Sitting of 25 February 1943

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk Assistant, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence through indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting. Whereupon Colonel CLIFTON BROWN, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Unemployed Workers
    Mr. Fosterasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the strong feeling which exists in the country because of the existence of over 100,000 unemployed; and what steps he is taking to have this man- and woman-power absorbed in industry with the view of securing the maximum war effort?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): No, Sir. I am not aware of the strong feeling alleged by my hon. Friend. The total to which he refers includes very few who remain unemployed for any length of time, and cannot be regarded as being of any substantial importance as a reservoir of labour. My hon. Friend may rest assured, however, that with the increasing pressure on man-power no opportunity for making use of every available unit will be overlooked by my Department.
    Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very large number of men and women who are fit for jobs in Government factories which are at present being done by fit men, and that in many cases these men and women are given the necessary green card at the Employment Exchanges and are sent to the factories, but when they get there are refused employment? Should not this labour be utilised?
    Mr. Bevin: I issued an instruction on that matter some time ago which has been pretty successful. The best way of dealing with it would be for my hon. Friend to give me information concerning the factories and places he has in mind, and I would then follow it up.
    Sir Granville Gibson: In the figure of unemployed referred to in the Question, can my night hon. Friend say how many are temporarily and how many are permanently unemployed?
    Mr. Bevin: I think that about 25 per cent. are more or less permanently unemployed. These people are old, and it is really a question of invalidity. I should say that the bulk of the remainder are temporarily unemployed.

    Relaxation and Holiday Periods
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the value to the war effort and the people's appreciation of the organisation of the relaxation and holiday periods last summer; is it intended to repeat the appeal made to all local authorities; and will he consider doing this on a larger scale and in the evenings, in particular, where large numbers of people are living many miles away from home?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I appreciate highly the provision made last summer to enable workers to spend enjoyable holidays at home. I hope to see the movement extended this year, both as regard the annual holidays and the Bank Holiday periods, and I have already arranged, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to seek the renewed co-operation of the local authorities in the matter. Last summer's programmes in many places included very successful arrangements for outdoor sport and entertainment in the evenings, and I will gladly commend my hon. Friend's suggestion on this point to authorities who may not already have contemplated such plans.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Is my right hon. Friend in touch with the Board of Education as regards school holidays?

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Reakesasked the Minister of Labour what are the figures over the present war period showing the percentages

    273
    of those of both sexes who have appealed on grounds of conscientious objection against service with His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. Bevin: About 65,000 men and 2,500 women have applied for registration as conscientious objectors to military service. This represents on the average 86 out of every 10,000 men registered and 27 out of every 10,000 women. The numbers for men have fallen in successive registrations from 222 per 10,000 in October, r939 to 36 per 10,000 in 1942.
    Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not a fact that the figures for England are lower: than those for other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think we have separated them.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can my right hon. Friend give the total numbers as well as the percentages?
    Mr. Bevin: I gave the total numbers—65,000 men and 2,500 women.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: When they are ordered to do work of national importance, what steps are taken to see that they remain at that work?
    Mr. Bevin: That is another question, of which I would like to have notice.

    Aliens
    Mr. Reakesasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the manpower position, he will now take the necessary steps to enable the compulsory recruitment for His Majesty's Forces of all aliens of military age at liberty in this country and to give power for the compulsory enlistment for Civil Defence duties, without any exceptions, of these aliens enjoying the protection of this country?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not contemplate legislation additional to the Allied Powers (War Service) Act in respect of military service by aliens in this country. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security that it is proposed to make an Order rendering certain classes of aliens liable for fire guard duty, subject to certain conditions, as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed. He does not consider that any advantage
    274
    would be gained by extending these arrangements to other Civil Defence duties.

    Nurses and Midwives
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange, in connection with the call-up of women who are qualified nurses and midwives, that they shall be directed, without option, to their own jobs, in view of the great shortage at the present time?
    Mr. Bevin: The question whether or in what circumstances, qualified nurses or midwives should be directed to particular work, is one on which I hope shortly to have the advice of the National Advisory Council on the Recruitment and Distribution of Nurses and Midwives, which has just been established.
    Major Lyons: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great shortage in many hospitals, and is he in consultation with the Minister of Health to see that the public interest is looked after?
    Mr. Bevin: It is for that reason that, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend, I established a Nursing Council, so as to get the thing dealt with on a national and an organised basis.

    Book-publishing and Book-selling Trades
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour the reason for discriminating between assistants employed in the book-publishing trade and those in the book-selling trade; and will he consider placing them both on the same basis in regard to withdrawal from these industries?
    Mr. Bevin: I am not clear what my hon. Friend means by assistants in the book-publishing trade. The difference in treatment of women employed in the book-publishing trade and the book-selling trade, as described in my reply to my hon. Friend on 28th January, is in accordance with the principles applied in dealing respectively with women employed in production and those employed in the retail non-food distributive trades.
    Sir T. Moore: Why should my right hon. Friend make this distinction between those who assist or take part in publishing books and those who take part in selling them, and is he not aware that in the publishing trade they can be substituted,

    275
    but that in the book-selling trade they have to be taken away altogether?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot distinguish between selling books and selling boots. They are sold in a shop, and, therefore, I have to deal with the selling side over the whole of the non-food distributive trades.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the answer lie in the fact that those who are in publishing firms are well organised and those in the retail businesses are not?
    Mr. Bevin: No. There is no need to answer that question for me. I assure my hon. Friend that that does not influence our minds at all. What we have to do is to treat like with like.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his conclusions on this very difficult problem with regard to this particular trade very largely meet with the approval of those in other trades who are regarded as distributive workers essential to the war effort?
    Mr. Bevin: My two hon. Friends can settle it outside.
    Mr. Cocks: If my right hon. Friend cannot distinguish between books and boots, does not that show that the Government are very illiterate?
    Mr. Bevin: I was dealing with the selling of the two things. I thought the understanding of my hon. Friend was quite sufficient to know the distinction between producing a book and selling it.

