dominion status, and this was very strongly implemented by Lord Irwin when he was Viceroy. If your Lordships will forgive me quoting two or three short passages I think they are pertinent to the situation. Lord Irwin, as Viceroy in 1929, said:
"I am authorized on behalf of His Majesty's Government to say that in their judgment it is implicit in the declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of Indian constitutional progress as there contemplated is the attainment of Dominion status."
That was taken by many Indians as a definite pledge of Dominion status, but although many years have passed since then they have never received it.
Not only that, but the minds of many of our public men seem to have changed. For instance, in 1930 Mr. Winston Churchill, the present Prime Minister, made a very famous speech in which he said that the British nation had no intention whatever of relinquishing effectual control of Indian life and progress, and he added:
"We have no intention of casting away that most truly bright and precious jewel in the Crown of the King, which more than all our other Dominions and Dependencies constitutes the glory and strength of the British Empire."
Then the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, when Prime Minister in 1934, also made a speech in which he declared:
"It is my considered judgment, in all the changes and chances of this wide world to-day, that you have a good chance of keeping the whole sub-continent of India in the Empire for ever."
Either one must take the point of view that Dominion status does not mean freedom and independence, or else there has been a very considerable change of opinion in the Government, and Indian Nationalists are extremely frightened that there might be an equal change of opinion after this war.

693
In most Assemblies there are two or more Parties with different points of view. Congress is no exception. The Prime Minister in a recent statement accused Congress of being, as he said, "sustained by certain manufacturing and commercial interests." I have also heard it accused of being Soclialist and being supported only by the masses. The supporters of Congress say that it is a democratic, moderate body. I think the real truth is that it comprises all classes, from the rich merchant to the poor Socialist. But the important thing about Congress, it seems to me, is that it is divided into two main streams. A comprehension of this is very necessary if you wish to understand the Congress attitude. One is the rather Right wing reactionary Party under Gandhi, and the other is the more progressive, democratic Party which is headed by the Congress Secretary, Mr. Nehru. That accounts for many things decided upon in the different resolutions of Congress. Both those groups fervently wish for independence, but whereas Gandhi has the point of view of India for Indians alone and the use of non-violence against anyone who frustrates that independence, Nehru, on the other hand, seems to have a bigger conception of national issues. He sees that India cannot be unaffected by what is happening in the world outside, that Fascism must be defeated, that victory must be won over the Axis for India's sake as much as for anything else. And one must remember that Congress has had a long record of anti-Fascist activity and anti-Fascist resolutions. Before the Cripps Mission reached India Congress had been almost completely won over to the democratic side of Nehru. It passed resolution after resolution supporting the struggle against Japan and the Axis, and affirming its wish to be an ally of the United Nations, while Gandhi and his theory of non-violence and the reversion to the simpler life, of a bygone age were completely superseded.
But alas! after the Cripps Mission, when hopes which had been very high in India for some settlement were dashed to the ground, opinion in Congress swung back to Gandhi, and Gandhi's influence made itself felt and more or less conquered and superseded that of Nehru. You will find in the final resolution—and this is the important resolution of which so much has been said—that although Congress
694
again stresses the need for fighting the Axis, and wishes for further negotiations with the British Government, the good will has rather melted, and you find that there follows a threat that if these negotiations are refused the only course left open is the one of non-violent resistance to the Government of India. There we see Gandhi's influence at work again. On that the Government of India put the Congress leaders in gaol, and at once you got violent demonstrations breaking out all over India as a protest against the imprisonment of their leaders.
This is where we stand to-day, and what I want to ask is this: Is there nothing that can be done to retrieve this terribly dangerous situation in India? The fact that the police and the military have the upper hand is no real solution, with Japan sitting on the Burmese frontier. We must have India on our side. The noble Duke said this afternoon that no one had indicated what the Government should do. There is only one thing that the Government should do: that is to reopen negotiations and, if possible, release the Congress leaders unconditionally before they do so. It may be said by many of your Lordships that by doing this we should lose face, but the answer is which face do we want to lose? Is it the Herrenvolk face, which will not relax its rule over subject peoples, or is it the face which looks towards freedom in which we ask the world to believe? The Congress is undoubtedly the largest Party in India, it has the greatest support. Congress leaders have offered to invite all Parties to form a National Government with them to carry on the war and fight the Axis. The Congress leaders have already agreed to allow all the defence forces for the defence of India to be under General Wavell, the British Commander-in-Chief. They have also agreed to allow the complete strategy of the war to be decided in Whitehall, or in any headquarters of the United Nations.
I submit that, instead of trying to discredit Congress and belittle it, we ought to be thankful that there is this big body of Nationalist opinion that could rouse India up to a gigantic war effort. Let the Viceroy send for the President of the Moslem League and the President of Congress, Maulana Azad, or the Congress Secretary, Mr. Nehru, and ask them to form a Provisional National Government.

695
This Government would only act until the end of the war. It would not be a permanency, but merely till the end of the war. Afterwards, the Constituent Assembly which has been promised and offered could be brought into being and a Constitution for India devised. It should also be made clear, first, that real power would be transferred to this Government, although Defence and the Armed Forces naturally would remain with the Commander-in-Chief, and, secondly, that no minority rights would be prejudiced by their leaders taking part in the Government when the final discussion comes in the Constituent Assembly after the war. I am sure that the Indian Princes would not refuse to take part in the defence of their own country against the Japanese. If by any chance the Congress leaders could not form this National Government—if a National Government cannot be formed—then indeed the responsibility for the failure would be on India without any question. We should have offered India freedom and she could not take it. We would have the whole sympathy of all the democratic people in the world on our side. I know that your Lordships will think that this is a daring move, but I believe it is vitally necessary.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, you will agree as to the necessity of passing the Bill which is now before us, and you will also be agreed that in the unhappy situation which arose in India after the declaration by Congress of the non-co-operation movement, there was no alternative to exercising a policy for the time being of repression. Apparently, in the minds of many Congress supporters, non-violence is of two kinds—non-violent and violent! When the forces of looting, arson, and murder have been let loose, the duty of the Government must necessarily be one for the restoration and maintenance of order—a policy of repression. From this House it should be stated that the Government of India and the Governments of the Provinces and their local officers, and the police and military, have the full moral support of Parliament in the steps that it was necessary to take. That is obvious and elementary. But of course to say that carries us not one step further to the solution of the political problem.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that at the present stage it is not
696
helpful to revert to the past, as on one or two occasions the noble Earl who has just spoken did, but that the only course which is of value is to make positive and definite proposals to meet the present impasse. To that advice I shall myself endeavour to conform. In the first instance, it is necessary to clear away some proposals which are doomed obviously to be futile. For example, it is a totally futile course to repeat, year after year, and again and again, that it is essential that the main Indian Parties should agree, and that unless they will agree the Imperial Government and the Government of India will do nothing. I have heard that again and again in this House, and even to-day the noble Duke, the Under-Secretary of State for India, repeated once more that the next step must be with India. Failing that step the Government which he represents here do not feel any obligation to take action of their own. For years that has been said in this House; yet the Government did depart, and most widely departed, from this principle when they authorized Sir Stafford Cripps to proceed to India on his Mission with positive proposals from this side. That was done with universal applause.
If that step did not succeed, it was because it was quite plain that the principal Parties in India cannot agree. The noble Earl who has just spoken somewhat belittled the position of the Moslem League in relation to the Congress Party and said that, after all, it held only a comparatively small percentage of votes in the Elections of 1935. But since then, by common consent, the Moslem League has enormously increased. Its membership has rapidly expanded, and it does now represent in the main the opinion of the 90,000,000 Moslems in India. When the Cripps Mission came to close quarters with this problem and endeavoured to secure the formation of the free National Government which the noble Earl so rightly desiderates, they found that the Moslem League declared that their condition of participation was the acceptance of the policy of Pakistan and, further, that the Moslem community must be given equal authority in any Provisional Government with the Hindu community; while the Congress Party and Mahasabha declared there must be no Pakistan and that the Government must be composed in accordance with, the

697
numbers of the population of each of the two great communities. The noble Earl made no suggestion of any kind as to how that difficulty was to be overcome. He merely said that the Congress leaders should be released and fresh negotiations should be begun. I submit that we shall get no further at all if we repeat, parrot-like, the cry that agreement between the two principal Indian Parties must be the sine qua non of any step.
Secondly, the proposal has been made in some quarters that the British Government, wishing to impress on the United States and on our other Allies and the world in general, the sincerity of our desire to establish effective independence in India, should declare now that, although for obvious reasons that cannot be carried into effect fully during the war, it shall be brought into effect at a given date after the war. That may seem at first sight a constructive proposal, but what if, when this date arrives, it is found that disagreement between the two great communities is still persisting; if the Moslem community, for example, declare at that moment they will take up arms to resist a Hindu Raj established on the basis of majority rule? The history of India has been for centuries the history of Hindu-Moslem wars, and the British Raj has been the first prolonged period for the best part of a thousand years when there has been some measure of peace between the two communities. The British Raj has damped down those fires, but the fires have not been extinguished. They are still smouldering, and they frequently blaze out in local conflagrations.
Those who are impartial observers of the Indian situation declare that never has the peril of actual outbreak of violence between the two communities been greater than it is at the present time. Some of your Lordships will have read the very admirable booklet by Professor Coupland, of Oxford, who was in India for some time prior to the arrival of the Cripps Mission, on an investigation of the constitutional situation there, and was closely associated with Sir Stafford Cripps during his Mission. He has written a little hook called The Cripps Mission. I can strongly commend it to those of your Lordships interested in India who have not yet seen it. In the course of it he uses these words:
"So bitter has the communal quarrel become that many Indians have begun to think
698
that force alone will settle it. Sooner or later the grim words 'civil war' were spoken by most of those with whom I discussed the communal question. Mr. Gandhi himself has talked of its possibility coolly enough."
Well, my Lords, if a pledge is given now that at a given date full independence is to be established in India, and if, when that time comes, no solution has been reached; if then it is found that both sides are arming one against the other and that there is certainty that a British withdrawal would he chaos, the British Government would be compelled to go back upon their pledge, and to plead that force majeure has compelled them to continue the existing situation. Nothing could be worse than that. Nothing could be worse than to give a specific pledge now and to find later that the pledge could not be in fact fulfilled because of circumstances which had arisen, the possibility of which could easily be foreseen. It would then be suggested that we had bought off present difficulties now by giving a pledge which involved a deception in the future.
Thirdly, I trust that the Government will no longer continually repeat the phrase "Dominion status." We have got far beyond that. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said this afternoon, what more could be desired than Dominion status? "Dominion status" is in fact a meaningless term. Is this country, the United Kingdom, a Dominion? No one would say that it is, and yet in what respect is the constitutional status of the United Kingdom different from that of the Dominions? Why use the term "Dominion" when what is proposed is a status within the British Crown, which is precisely the status of this country of which we in this House are one of the Houses of Parliament, and when in fact the very purpose of the Statute of Westminster was to declare that Dominion status is the same as United Kingdom status? It is true that the history and achievements of our great Dominions have cast lustre upon that word, but in India, as Professor Coupland again points out, the term Dominion status is not appreciated. They say, and say with truth, that India has twelve times the population of all the Dominions put together (I would add that India is half as large again in population as the whole of the American Continent, north, central and south), and that while our Dominions have a history which is measured by the span of four or five generations, India has a history of civili-