    Electrician's Call-up, Portsmouth
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Labour why Mr. W. J. Wilkins, an electrician employed by Haig's Motor Company, of Portsmouth, was called up despite the fact that the firm held Form N S 204 from the district man-power board stating that deferment would operate for at least six months; whether the Ministry of War Transport's observations were called for before he was removed from his employment; and why the representations of the Regional Transport Commissioner, No. 6 Region, were turned down in this case?
    Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Lodging Allowance, Co. Down
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Labour whether he will have lodging allowance restored and arrears paid to a constituent of the hon. Member for County Down, with whose name and address he has been furnished, who was deprived of his allowance some months ago on the ground that he came from Eire; and whether he will take steps to prevent a repetition of this mistake?
    Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend. In order to prevent misunderstanding, I should say at once that these allowances are not withheld on the ground that the worker's dependants live in Eire.

    Paisley Worker's Transference
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Labour why the Greenock Employment Exchange singled out Mr. James Douglas, of 2, McDowall Street, Paisley, for transfer from the Royal Navy torpedo factory to Scott's shipbuilding works, in view of the fact that he had worked for 16 years at the torpedo factory and many younger and more suitable marine engineers with less torpedo experience were available and could have been transferred; and why Mr. Douglas was only given such short notice of the transfer which has caused him great hardship and loss?
    Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this engineer was compulsorily removed at only a few days' notice and that it means a reduction of £3 a week, and will he see that the gratuity, which amounts to £45, will be returned?
    Mr. Bevin: I will go into it in all its aspects.

  BUILDING INDUSTRY (POST-WAR TRAINING SCHEMES)
  Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have formulated any plans for training and employment in the building industry after the war, having regard to the prospective demands of post-war reconstruction?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. The Government fully recognise the importance of this

  277
  matter and have been devoting close attention to it. Their proposals are set out in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office to-day.
  Mr. Viant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is gratification in the industry at the speed with which this has been done?
  Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the modern knowledge to be given to the younger people owing to new regulations, new materials and new processes, and will he push this as hard as he can and as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand that the training will mean training for bricklayers, carpenters and joiners? Will the ordinary labourers have a chance?
  Mr. Bevin: In the new training schemes that will be set up, I am hoping there will be a wider training available to the building industry. I press that because it is frightfully important. The training schemes will be broad in conception in order to give everybody a chance.

  INDIA

    Mr. Gandhi
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make respecting Mr. Gandhi's fast and circumstances arising therefrom?
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the tension that has arisen in India as a result of Mr. Gandhi's fast and the ensuing risk to his life, he is able to make a statement which may help to remove misunderstanding?
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The circumstances in which the Government of India found it necessary to detain the Congress leaders are well known. The correspondence between Mr. Gandhi and the Viceroy preceding Mr. Gandhi's fast has been published and is available in full in the Library. It contains no indication that Mr. Gandhi sees cause for regret in the outbreaks of murderous violence and sabotage which followed the authorisation in August last by the Congress party of a mass struggle. By rejecting the offer of the Government of India to release him for the period of
    278
    his fast and declaring that his fast would be unnecessary if he were released, Mr. Gandhi has also made it clear that the object of his fast is simply to enforce his unconditional release.
    The Government of India, composed when the decision was taken of nine Indian and four European members, including the Viceroy, decided that they could not yield to this threat. His Majesty's Government are in entire agreement with their decision. India has a vital part to play in the general cause of the United Nations. She is still herself menaced by invasion. There can be no justification for the release of the men who deliberately planned to paralyse India's defence at a most critical moment and who have shown no sign of abandoning their criminal purpose; nor is there any reason in this respect for discrimination between Mr. Gandhi and the other Congress leaders. Subject to their general decision the Government of India have wished to show Mr. Gandhi every consideration. He has, at the Aga Khan's Palace, his own medical attendants as well as those provided by the Government, and is allowed, subject to their advice and to the Government's permission, to receive visitors.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the grave concern felt in some parts of the House and in the country, and of the request of man prominent non-Congress Indian leaders for the release of Mr. Gandhi, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a Debate on an early opportunity?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member must address that Question to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to the suggestion made by Mr. Gandhi on 19th January to the Viceroy that he might be put among the Working Committee of Congress leaders?' That would not involve his release from internment but might ease the situation very greatly?
    Mr. Amery: I must leave that matter to the judgment of the Government of India.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the evidence supporting the implication of his statement that Mr. Gandhi is responsible for outbreaks of violence?
    Mr. Amery: A good deal has been produced, but fuller matter is on its way from India and will be made public.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that Mr. Gandhi's release would be an indication of our strength, showing that we could afford to be generous?
    Mr. Amery: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Mander: Have the Indian leaders who are interested in this matter made an appeal to Mr. Gandhi himself to abandon his fast in the public interest?
    Mr. Amery: I am not aware that they have.
    Mr. Driberg: Even on grounds of practical politics, is it wise for the Government to connive at suicide and martyrdom?
    Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not a fact that the Government of India is earning universal respect by its recognition of the fact that its primary responsibility is the maintenance of conditions under which the masses of the Indian peoples can lead peaceful and normal lives?
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether White Papers will be published covering, respectively, the letter sent by Mr. Gandhi to the Secretary of State on 21st September, 1942, Mr. Gandhi's letter of 14th August and other correspondence not already published; and also the recently published allegations against the Congress responsibility for disturbances in India?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The whole of the correspondence which passed between Mr. Gandhi and the Viceroy and the Government of India, including his letters of 14th August and 21st September, has been given to the Press and made available in the Library. No letter was addressed to me by Mr. Gandhi. The Government of India's statement on Congress responsibility for the disturbances will likewise be given full publicity as soon as it has been received here.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not necessary to publish not only the truth but the whole truth regarding this correspondence, and, as Mr. Gandhi refers to a letter sent to the right hon. Gentleman, will he make inquiries why he never received it?
    Mr. Amery: I have no doubt that, if it was addressed to me by Mr. Gandhi and sent to the Government of India, it would have reached me.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a reference in the published correspondence to a letter which Mr. Gandhi sent him on 21st September? Has he received it?
    Mr. Amery: The letter was addressed to the Viceroy and published. It is in the Library.