699
zation which is measured by a span of four or five millenia, and surely it would be better now frankly to drop the expression "Dominion status" and use some such term as "National status" which would go much further to satisfy Indian opinion.
How far the Government are prepared in fact to go was declared by the noble Duke in a debate on February 3, and his words, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government of which he is himself a member, in this House of Parliament, were very forthright and definite. I would recall them to your Lordships' memory. He quoted the Viceroy's declaration, made with the aproval of the Imperial Government, of August 8, 1940, and said:
"That is a definite promise that the Government are prepared to hand over to Indians the Government of their country—are anxious to do so, and will do at the very earliest possible moment."
No statement could be more specific, more emphatic or more unqualified than that. The question is, what is to be done at the present time in order at all events to begin the transition to that state of things which the noble Duke envisages? The suggestion that I have to make to your Lordships to-day is one that I did indeed put forward in a previous debate—namely, that the key to the solution of the problem for the time being is to be found, I believe, in the constitutional position of the Viceroy.
The Viceroy now has a dual function. He is a true vice-roi, he acts in the place of the Sovereign, but he is also the Prime Minister of the country, and, unlike any Governor-General of any Dominion, he is his own Prime Minister and presides in the Executive governing body of the country. What I would submit to your Lordships for your consideration and to the Government is that that duality should be ended. There are those who have urged—for example, The Times in a leading article to which the noble Duke took some exception—that the next step should be the complete Indianization of the Viceroy's Executive Council. Already there are only two of the Ministers who are not Indians, those who hold the Portfolios of Finance and Home Affairs. There is also the British Commander-in-Chief who is a member of the Council. It is generally agreed that at all events during the war—nothing is said perhaps about the future one way or the
700
Other—the Commander-in-Chief should remain as a member of the Viceroy's Council, but to give those remaining two Portfolios to Indians would not be the Indianization of the Viceroy's Council, for the Viceroy himself is there presiding over it, speaking the last word, giving the ultimate decision.
Although it is true, as the noble Earl who has just spoken has said, quoting Sir Firoz Khan Noon, whom we all remember as an able and popular High Commissioner for India, and who is now a member of that Council, that on no occasion does the Viceroy in fact exercise any overruling voice within his own Council, the fact remains that he is there to preside over the Council in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister here presides over the Cabinet. What I would submit is that the right course would be that when a new Viceroy is appointed—there would be difficulty indeed in altering the status of an existing Viceroy—a change should be made. The present Viceroy has served ever since 1936. His term of office has expired some time ago, and has been extended. It may be that the Government would not wish to impose on Lord Linlithgow the thankless task of continuing to cope on present lines with this persistent deadlock, and if he is succeeded by some other Viceroy let him be Viceroy alone, acting as a pro-Sovereign in lieu of the constitutional monarch, and let it be his first task to appoint a Government as a Government would be appointed here or in one of the Dominions, by the selection of some suitable statesman, some Indian statesman, and the formation of a Government by that Prime Minister in consultation with the Viceroy, as a Prime Minister now appoints a Government in consultation with the King.
It is certain that the rich stores of able statesmanship among the Indian leaders would, in spite of Party and political difficulties, furnish ample material for the provision of such a Government. It might be that the Indian Parties would not formally accept such a solution even as a temporary one, but if they did not formally accept it, they might not repudiate a wholly Indian Government under an Indian Prime Minister, who during this present transitory period would exercise the political power. That power would be exercised first in helping

701
the defence of India against the threat of invasion, and doing that in co-operation with the United Nations led by Britain, the United States, China and Russia. Secondly, that Government might be well charged with the duty of preparing the way for the Constitutional Convention to sit, either now or at the end of the war, whichever of those two periods that Government might find more practicable.
I do not at all agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that nothing whatever can be done during the war. Why not? It is urgently necessary that steps should be taken during the war to find a way out of the present impasse. I would leave it to the Indian Government to take steps for the summoning of the Constitutional Convention which would deal with a more permanent future. That could be done without any need of elaborate legislation. It would not need the passage through Parliament of a long Statute such as the Act of 1935. Our own Constitution happily is, in its fundamental features, unwritten, and thereby this country has gained enormously in political strength. By the adaptability of our political machinery we have been enabled to achieve a very large measure of political success. So I would give to India, during this transitional period, the great advantage of leaving as much as possible of the Constitution unwritten, giving the Viceroy a free hand to bring about this transition.
A Statute would be necessary, but it need only be a short Statute to remove existing restrictions upon freedom of action. For example, the present law requires that at least three members of the Viceroy's Council must have ten years' official service. That might well be repealed by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and any other restrictive measures might also be repealed so that India might have, for the time being, the great advantage, as far as may be, of having no written Constitution. After the South African war the Government of the day granted immediate self-government to the Transvaal, and the present Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, is well aware of all the facts since he represented the Colonial Office, which was charged with the matter, in the House of Commons in those days. The first Prime Minister was the Commander-in-Chief who fought against us,
702
General Botha, and one of his closest colleagues and his successor was General Smuts, whom we are to welcome in the very near future at a meeting of both Houses of Parliament and whom we are so delighted to see in this country at the present time. That experiment was a complete success, and when the great test came in 1914, South Africa, under the leadership of General Smuts, rendered invaluable service. So it might be if the same course was followed in the case of India now. India is not in open rebellion or warlike conflict against us, as South Africa was, and great sections of the population are still most friendly to this country. We might entertain the hope that such a policy would lead to a response in India, and a recognition there that it is to their own interest, especially in matters of defence, that she should be in full association with the British Commonwealth and with all the thirty United Nations—and not only for the sake of her own cause, for it is by such co-operation alone in the present crisis of world affairs that India would be able adequately to fulfil her duty to what is, in truth, the wider cause of all mankind.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Under-Secretary of State, in his much criticised speech, invited suggestions and I do not think he can complain of the number he has had, especially in the speeches of my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon and the noble Viscount who has just addressed your Lordships. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention also to the fact that, if I understood the noble Duke aright, he invited suggestions from India. It occurred to me, as no doubt it did to others of your Lordships, that that was a very important and constructive passage in an otherwise disappointing and indeed infuriating speech. At least it would infuriate me if I were an Indian and read a report of it. Of course nothing the noble Duke says would infuriate me or any of my colleagues on these Benches because we know him of old. The noble Duke, however, did make a very refreshing and indeed extraordinary statement when he said he would welcome an offer from India. Only my overwhelming sense of courtesy prevented me from interrupting and asking him to explain. Now I would ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack who is, of course, fully

703
seized of all that passes through the mind of the noble Duke, what exactly that means. India. Does that mean that the Government are looking for an offer from Congress, when all the leaders are in gaol and held so closely that not even the Metropolitan of India—I suppose the Prelate to whom the noble Duke alluded—can communicate with them? Is that what it means, or is he looking to other parties to do so? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can explain that, because I suggest it is a rather important statement by the noble Duke on behalf of the Government and it needs further explanation.
When I hear discussions on India, otherwise than in your Lordships' House, I sometimes doubt whether certain eminent personalities really appreciate the terrific forces in the world struggle and the vast issues at stake. They seem to regard India as being a vacuum and the problems of India as something to be discussed apart from the immense struggle in which we are engaged. In these hours and days what is at stake is the whole future of human society and of civilized institutions in both hemispheres; throughout the whole world. It is against this terrible background that we ought to regard the present state of affairs in India. To hear certain members of the Government talk one might think that we were engaged in an ordinary nationalistic or dynastic war, that India should be regarded in vacuo and that this great sub-continent, with its vast war potentialities and huge population, could be dealt with as if it were a purely domestic concern of the British people. I believe it to be essential to victory in this war that the bulk of the Indian people should be embraced in our war effort and their vast resources fully employed. The noble Duke, a master of understatement, said that in India the situation was of course still serious: that we are not yet out of the wood. Consider that situation in India. The noble Duke said it was impossible to intake and equip and train more troops in India—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
LORD STRABOLGI:—than we are doing at present.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then I misunderstood the noble Duke. I understood him to say we could not take in more than the figure he gave.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said it could not be multiplied ten-fold. I was very careful, I thought, to explain that it could be expanded.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should think that in India, making all deductions for what are called the non-martial peoples and so on, at least 10,000,000 soldiers—and good soldiers—could be raised, not, of course, in a night by stamping one's foot, but by a great national effort. India could raise such a number of good soldiers that we should have more than are available to the whole military power of the European Axis. Easily! And as for arming them, "Oh," we are told, "there are no munitions available in India, no machine tools." Why we have not begun to mobilize the industrial resources of India. That is the opinion which is generally held by those who have investigated the possibilities of the factories and workshops out there. One of the greatest steelworks in existence, the Tata works, is in India, and you have had, and may still have for all I know, a complete stoppage of work there for political reasons. The textile industry of India, too, is tremendous, but great numbers of mills and millions of looms and spindles are now standing idle also for political reasons. India's labour power and her industrial resources could overwhelm those of her nearest enemy, Japan. The noble Duke, I am sure, knows that.
Is it denied for a moment that India is the indispensable base for the recovery of Northern Burma, for the arming of our Chinese Allies with their great and growing Armies, and for the ejection of the Japanese from the mainland of Asia? I believe that a million Indian soldiers are now serving in the Forces, and I was very glad to hear the tribute which was paid to them by the noble Duke. But one million only, when the figure could have been ten million! The noble Duke spoke about lack of preparation before the war, and I do not deny that there is force in what he said about that. But the war is now in its fourth year. If you had had a great upsurge of national feeling in India corresponding to that in China you could have had vastly greater Armies

705
available than you have to-day for important military actions. The truth of the matter is that the atmosphere in India has been poisoned for years. I am not adjudicating or awarding blame to one Party or one section of opinion in this country or in India, but we have to face the facts. This tragic situation disgusts our Indian friends, our best friends in India, who wish us well and try to help. Never have we British, since the British connexion began in India, enjoyed less popularity or aroused more hostility.
I do not wish to dwell on heartbreaking features in the Indian political landscape, because I wish to make one or two suggestions and to endorse one or two remarks which have fallen from the lips of noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate. But I must remind your Lordships that we cannot be complacent or talk about being not out of the wood, or of the situation still being serious, but all would be well if only critics ceased their criticisms and The Times suppressed itself. This last event, it would almost seem, is desired by the noble Duke unless The Times falls into line. I will mention only three tragic episodes. We have had to use the machine guns of our aeroplanes, not against the Japanese in Burma, but against rioting Indian mobs. What a terrible state of affairs! British airmen, newly arrived in the country and on their way to join their stations, have been dragged out of railway trains by Indian mobs and torn to pieces. The noble Duke referred to the heroic conduct and steadfastness of the Indian Police and the Indian Civil Service. What are we to think of a country in which policemen can be burnt alive by their fellow citizens in the course of these disturbances? It is an awful state of affairs.
The noble Duke said that we are not yet out of the wood, though here and there the military and the police have managed to get the upper hand. I do not minimize the difficulties and complications of this extraordinary situation. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who sits below me, did his best to solve Indian problems, and I know that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and many other eminent men in this country have also done their best to solve what at times has appeared an impossible problem. We all agree that there are many leaders of the Moslems and of Congress in
706
India who are obstinate and unhelpful. Of course, a debating case can be made out for doing nothing except gaol Congress leaders and suppress Congress organizations and newspapers. I think from what the noble Duke said that he would like to suppress newspapers here if they did not answer his invitation to keep quiet about India. But when all has been said the prize of success, if we could reach a settlement in India, is so rich and the penalty for continued failure is so deadly that it is unthinkable that a new approach should not be made and a new policy be attempted. In this respect I should like to take the opportunity of endorsing the views which have been expressed by my noble friends the Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Addison.
May I with that preliminary make these suggestions which, although they may here and there appear to touch only upon small matters, could, I believe, collectively, if carried out, have an important effect on the whole atmosphere in India? My noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon said, release the prisoners and reopen negotiations. I rather gather, and I believe, that if that were done immediately it might court failure. The situation, according to my information, is even worse than that described by my noble friend, and I am doubtful if this Government as at present constituted, unless other things are done, could succeed in immediate and direct negotiations. I think that the present Government is too suspect in Indian eyes. I am not speaking only of Congress of course in this connexion. Eventually what my noble friend has suggested will have to be done.
I respectfully endorse the suggestion made by my noble friend Viscount Samuel for the complete Indianization of the Viceroy's Council, except for the Viceroy, by inviting qualified Indians to accept the two remaining Portfolios of Finance and Home Affairs. There is no dispute about the Commander-in-Chief. Before the Lord Chancellor gives his reply and proceeds to tear that suggestion to pieces, may I remind him that not only Viscount Samuel but so great an Indian patriot and friend of this country as His Highness the Maharajah Jam Sahib of Nawangar, over here from India to sit in the War Cabinet, and Chancellor of the Chamber of the Princes, has made that very suggestion. I see no reason why it should not be put into