    Sabotage Propaganda
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that invitations are being broadcast from Japan to listen to, and apply, directions respecting methods of sabotage broadcast on the wireless by Colonel Britton and others from Great Britain; whether he has been in consultation with the Ministry of Information on this matter; and whether any attempt has been made to prevent sabotage propaganda being received in India through the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. Amery: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The B.B.C.'s European Services do not include any directions regarding sabotage, nor are those services normally receivable in India.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that in fact Subhas Bose, who, he knows, has been deposed by Congress, has been broadcasting from Tokyo an invitation to certain sections of the Indian population to listen to Colonel Britton and adopt his methods?
    Mr. Amery: I understand that, apart from a short Christmas message, Colonel Britton has not spoken on the European service for 10 months or more.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to deal with Mr. Bose's reiteration of sabotage methods as applied to India?
    Mr. Amery: I have made inquiries, and there is no substance behind it.

  CHILD ADOPTION AGENCIES.
  Sir F. Fremantleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the concern felt

  281
  among social workers regarding the increasing number of agencies for the adoption of children; and whether he will take steps for the proper regulation of adoption and the avoidance of traffic in unwanted children for gain by now appointing a day for bringing the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939, into force.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As announced in answer to a Question in this House on 28th January, it has been decided to bring the Act referred to into operation as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. The regulations under the Act are nearly completed, and the preliminary work of investigating applications can then be begun by the local authorities concerned. It is hoped to bring the Act into full operation on 1st June.
  Sir F. Fremantle: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that every day children are being condemned by this slave traffic to being very badly brought up and handled, and that the matter is really urgent?
  Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that we are moving with all possible speed consistent with many other things that we have to do.
  Mr. Buchanan: Will no steps be taken to stop the decent thing that goes on in working-class homes?
  Mr. Morrison: No, sir.

  POLICE (SEARCH WARRANTS)
  Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Home Secretary whether, and to what extent, he has circulated police forces on the effect of Statutory Rules and Orders No. 102 of 1943, rendering unnecessary' the application for a search warrant in certain cases?
  Mr. H. Morrison: No powers of entry and inspection have been conferred on the police under the Order in question, and I have not circulated it to them.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Detainees
    Mr. William Brownasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the test which General Giraud is proposing to
    282
    apply to the release of prisoners in North Africa is willingness on the part of the prisoner to take an active part in the fight against the Germans; and whether he will consider applying a similar test to detainees under 18B?
    Mr. H. Morrison: As has previously been stated in this House, one of the factors to which I attach importance in deciding whether or not to authorise the release of a person detained under this Regulation is whether the person concerned is genuinely willing to assist in the national war effort. A mere profession of willingness, as experience has shown, is not enough, and in the interests of national security I should not be justified in authorising a person's release merely because he or she asserts willingness to take "an active part in the fight against the Germans."
    Mr. Brown: I grant that an expression of willingness may not be enough, but if the Home Secretary is satisfied that on release a detainee under 18B would immediately join the Forces or undertake work of national importance, would he consider it from that point of view?
    Mr. Morrison: That certainly is a factor which determines my mind on these matters, but I would not like to say that it should be the sole determining factor.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the repeated allegations that the continued detention of Admiral Sir Barry Domvile is unjust, he will publish in a White Paper the letter from Domvile which was produced at the trial at Bath Assizes on the 4th and 5th July, 1940, of Olive Evelyn Baker, now serving a sentence of five years' penal servitude for action intended to assist the enemy?
    Mr. Morrison: If it were possible to publish the full facts about individuals detained under Regulation 18B, I recognise that this course would have many advantages, but this is not a practicable course, and it would not be right for me to present to the House piecemeal items of information when some selected item is asked for because it is thought to be discreditable or creditable to a particular individual.
    Mr. Harveyasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered a request from British subjects interned in the Isle

    283
    of Man under Regulation 18B for reconsideration of the allowance of 3s. 6d. per week granted to cooks and camp leaders in view of the length of time during which they have been interned and the fact that some of them have no private means?
    Mr. Morrison: The request to which my hon. Friend refers is receiving consideration.

    Fire Guards (Hardship Committees' Powers)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Home Secretary whether he will provide that a hardship committee, if satisfied of an applicant's permanent physical unfitness for fire-watching, should have power to grant a final and conclusive exemption which the holder could register in any other area instead of going through the whole procedure each time?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Provision already exists by which on a single application exemption on medical grounds may be granted under all the Orders.
    Mr. Oliver: Will my right hon. Friend see that the hardship committees are instructed to that effect?
    Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have any particulars to the contrary, I will look into them.

  DOUBLE SUMMER-TIME
  Major Lyonsasked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement upon the introduction of double summer time for the present year?
  Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state at what date double summer-time will begin and when it will end; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to make double summer-time a permanent feature of that period of the year when daylight is longer?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The Government have decided, after considering the interests affected, that double summer-time shall start this year on the morning of Sunday, 4th April, and end on the morning of Sunday, 15th August. As regards the second part of the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds
  284
  (Major Adams), I think it would be premature to take a decision on that matter at the present date.