707
effect immediately. And now the next point may seem a very small matter, but there really is often a great deal in names. Why not change the name of the Viceroy's Council to Cabinet? Indian politicians have always sought to model their institutions on ours, thereby paying a great compliment to our institutions and our Parliament. In their eyes Cabinet means a great deal more than Council.
Then Viscount Samuel spoke of the approaching termination of the term of office of Lord Linlithgow. Why not appoint a distinguished Indian statesman as Viceroy-Designate? Before that is dealt with by the Government, if the Lord Chancellor thinks it wise to reply to-day, may I remind your Lordships that the President of the Philippines is a Filipino, and the Governor of the most important of the French Colonies in North Africa is a very distinguished African? My noble friend suggests abolishing the India Office and, I believe I am right in saying, transferring Indian affairs to the Dominions Office. I am glad the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Cranborne, was not here, for I know that he would be horrified at the suggestion in view of his present responsibilities. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, thinks that unless that means a great deal more than a change of administration, it would be ineffective. There again I think that names mean a great deal. All these matters should be preceded by negotiation, and, if it is found that the Dominions Office is objected to, why should not the Foreign Office assume responsibility for the remaining functions of the India Office?
Having done these things for a start, I should invite our principal Allies to mediate, because the situation is so very difficult and so very important. On the 15th of this month, the Statesman newspaper of Calcutta—and I am sure that is a newspaper to which the noble Duke does not take exception; he must approve its long record of steadfast patriotism and statesmanship, for it is well named, and is one of the most important newspapers in the British Empire—advocated United States intervention, and expressed the hope that this would develop into an indissoluble Anglo-American partnership in matters of diplomacy and defence. That
708
is most interesting, coming from such a source. I suggest, nevertheless, that it is essential in this matter to have the help of at least one Asiatic Power. I should like to invite the friendly offices of the Governments of Russia and China. Russia is, of course, an Asiatic Power as well as a European Power. An international authority of this nature, if it could be established, might develop from such a nucleus into an instrument for the preservation of peace and for the settlement of many other disputes in the future. If Russia was unable to accept for diplomatic reasons vis-à-vis Japan, which is quite possible, then I suggest it is essential to have China's help in the matter. China's vital interests are as deeply concerned in this matter as our own, and are secondary only to India's.
As my noble friend Lord Huntingdon has said, our handling up to now of Indian affairs has not resulted, whatever the reasons for it may be, in ranging the Indian peoples in their full might in the Allied cause, despite the fact—and this is the real tragedy of the situation—that the great majority of the Indian leaders and of educated and politically conscious Indians are with us in this war ideologically. Their sympathies are with us and with our Allies; they want to be on our side, and yet we have not succeeded in ranging them in their full might in defence of the common cause. That being the case, it is no use the noble Duke saying: "Say nothing; do not criticize; leave it all to the India Office and to the Viceroy and his Council." The issues at stake are too important, not only for us but for the whole world, for that to be done, and a different policy is demanded.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes only, and not to offer any opinion on the matters at issue between this country and India, which I am certainly not competent to do, but merely to emphasize what has been said in the course of this debate about how this matter affects our great Ally the United States of America. There is a tendency in this country—though not, I know, in your Lordships' House—to say that India is our affair, and to ask why America should interest herself in the matter. The fact is, as I know your Lordships will agree, that India is a great factor in the issue of this war, and America is just as

709
much concerned as we are in a victorious issue to this war. In arriving at that victorious issue India, as a neighbour of Burma and China, is a factor of the first importance. On that account I feel that we must admit the right of the United States to take an interest in this question, and it is of course, a matter in which the very greatest interest is taken in the United States.
From reading the Press and talking to American friends in London, I would say that our stock so far as this matter is concerned was very high at the time of the Cripps Mission to India. The immediate effect of that Mission was to convince the United States of our good intentions and of our good will where India was concerned. Since that Mission, however, I feel that our stock has slumped on the Indian issue in the United States, and that at present it is, unfortunately, very low indeed. I do not like using the word "propaganda," but I must do so for want of a better term. I do not feel that our propaganda in the United States on the question of India is meeting the situation at the present moment. I beg the Government to remember that it is not the Government of the United States which we have to convince of our good intentions in this matter, but the man in the street in America. It is the man in the street in America whom we have to reach and try to convince of our good will.
In whatever propaganda or information we put forward in America at present, it is most necessary to give facts about the situation. Americans have a great capacity for absorbing facts, statistics and information, and I feel that it is most important that we should put forward facts about the situation and not merely general expressions of our intentions or of the principles by which we are governed. I can think of nothing which would he more useful in the United States at present than the circulation of facts on the lines of that remarkable document, the Simon Report. I feel, as I say, that America has a great appetite for and likes to have, absolute and precise knowledge. That might perhaps tend to bore us here, but facts do not bore the Americans. and I believe that they would welcome facts and specific information upon the Indian issue.
710
Above all, I would urge this consideration on the Government, and I am fortified in doing so by words which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the course of his speech. Do not let us, in what we say to America on this subject, shelter ourselves behind the position that we are willing to give everything that India wants the moment that the Indian Parties can agree among themselves. That is too easy, and to take up that position makes no impression whatever on the Americans. It is too easy to say: "We are willing to give everything the moment that Indians can agree among themselves." Let us try to convince the United States that we are seeking another solution of the matter and that we are trying to promote that agreement among the Indian Parties which at present we appear to regard as an essential preliminary to the granting of what India wants. I have intervened with very great diffidence, but I trust that the Government reply will take into consideration the standpoint and views of the United States of America on this matter, and may go some distance to conciliate that feeling.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this hour and after this long debate I shall not detain the House for more than quite a short time. It is absolutely impossible, in the limited number of minutes which I ought to occupy, to do more than make one or two statements and advance one or two propositions and try to deal with one or two of the matters which have been raised in the debate. Of course it is quite impossible, as anybody familiar with this problem knows, really to give what is called a full reply. A reply on India is a very big matter. This has been an interesting debate and there are one or two things I should like to say. I would like, first of all, to make a perfectly clear statement on what is the aim of His Majesty's Government, and I think of us all in this matter. I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that if we could make definite statements on this subject—may I add without always thinking that it must be the Government's fault that things are not going better?—we are more likely to get a reasonable hearing from our friends in America. Then I make this statement quite specifically. I say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the aim of His