  DOG-RACE MEETINGS (TOTALISATOR RECEIPTS)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary the totalisator receipts on greyhound racing tracks for each year from 1938 onwards; and whether the reduction in the number of days on which racing is allowed has had the effect of decreasing receipts proportionately?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I have no official information which would enable me to answer the first part of the Question. The object of reducing the number of dog-race meetings was not to reduce the volume of betting but to secure economies in man-power and fuel, and it may well be that the total volume of betting has not been reduced.
  Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into this problem of keeping greyhound tracks open during the war?
  Mr. Morrison: We have looked into it and taken the action I have indicated. It has resulted in a material reduction, and as at present advised I do not propose to go further.

  JEWS (ENEMY-OCCUPIED EUROPE)
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the plight of Jewry at this moment in the conquered countries, he will remove all restrictions relating to the entry of alien Jews into this country and, in particular, facilitate the entry of elderly relatives of Jewish refugees already here?
  Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to four Questions relating to the plight of Jews in Occupied Europe.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on this matter?
  Mr. Morrison: I hardly think that is necessary, because Ministers received an important deputation quite recently.
  Mr. Cocks: Does my right hon. Friend realise that when the House of Commons stood as a mark of sympathy in connection with this matter it was not intended as a signal for the Government that they should stand still and do nothing?
  Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that even if restrictions were removed only a few hundred refugees at least would be able, owing to shipping difficulties, to reach this country, so that they could not possibly be an embarrassment? Is not the extreme rigidity of the present restrictions a bad example to other countries?

  EDUCATION

    School Meals
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the small percentage of children taking school meals, either free or purchased, in the local authority areas of Lancashire and Cheshire; and what steps he proposes to take to effect an improvement?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): In most of the areas to which the hon. Member refers the percentage of children taking school meals is well up to, and in a number considerably above, the average for the country generally. In all places where the numbers were small last October substantial schemes are in hand, and I will continue to press for further development.
    Mr. Burke: Does not that mean that the rest of the country must be low; and what steps are being taken to improve the position?
    Mr. Butler: The great thing to remember is that they are not low as compared with a year ago. In fact, the numbers have been approximately quadrupled. Steps are taken to encourage schemes, and I am glad to say that the areas to which the hon. Member refers come under those schemes. We are trying to press ahead as fast as we can.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the charge per day has been increased by 6d. and that the numbers have gone down in some places?
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars.
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is his intention to make the provision of school meals a free service; and what other free services in kind are being contemplated?
    Mr. Butler: I am considering both these matters in the light of the statements made on behalf of the Government during the recent Debate on the Beveridge Report.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are important implications? Does he mean that the Board of Education is pledged to free meals, and will be consider the question I put on a previous occasion that at the present moment there is urgency because the cost is going up?
    Mr. Butler: I have just said that I will consider the last point made by the hon. Gentleman. As regards the first point, I would refer him to the statements made by the Lord President and the Home Secretary. He will see that their implications are very wide. That is why I propose to give the House any information I can at the earliest possible moment when I have had a chance to consider the implications.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that if my right hon. Friend is to consider the provision of free meals for school children in the light of what was said by his right hon. Friends last week, the provision of meals will not be put into operation until the Beveridge plan has been considered as a whole?
    Mr. Butler: The great thing is that I propose to press ahead with the provision of children's welfare as quickly as I can in existing circumstances. The only difficulty will be to make the complete provision I would like, because the equipment and other necessaries will necessitate rather slow progress, but I hope to go ahead as fast as I can.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend will introduce this desirable social reform, which everybody agrees with, in spite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Butler: The first thing I shall do is to extend the provision of meals and milk in schools. The second thing I shall do is to make a statement to the House about the implications of the statements made by my colleagues.

    Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Education, whether it is his intention to announce an emergency scheme for the training of future teachers?
    Mr. Butler: The Government have in mind the need for such a scheme, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the McNair Committee to make an interim report without prejudice to the more fundamental examination of this question?
    Mr. Butler: I am not sure that that would be the best way to handle it. I do not want to disturb the work of that Committee as at present advised, but to give them the opportunity of presenting a full and final report when they are ready. As regards the decision which naturally the country wishes to know, I will keep in touch with the Minister of Labour and see whether at any time we can give an indication of what we have in mind for the demobilisation period.
    Sir J. Lamb: When my right hon. Friend is considering this question, will he see the necessity of providing teachers for technical education as against purely academic education?
    Mr. Butler: That is one of the most important necessities.
    Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give an estimate of the present shortage of teachers and the adequacy of the numbers entering the training colleges; and what steps are being taken to encourage men and women now in the Forces to undertake a teaching career at the close of hostilities?
    Mr. Butler: The number of teachers now engaged in the schools in relation to the school population is not materially lower than it was before the war, thanks to the continued service of retired and married women teachers in the schools. The number of men students now in the training colleges is naturally very much less than it was before the operation of the National Service Acts, and there has been some falling off in the number of women in training for the profession. I am taking steps to encourage suitable men and
    288
    women in the Forces to turn their minds to teaching, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider keeping married women teachers in schools after the war?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Harvey: Will these steps include the provision of bursaries for those who are now in the Forces?
    Mr. Butler: That is one of the methods of encouraging them to return to the teaching profession.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Deafness (Treatment)
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Minister of Health whether the plan of his Ministry whereby Civil Defence workers and members of the Merchant Navy who are suffering deafness as a result of war injuries are now provided with aids to hearing or taught lip-reading in the same way as patients from the Services, is now in operation in the Liverpool area?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir. The facilities referred to by my hon. Friend were arranged some months ago and are available to the Liverpool area as well as to the rest of the country.