711
Majesty's Government policy is that Indians should themselves mould the destiny of India free from external dictation and control. I do not know any other method by which you can get a great development of constitutional government.
Let me give an illustration. So as not to be misunderstood, let me first say that I am myself rather inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he deprecated the use of the word "Dominion" in this connexion. If anybody ever read through what is sometimes called the Simon Report, they will not find anything about "Dominion status" in it from beginning to end. We never used the word, and I quite agree that the conception is easily misunderstood. Consider what did happen in other cases. The Constitution of Canada was created as the result of a number of leading Canadian citizens of different Parties meeting together and at length thrashing out the series of Quebec Resolutions upon which the British North America Act was founded. The Constitution of Australia was brought about by Australians meeting together from different Australian States, with different political attachments, some of them, again thrashing it out and ultimately producing the Constitution of Australia. The Constitution of South Africa (though I quite agree it received a most important and invaluable urge by the boldness of Campbell-Bannerman's Government) was the work of South Africans in South Africa. And I really do not know any other method by which in the proper sense a democratic government can be created. It cannot be imposed on a people—that is not democratic government at all. It is not a gift given by one body to another body, it is a thing that emerges out of the toil and devotion and patriotism and idealism of the people who are going to live under it.
I assure your Lordships I do not say that with any idea of cold-shouldering Indian aspirations or of saying "I leave it to you." But it is fundamentally a great mistake in reference to Indian development to suppose that the matter rests in British hands. It does not. It essentially rests in Indian hands. Observe this historical development in reference to India itself. There was a tremendous proposal advanced by the late Mr. Edwin Montagu
712
in the time of the Viceroyalty of Lord Chelmsford. I am not at all sure that everybody who is now recognized as a leader of Liberalism in this country was at that time convinced that that was the right line to take. It was a great effort, but it was a purely British effort; it was made by Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford and by two or three other people. The next great effort or series of great efforts was made by my noble and gallant friend now on the Front Opposition Bench and others. That effort ultimately resulted in the Government of India Act, 1935, which was again an effort to devise and impose a constitutional government. I hope it may be accounted as a small merit of what is sometimes called the Simon Commission that, as soon as we found ourselves appointed and began to examine the subject, we did our very utmost to secure that there should be a body consisting of Indian politicians and Indian patriots who would be good enough to co-operate with us. Though we did not get all the help we might have wished from India, we did get the help of many statesmanlike Indians who greatly assisted us.
The great fact about this proposal which goes by the name of Sir Stafford Cripps is that it recognized that a democratic development in a great country must come from within. It may be assisted, promoted, helped, as surely it ought to be, but it is a fundamental error to suppose, whether you are an American or an Englishman or anything else, that somewhere concealed in the recesses of thought there is a thing which is called Indian self-government which can be presented to the Indian people. It cannot. Self-government demands things which cannot be given you by somebody else. If anybody will look at the proposal of Sir Stafford Cripps—after all it was less than seven months ago—he will see that that really was its essential principle. What it said was that we, the British Government, the British people wanted India to know that we are prepared to accept and implement—indeed to accept without question—the form of democratic development which you Indians are able to put forward.
Nobody, when he says that you need unity among Indian Parties, means that you need a parrot-like identity. Every healthy country has considerable differ-

713
ences of opinion, expressed by different bodies. Certainly; but at the same time the reason why there must be some reconciliation of the essential differences in India is plain to any man who will study the subject sufficiently and look it fairly and squarely in the face. The difference of outlook of Congress and the Moslem League—and it is no good limiting it to them; there are the 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 Untouchables and other people in India too—is something which has not any sort of parallel in this country or any country of Europe at all. I heard my noble friend Lord Huntingdon just now, in his very interesting speech, make the contribution of a suggestion, and I thank him for it. It seems to me a most useful exercise that we, being provided with sufficient knowledge of the subject, should make suggestions that they may be tested. The noble Earl will not think that I am quarrelling with him, but I just want to show the difficulty. His proposition was this. Let these Congress people out of prison and then invite the Congress leaders to form a Provisional National Government. That I think puts it clearly, and the noble Earl assents. If it were only a question of the members of Congress or of those who are prepared to acquiesce in the leadership of Congress, that would indeed be an attractive line to take. But my noble friend will observe what was said only the other day by Mr. Jinnah, who, after all, does speak for an extremely powerful and important body of opinion. Mr. Jinnah, on September 13, referring to this sort of suggestion, said:
"We do not want, under the stress of the war emergency, to be stampeded into forming a Provisional Government which should be of such a character and composition as to prejudice or militate against the Moslem demand for Pakistan."
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I say, to clarify the issue, that what I suggested was that Congress leaders should be asked to form a Provisional Government, and that it should be expressly laid down that minority rights would not be in any way affected by the formation of such a Government, but would be completely discussed in the Constituen Assembly afterwards?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure my noble friend has thought this over carefully and the last thing I want
714
to do is to be unduly critical. You may take it that the Moslem League and Mr. Jinnah would be by no means content with the assurance that minority rights would be protected. They do not believe that a Congress Government would protect their rights. It is one of the main explanations of why the Moslem League has grown in strength in recent years that Moslems have had actual experience, in Province after Province, of Congress Ministeries, and they are not too pleased with that experience. I am speaking of a matter on which I have had a great deal of information in times past, and I feel quite convinced you would never get the Moslem League to come into a system of Provisional Government formed by members of the Congress Party who promised—I am sure they would promise—that the minorities would have their rights respected. The point I am making is that, however attractive that proposal might be if you were dealing with a country inhabited by Congressmen or supported by Congressmen, that is not the Continent of India at all. The essence of the difficulty in this respect is that communal suspicion is still great, and I am afraid it is not practicable to create, even if it were wise otherwise, a Provisional Government of nominated Congressmen. I do not entirely agree with the description of the present Indian Council that it does not contain anyone of representative importance. I think that is a mistake. Dr. Ambedkar happens to represent forty or fifty millions of the Depressed Classes; that is a very useful and important member.
As I warned the House the last time I spoke on this subject—it was speculation then, it is the fact now—if you get to the point that you are trying to build up the Government in India by the process of selecting leaders from different Parties, you will find that the Moslem leaders will claim one-half of the representation because they will not consider they are safe otherwise. As long as there are one or two people in the Council who are not involved in these communal troubles—there are two members there now, the Home Member and the Finance Member—they at least form a certain influence which tries to discount and modify these communal tensions; but I do not think you will find it easy, in present circumstances, to create a Central Council for India which would be in the hands of Congress because, among other things, you would find that the Moslem leaders