    Child Population, Wales
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the number of cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis notified in Wales in 1940 and 1941 was 388 and 389, respectively, in children under 11 years of age, as compared with an average of about 345 in the years 1933 to 1939, he will give the increase in the population of Wales of children under 11 years of age in 1940 and 1941 as the result of evacuation from the large towns and cities?
    Mr. E. Brown: Estimates prepared by the Registrar-General suggest that the number of children under 11 years of age in Wales was about 7 per cent. higher in 1940 than the corresponding number before the war. I am unable to say to what extent this increase was due to evacuation from the large towns. Information for 1941 is not yet available.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the increase in the child population in Wales will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when he gives figures such as those embodied in my Question, as he did to the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) on 17th February, in a written answer, he should refer to this vital factor of the increase of child population, otherwise his figures are simply misleading and useless?
    Mr. Brown: I can only answer the Questions put to me, and that I do, but my hon. Friend sometimes draws deductions which are not warranted by the terms of the Questions put to me.

    Venereal Disease
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether the propaganda campaign for the prevention and elimination of venereal disease will include a national appeal to all parents and guardians of children to instruct them in at least an elementary knowledge of sex and the natural functions of the body?
    Mr. E. Brown: At present I propose to leave such action to the initiative of parents, but the Central Council for Health Education arranges sex education talks to parents and young people, at the request of local authorities, local education authorities, and youth organisations. The campaign also includes pamphlets addressed to adolescents which may be distributed through local authorities and in other ways. I am sending my hon. Friend copies.
    Mr. Adams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a matter of the first importance, and that a more general national effort ought to be made, because large numbers of families still consider this to be an untouchable subject, to the loss of the rising generation?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise that from 1st April last year to date, the Central Council has given about 200 courses of 3-4 lectures to young people, 30 to youth leaders, 20 to school leavers, and 30 to parents, so that considerable efforts are being made.
    Mr. Adams: But that activity does not reach the nation at large.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Are the Minister and the Central Council making use of the excellent pamphlets that are used in the Army to give instruction in this matter?
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the present indication of the value of Regulation 33B?
    Mr. Brown: Local authorities have been asked, in a circular issued early in January, to submit quarterly reports during the first year of the operation of the new Regulation. At present, therefore, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position to assess the effects of the Regulation so far. There is general evidence, however, that the Regulation has been welcomed by local authorities.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Association of County Medical Officers of Health will be able to give him practical information on this subject?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

    Ordnance Factory Workers (Medical Treatment)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Health the position of those persons who work at the Royal Ordnance factories who have not been insured under the National Health Insurance before and who have to have medical treatment; and whether they are called upon to pay the doctor for his services?
    Mr. E. Brown: A person is entitled to medical benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts from the time when he enters insurable employment. If he requires treatment before he has obtained a medical card from the insurance committee the doctor who gives the treatment may require him to pay a deposit, but the deposit will be refunded when his title to benefit is established.
    Mr. Tinker: Does that apply to women over 60 and to men over 65 who enter employment now?
    Mr. Brown: It applies to persons who are new entrants into insurance who are not in possession of medical cards and some of whom are known to, have had to defray the doctors' charges. With regard to those over the ages mentioned I should like notice of the Question, and I will let my hon. Friend know.
    Mr. Tinker: I have a case which I will send on.

    State Medical Service
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether, as a start in the negotiations with the medical profession on the subject of a State medical service, he will ascertain whether' the British Medical Association will supply a copy of its interim report on the subject to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have ascertained from the British Medical Association that a copy of the Draft Interim Report of the Medical Planning Commission will be supplied on application to any Member of this House.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any negotiations have started between his Department and the medical profession?
    Mr. Brown: I am just making arrangements.

  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, NORTH-WEST LONDON
  Mr. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health what is the estimated cost of alterations and work now being undertaken at the property in Avenue Road, N.W.8, recently requisitioned by his Department; and what is the estimated cost of replacement and compensation?
  Mr. E. Brown: The estimated cost of alterations and work now being undertaken at this property is £1,220. Replacement and compensation will be determined under the provisions of the Defence Compensation Act if and when a claim is received.
  Mr. Wakefield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be a great deal of unnecessary expenditure on this place and that compensation is likely to be very high? Will he look into the question and see whether the cost to the taxpaver cannot be kept as low as possible?
  Mr. Brown: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend has some concern in this matter I think that we had better discuss this elsewhere.

  BILLETING ALLOWANCES
  Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the
  292
  losses made by Government hostels charging more than billeting authorities pay for equivalent board and lodging, he will reconsider the scale of billeting allowances?
  Mr. E. Brown: I cannot accept the implication in my hon. Friend's Question that the two matters are comparable. The scale of billeting allowances is kept under review, and I do not think that any further revision is called for at present.
  Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend agree that many householders are out of pocket over billeting, and is not this enforced philanthropy very unfair?
  Mr. Brown: I would not accept either assumption.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that billeting allowances in respect of officers in the Services show a marked disproportion to the allowances for civilian workers, and will he do something to put matters right?
  Mr. Brown: That is another Question not involved in the first part of my answer to my hon. Friend.

  HOUSING

    Post-War Priority
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Health whether he will give an undertaking that in his post-war planning the housing of the people shall take precedence of the rebuilding of such fabrics as are not immediately necessary to the life of the nation?
    Mr. E. Brown: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot give the undertaking for which he asks, since many considerations are involved and the matter is under examination. But I gladly undertake to press for the highest priority for housing work in view of its vital importance to the health and well-being of the nation.
    Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise the perfectly terrible housing conditions that Members meet with when visiting their constituents?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly, and I made that quite clear in a recent speech in the House.
    Mr. De la Bère: What progress is being made in the provision of houses for agricultural

    293
    workers? Will my right hon. Friend get on with that, because we want to see some performance?
    Mr. Brown: Every endeavour is being made to deal with this problem so far as we can secure labour and materials.