715
would claim they must be equally represented, notwithstanding their smaller numbers.
I am only anxious to show that though these suggestions are most valuable, and many of them have doubtless passed through the minds of those responsible, the difficulties of this particular problem arising from the communal tensions are at present something that can hardly be exaggerated. It is very noticeable in the history of India—and I remember we pointed this out in the Report with which I was associated—that this strain between the communities does not show itself in the same degree in the great Indian States as it does in British India. The explanation is that at present the condition of things in most of these States does not make the rival communities feel that control is passing to them; but in British India, as we have moved nearer and nearer to full responsibility—and I am on the side of those who want to move that way—you find at once that rivalry grows keener. Nothing that we can do will in itself alter that, but we must continue to appeal in every possible way to the Indian people as a whole to try and find a way of reconciling their differences.
I must add, from my own reading and observations, that I do think that the main leaders of Indian political opinion increasingly recognize this need for unity. Efforts have been made quite recently by some Indian Parties to try and get started a conference with other Indian Parties. We ought to do everything in our power to encourage that. It is a monstrous falsehood to say that the British Raj has tried to exploit these differences between the communities. It is not true. Anyone who knows the facts more or less from inside knows it is not true; but communal feeling is a tremendous fact, it is a rock on which this whole thing may split. We should acknowledge openly and joyfully the fact that more and more of the principal political elements in India recognize that they must get together. But that is a very different thing from making the mistake—it is really a mistake—of supposing there is something we have got to "give." People say "Why don't you give India freedom?" Freedom in India depends on the Indian peoples themselves, for it proceeds from the develop-
716
ment of their own nationhood. Some Indian brains I know are particularly well adapted to the working out of the Constitution if they would devote themselves to that, as I hope they will do more and more.
My noble friend Lord Samuel made another suggestion. He has made it before, but it is not for me to say whether the proposal is good or bad. I would only say it is much more difficult than my noble friend represents. He is a very good historian, and he knows very well that in our Colonies in the old days, the passage to Responsible Government was achieved largely by directions from the Colonial Office, and without any formal change of the Constitution. That is true. But you are dealing in India with a very different situation. The Government of India Act is a portentous document. You do not need to spend very long in looking through it to find out that the Governor-General under the Act has got all sorts of responsibilities and duties and powers. I have the whole Act here: look, for example, at the sections which deal with the special responsibilities of the Governor-General which are laid down for him by Statute—among other things the protection of minorities. You cannot get rid of that without a most elaborate statutory rearrangement. If we were to attempt to do that at this time we should find there were large bodies of opinion in India which would be extremely anxious. And what are you going to put in its place at this stage? If the Cabinet suggested by Lord Strabolgi is to take responsibility, without any Viceroy at the head of it, to whom is that Cabinet to be responsible? There can be nothing worse than that you should have ten or fifteen people in office who will be responsible to nobody. To whom would they be responsible?
The truth is that in the Provinces of India there is set up in accordance with the Simon Commission a provisional self-government and the Ministers are responsible to their Legislatures and are liable to be turned out by their Legislatures or to be censored by them or have their salaries cut by the Legislatures. Nothing of the kind exists at the centre. The Government of India Act contains no provision making the Viceroy's Council responsible to the Central Legislature. The Government of India is essentially the Government of the Viceroy