    Agricultural Workers' Cottages
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Home Counties and other districts adjacent to large centres of population, there has been a continuing process, over the last 30 years, of using cottages built for and formerly occupied by agricultural labourers, as residences for persons of a different class, often for the purpose of week-end use only; and whether, in view of the hardship thus caused and the great lack of cottages for agricultural workers, he will issue an Order in Council prohibiting any person, unless officially billeted there, who is not an agricultural worker from occupying, in future, any cottage at present used as an agricultural worker's cottage?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have great sympathy with the object which my Noble Friend has in view, but in the case of houses owned by private persons the measure he suggests would appear to involve the compilation and maintenance of an up-to-date register of all houses occupied by agricultural workers. This complicated administrative procedure would, I fear, be quite impracticable. Houses built by local authorities for agricultural workers are already adequately safeguarded. I would point out moreover that under the Rent Restrictions Acts a landlord may apply to the Courts for vacant possession of a house required for an agricultural worker, without proof of alternative accommodation. I would also remind my Noble Friend that notwithstanding the many other urgent demands on labour and materials, preparatory work has already begun on a limited war-time scheme of 3,000 new cottages for agricultural workers.
    Earl Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attention of the Department has constantly been called to this matter both during his administration and that of his predecessors—I called attention to it as long ago as 1908—and that nothing whatever has been done? In view of that and of the most exiguous building plans
    294
    of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to move a reduction of his salary when his Estimates come forward and will raise the whole question.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether, before any measure of reform for local government administration is introduced, he will hold an independent inquiry at which all forms of local authority may voice their opinions?
  Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave on 19th January to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick).

  WOMEN'S SERVICES
  Mrs. Cazalet Keirasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state whether any action is proposed by the Government to carry out the suggestions in Section 19 of the Report on the Women's Services, that members of the auxiliary services should form part of the Armed Forces for work in Europe and elsewhere after the war?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Artlee): The Government have fully realised the importance of the suggestions put forward in Section 19 of the Report on the Women's Services, and, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, these matters are being very fully investigated. As soon as I am in a position to make a further statement I will communictae with my hon. Friend.

  CIVIL AVIATION (RAILWAY COMPANIES)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister without Portfolio whether his attention has been directed to the acquisition by the railway companies of a major interest in the finance company that controls British civil aviation; and what action he is taking to safeguard the national interests and to meet the need for the rapid development of civil aviation immediately on the termination of hostilities?
  The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): Three of the railway companies have acquired a controlling interest in British and Foreign Aviation Ltd. This company has partly financed certain civil aviation companies operating within the British Isles, but it certainly does not control British civil aviation. The Secretary of State for Air has specific powers under Section 10 of the Air Transport Acts, 1929, to take action if it appears that the powers of the Acts are being used in such a way as to hamper development of civil aviation or against public interests, but I have no reason to think that this transaction will have such an effect.
  Mr. Smith: Does the Minister consider that there is monopoly development here, and in view of the effect of monopoly development upon the national interest, what steps is he taking to safeguard national interests in the future?
  Sir W. Jowitt: All those matters will certainly be considered.
  Mr. Shinwell: But has my right hon. and learned Friend observed that every time he is asked a question about this and other matters affecting post-war policy his reply is that they are going to be considered but never tells us that anything is being done?
  Mr. Holdsworth: Would not private interests do it bettter than the State?
  Mr. A. Edwards: Will the Minister tell the House whether he really considers the best interests of civil aviation and Overseas Airways are being served when the chairman is also the chairman of the railway company who are trying to break it up and was chairman of the finance company who got a very handsome rake-off before the war?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker——
  Mr. Edwards: But this is not good enough. The Minister is here to answer our Questions.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an expression of opinion. It is laid down that facts and not opinions should be sought for at Question time.
  Mr. Shinwell: In any event will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that he is also a member of the Labour Party?
  Mr. Holdsworth: And will he also remember that there are other opinions on this matter?

  APPROVED SOCIETIES (SICKNESS BENEFIT)
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister without Portfolio whether, under the Government's Beveridge Plan proposals, industrial assurance approved societies are to be placed in the same position as friendly societies approved societies in the distribution of sickness benefit?
  Sir W. Jowitt: The question whether, and subject to what conditions, various types of existing approved societies might be allowed to act as agents in the administration of disability benefit is receiving consideration, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement on this matter made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the course of the recent Debate on Sir William Beveridge's proposals.
  Mr. Mander: Cannot my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Government have decided to accept the Beveridge plan proposals in this matter or not?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I have already said that no final conclusion has been come to.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are wide variations of benefit and that those who need it most are receiving least, and will he take some steps in the interval, while approved societies may remain, to see that the poorest people get benefits equal to those who are more well to do?
  Sir W. Jowitt: That is certainly a relevant consideration.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind in considering this problem that industrial insurance companies have never paid sickness benefit like the approved societies?
  Earl Winterton: In view of the great interest taken in this subject in the country, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate when the period of gestation in his mind will come to an end and when it will be possible to make some announcement?
  Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir, I cannot at present give any date.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that when the period of gestation is over it may be twins?

  AGRICULTURE

    Women's Land Army
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the limit of four miles, which members of the Women's Land Army are not to exceed in cycling to their daily work, is observed; and that they are not required to cycle longer distances to and from the site of their work?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): There is no Regulation which fixes the maximum distance that members of the Women's Land Army should cycle to their daily work. The Land Army endeavours to make accommodation arrangements which will avoid long daily journeys, and I have not received complaints that members are having to walk or cycle unduly long distances.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister not aware that some of these girls have to cycle many miles a day to work? Will he not give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member has not listened to the answer which I gave him, which was that I have received no complaints. If the hon. Member has any complaints, he had better send them to me.
    Mr. Brown: May I be sure that if I do I shall get both action and consideration from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make Regulations to provide that land girls under a certain age shall not stand on the drums of threshing machines; and whether he is satisfied that all precautions are taken to ensure that existing Regulations are fully observed?
    Mr. Hudson: I do not think it desirable to make a Regulation such as is suggested. Although 17-year old girls are accepted by the Women's Land Army if they are specially suitable, most of the members are of 18 years and upwards. Where it is necessary for a Women's Land Army member to act as feeder in a threshing gang, a careful and responsible type of girl is selected. Apart from the general
    298
    instructions issued to those responsible for threshing sets, care is taken to explain the working of the threshing machine to members of Land Army threshing gangs. I believe that the safety Regulations are well understood and observed.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Is the Minister aware that some of these girls of lower age are extremely able, and that a large proportion of them do the work very well?

    Cattle Diseases
    Sir R. Clarryasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the lack of pure drinking water for cattle is one cause of the spread of disease in herds and the increased consumption of infected milk; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that a supply of clean uninfected water is made available to cattle?
    Mr. Hudson: I am aware that impure water supplies are one cause of the spread of disease among cattle. At the same time they play only a very minor part in the spread among dairy cattle of diseases that may infect the milk supply. My Department already assists farmers under a grant-aid scheme to carry out works of water supply in approved cases.
    Sir R. Garryasked the Minister of Agriculture when, in order to limit the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle, he contemplates introducing measures to prevent the sale of disease-laden cattle in the open market; and whether he will enable the appropriate tests to be made on the animals concerned before they are offered for sale?
    Mr. Hudson: The removal from farm premises to a market of cattle affected with tuberculosis in a clinical form is prohibited by the Tuberculosis Order. As regards other cattle, it would be impracticable to require the passing of a tuberculin test as a general condition of entry to markets.
    Sir R. Clarry: Why would it be impracticable, may I ask?
    Mr. Hudson: The reasons are too long to be given in answer to a Question.

    Farm Domestic Labour
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the necessity of increasing home food production and the demands consequently made on farmers, he will urge the immediate formation of a house stewards' branch of the

    299
    Women's Land Army, and also permit girls who have had previous experience of the land to join the Women's Land Army and enjoy the benefits of the uniform and all the concessions made to that corps?
    Mr. Hudson: It is not proposed to form a house stewards' branch of the Women's Land Army. Members of the Women's Land Army are recruited and are needed for full-time employment on the land. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, who is of opinion that it would not in general be justifiable to recruit young and mobile women for employment on domestic duties. He is, however, taking other measures to help over the shortage of farm domestic labour. On the further point raised by my hon. Friend, I would refer to the reply given on 4th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir).
    Sir J. Lamb: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers would be willing to employ these women on the land, but are precluded from doing so because their wives are not able to look after them and can get no domestic help at all?
    Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, I am aware that that is the case in a number of instances, and that is why I have approached the Minister of Labour and National Service to try to find a remedy.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not possible to get more Italian prisoners?
    Mr. Hudson: That is being done as fast as possible.
    Mr. Price: Is it not the case that where house stewards have been appointed they have been very successful?

    Workers' Cottages
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Health with a view to the extension of the provision of cottages for farm workers, having regard to his recent pronouncement on the necessity for increased production of food from the land?
    Mr. HudsonI am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who realises as well as I do the
    300
    importance of securing as much additional accommodation as possible for agricultural workers, whether by way of new building, reconditioning or billeting. In view, however of the demands on labour and material for vital military needs, it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope of an increase in the number of cottages to be built this year.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that I want to wake the authorities up in these matters?

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in connection with the case of Mr. Sutton, of Leicester, who was discharged from the Army after some two years' service having been accepted as A1 on enlistment, he has considered the assurances given by him in the House on 6th August last; and when, where and by whom the independent medical examination of Mr. Sutton took place?
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I have fully considered the case of Mr. Sutton in the light of my statement on 6th August last. All the evidence in this case, including all statements made by or on behalf of the man himself, were placed before an independent physician nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians about a month ago. This independent physician expressed the opinion that a personal examination was unnecessary in view of the medical evidence already available as to Mr. Sutton's condition. In the view of the independent physician, this condition is neither attributable to nor materially aggravated by war service, and, having regard to the nature of the disease from which Mr. Sutton is suffering, this is in no way inconsistent with symptoms not having been observable on enlistment.
  Major Lyons: Is not the Minister aware that in a case like this it is ludicrous to say that he is returning this man for medical examination then and not have the man examined?
  Sir W. Womersley: When I appoint, or ask the President of the Royal College of Physicians to appoint, an independent physician to adjudicate on the medical evidence, it is not possible for me to suggest

  301
  what course he should take, as he would not then be independent of me or my Department. I must leave the matter entirely to his judgment.
  Major Lyons: In view of the direct conflict between this case and the assurance given by the Minister, and in view of the shocking system it discloses of non-examination of these men, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter either on the Vote for the Minister's salary or upon the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Pensions the grounds on which Mr. D. F. Gifford, of 46, High Street, Heanor, was refused an award of pension; whether he is aware that Mr. Gifford was medically examined and passed fit for service in June, 1941, notwithstanding his eye trouble; and to what cause, other than military service, the marked deterioration which has resulted in Mr. Gifford's discharge from the Army is attributed?
  Sir W. Womersley: As I have already explained to the hon. Member, Mr. Gifford is suffering from an eye affection dating from well before his enlistment. Deterioration was equally possible whether he had remained in civil life or served in the Forces. I could accept his condition as materially aggravated if satisfactory evidence were submitted which would establish that the deterioration had been accelerated by some special factor of Army Service. So far such evidence has not been forthcoming, but if fresh facts are made available I shall always be prepared further to consider the case.
  Mr. Oliver: Does not the Minister recognise that in this case the man was accepted into the Army suffering from this trouble, quite recently, about a year ago? If the man's present condition is not due to deterioration caused by Army service, what in heaven's name has caused it?
  Sir W. Womersley: This man was accepted as Grade 2, and it was noted on his enlistment form that he was suffering from this eye trouble. He is exactly in this condition now. He was considered later by the Army authorities. His first acceptance was by the medical board appointed by the Ministry of Labour. Having examined him, the Army authorities thought it would be much better for him to return to his civil occupation.
  Mr. Oliver: Is the Minister suggesting that this man was accepted into the Army when he was physically unfit? From the observations which have fallen from him I gather the Minister to have said that there was no change in the man's condition. If so, the man ought not to have been accepted into the Army.
  Sir W. Womersley: I must repeat that it was noted on the paper that the man suffered from this trouble. It is only a matter of eye trouble. He is not a disabled man, and he can go back to his civil occupation and carry on. The Army medical board were quite right in suggesting that this man would perhaps be better in civil life.
  Mr. Oliver: Does not the Minister realise that many of these men, when they are brought into the Army—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Captain Poole.
  Captain Poole: Will the Minister please say why he always puts the onus upon the man rather than Where it rightly belongs, on his own Department?
  Sir W. Womersley: I do not put the onus on the man. I collect together all the information that is possible, favourable to the man, to help him in presenting his case. That is the Regulation which I have laid down in my Department. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that he is entirely wrong.
  Major Lyons: May I ask the Minister, on the original Question—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker——
  Major Lyons: On a point of Order. Can I have your Ruling whether I am entitled to ask the Minister, who has made two conflicting statements, why he has withdrawn the statement he made?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister has answered the Question which was put to him.
  Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the resolution passed by a mass meeting of ex-Service men in Northern Ireland protesting against the harshness with which the Regulations of the Royal Charter are being administered, and demanding the setting-up in Northern Ireland of independent appeals tribunals to review