717
with his advisers. It does not for this purpose matter whether they are Indians or civil servants. The Viceroy, as we all know, is answerable to the Secretary of State and to the Government here.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would my noble friend permit me to say this? He is now arguing that what we call a Cabinet would be wrong or impossible because a Cabinet must depend on an elected Assembly. There are a number of Cabinets in the world which do not depend on any elected Assembly at all. Looking again at my Constitution it is not necessary for a Cabinet to depend on Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I used the word "Cabinet" but it has really nothing to do with the argument. I used it out of courtesy to the noble Lord. What I am saying is that the Council, or the Cabinet, or whatever you call it, would under this proposal really be responsible to nobody at all. There would be no Legislature to whom you would be responsible. It would be a completely irresponsible body and that is the reason why the view has been taken which I have indicated. And I think there is no way of answering the argument that you cannot make these great constitutional changes during the war. It seems to me perfectly inconceivable that we should occupy a Session or two of Parliament to deal with these very elaborate rearrangements. My own view is that the best future for India is a future that would be arrived at in India and by Indians negotiating and agreeing amongst themselves.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I interpose for one sentence? This is only suggested as a transitory arrangement and the Cabinet would be responsible to the Viceroy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Cabinet would he responsible to the Viceroy, the Viceroy would be responsible to the Secretary of State and therefore Parliament would still continue to govern the Central Government of India.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL:Pro forma, not de facto.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid you will not find that the Depressed Classes in India will think it is a
718
good reply to say that pro forma there is somebody to whom this Congress Government or Moslem Government is responsible. There are too many kinds of people in India for an irresponsible Cabinet to govern. The value therefore of what is called the Cripps Memorandum, for which the whole Government are responsible and for which I as a member of the Government am responsible, is that it passes from the state where we tried to devise things for India and proceeds to say to India that, in the end, accepting the aim of complete self-government, it must be for the people in India to devise the best form of that government for themselves. I do not say that in order that hereafter we may be able to say that So-and-so does not agree. Of course you must deal with it reasonably; but these fissures in Indian life run so deeply that until there is agreement on how they are to be bridged it is quite impossible to suppose that you can create as it were out of British good will self-government which is generally acceptable to all the great communities of India.
There is a further consideration which I think I ought to mention. I wish with all my heart that the situation had really improved. Nobody can wish it more sincerely than I do. I do admit with great regret that I do not think the situation has improved. It is only seven months since this proposal was made. Since then, there have been two things at least which have been the reverse of helpful. For one thing it is now quite plainly seen that Congress policy has led to some very shocking acts of violence and to the commission of some frightful crimes. One noble Lord referred to the fact that policemen had had oil poured over them and had been burnt. It is a very, very serious thing that there should be these developments in war-time India of so horrible a kind, and I am glad to think there has not been a single speech made in this House that does not recognize that there is only one way to deal with the situation at the moment, and that is to master it, even if it involves force.
The other thing which is very distressing to me is this. It is not merely that the Parties continue not to agree about the Cripps Memorandum. The difficulty is why they have not agreed. They object to the plan unhappily for com-

719
pletely opposite reasons. It would not matter if people took the sort of objections which were all on the same lines, but they do not do so. The Congress Party object to the Cripps plan because they say it contemplates the division of India. They will not have anything to do with it, they will not accept Pakistan. I believe that to be a very serious objection. The conception of India as a whole is one which they treasure. I would like them to add that India as a single whole is a conception which has been created by the British Raj; but however it came about it is a thing they value and do not want to lose. On the other hand the Moslems say they will not agree to the Cripps plan because they do not feel sufficiently assured that Pakistan will come. Therefore you have two of the most important Parties in India both objecting to the plan, but objecting to it unhappily for opposite reasons. If you try to alter the plan to please one of them you make it worse for the other. I confess frankly to the House, because I do not believe in speaking soft words about this, that I think that is a most unhappy development. If I thought that by adopting one or other of these suggestions now made, such as changing the name of the Council or anything else, we would really strike at the root of this difference, nobody would be more willing to consider it than I would, or, I am sure, the Government. But the thing that has to be dealt with is much more fundamental than that, and it is only as people in India find a way of working politically together as they do in certain connexions—they do it in business, many of them—it is only as they get more together for political purposes that they will create the situation out of which they will be able to produce the Constitution they want.
I believe therefore the Government were bound, as the Archbishop of York said this afternoon, to say that during the war it is not possible to make any fundamental constitutional change. The moment the war is over we wish for the fullest contribution from Indians themselves and what we stipulate for is that they really should come together. It is not we who can bring them together; they are much more likely to come together by themselves. The one thing the Indian suspects now is that he is
720
being manœuvred into something by the British Government. We say to them: "Come together devise the best scheme you can, and if that scheme satisfies the necessary conditions that it is fair to minorities and so forth, we do not seek to criticise it, we do not seek to revise it, we do not seek to move amendment to it. We will take it and it shall be the future Constitution of India." I believe that if the matter is put in that way—I have put it rather crudely perhaps—the argument is really irresistible. Our American friends are, I know, in some quarters critical. They naturally have not so full an opportunity of understanding the complexities of a most complex problem. I would like them to know that this effort which has been made by the British Government is a real effort in the direction of Indian liberty. It is ridiculously untrue to speak of the British Government as if they were now holding India down in some servile condition. Every great service in India is staffed almost entirely by Indians. The number of others in the Indian service has become greatly reduced. The Indian population perhaps is not altogether unwilling to find an Englishman or a Scotsman administering a district when communal trouble is coming near home, but these are the growing pains of what may be in the future a great self-governed area.
It is in my judgment entirely wrong, because there has been this unhappy breakdown about the Cripps proposals, to assume that there are still more proposals in the locker and that we have only to deal them out one after another like a pack of cards. In the Oriental markets, if one is buying a carpet the recognized method is to start with a low bid while the man who wants to sell the carpet claims something impossibly high, and then little by little to come to an agreement. But this is not the way we have proceeded. It is the other method of putting all your cards on the table which we have adopted. We have put forward the most complete scheme we could to help India to attain her ultimate ambitions. Six months ago it was lauded all over the world. In America people said there could be no fairer scheme proposed. If that was true then, it is true now. While we do not want to take our stand on small matters and say "It is your turn

721
to do something now," I do say it is essential for the great Indian Parties and their leaders to make some effort to get together to help to produce a scheme which would be better than the one we have proposed. Our own proposal is not cancelled. It is there in its general outline to be worked at and, if may be, to be improved. I am confident that the British Parliament wishes for no better opportunity than that it may receive some plan—it may be a better plan—which it can proceed to enact into law, not as being our solution of the Indian question, but as being the solution of the Indian question which the Indian people themselves have decided to adopt and to recommend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole Ho use.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, it falls to me once again to move, in your Lordships' House, the Second Reading of a Bill to suspend local elections
722
and the preparation of a fresh Register of electors for another year. This year it is a Bill which simply continues existing legislation in force for another period of twelve months, and I feel sure your Lordships will not want me to detain you with another explanation. The reasons for the suspension of local elections and the preparation of a Register of electors are so clear that I think I need do no more than formally move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Act to the

Urban District of Braintree and Bocking

County Borough of Bury:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table
House adjourned.