  303
  appeals against the decisions of the Ministry of Pensions, he will have such tribunals set up at once in Northern Ireland?
  Sir W. Womersley: I do not accept the view that the provisions of the Royal Warrant are being harshly administered, and the resolution contains no evidence to support this view. As I have informed the House, the whole question of Pensions Appeal Tribunals is at present under review by a Sub-Committee of my Central Advisory Committee.
  Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend have strict inquiries made into these complaints of these ex-Service men, and see that the human touch is brought into operation and full opportunity given to them to state their case before independent tribunals?
  Sir W. Womersley: A full opportunity is given to all these men to state their case before my local war pensions committees. There are these committees in Northern Ireland. That is the avenue at the present moment. I am pressing on as fast as ever I can with forming pensions appeal tribunals, and I submit to the House that we should not have had to deal with two Questions to-day if tribunals had been in existence.
  Major Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Minister aware there are quite a number of complaints and a good deal of dissatisfaction about the present state of affairs in Northern Ireland?
  Sir W. Womersley: I am well aware that as long as a Ministry of Pensions exists there will be both complaints and dissatisfaction.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Local Authorities' Employees (Service Pay and Wages)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the serious burden incurred by ratepayers through the making up of wages and salaries of local government employees now serving in the Forces, he will consider making a grant to each local authority concerned, to enable them to meet such extra cost which has been imposed on them by Parliament?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The making-up of any
    304
    difference between Service pay and earnings in civil employment is a matter for the employer, and I regret that I can see no sufficient reason to depart from this principle where the employer is a local authority.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of recent legal decisions local authorities are now virtually compelled to make up this pay, and that in the case of many of the smaller local authorities this means a special increase in the rates, and the position arises that the majority of ratepayers called upon to pay this increase will not themselves be receiving any such benefits?

    Superannuation Allowances (Income Tax Relief)
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under what conditions funds are approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of granting relief from Income Tax of contributions towards superannuation allowances?
    Sir K. Wood: The conditions which must be fulfilled to enable a superannuation fund to be approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, so as to entitle members of the fund to relief from Income Tax in respect of their contributions are prescribed by Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921.
    Dr. Thomas: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that many people pay superannuation to a central fund, and that employers also pay yearly sums towards these pensions, would he consider introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity in order to vary Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, so that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should regard such as a fund, as a "fund bona fide established under irrevocable trusts," thereby allowing Income Tax relief in the same way as is usual to most persons paying superannuation?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to me about the matter.

  NORTHERN IRELAND AND EIRE (SMUGGLING)
  Dr. Littleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make

  305
  more determined efforts to stamp out smuggling between Northern Ireland and Eire, which is on the increase?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the smuggling of goods from Northern Ireland into Eire, and I can assure him that very determined efforts are made to suppress this traffic. These efforts, I am glad to say, have had favourable results, but I agree that extreme vigilance continues to be required.
  Dr. Little: Arising out of that answer, will my hon. Friend have much more drastic steps taken to deal with this traffic, as the very hearse and coffin have been utilised to bring dutiable goods across the border?
  Mr. Assheton: Any information the hon. Member can give us will be investigated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the Leader of the House state the Business for the next series of Sittings?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business will be as follows:—
First Sitting Day—Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Diplomatic and Consular Services, Old Age Pensions, and Ministry of Town and Country Planning; Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates passed in Committee on 11th February; Committee and remaining stages of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill, and of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Second Sitting Day—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, 1943, and consider Votes A and I and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Third Sitting Day—Motion to approve the Government's proposals for the reform of the Foreign Service; Second Reading of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill [Lords].
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House, first, whether he would be prepared to arrange at a fairly early date for a Debate when the general Indian
306
situation might be reviewed, because I feel the House is really ill-informed on the situation? Secondly, whether the Government, after consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Equal Compensation, will announce their conclusions and give an opportunity for a Debate in the House?
Mr. Eden: As regards the first question, it is the Government's view that in the present state of affairs in respect of Mr. Gandhi's fast it would serve no useful purpose but rather the reverse, but, of course, we are prepared to review the situation as it develops in the course of next week. As regards the second question which the right hon. Gentleman asks, the Report, I think, was available in the Vote Office yesterday. It is now under consideration by the Government, and I hope to be able to announce during the next series of Sittings what action we propose to take.
Mr. Greenwood: I was not suggesting that the Government had had time to consider it, but only reminding the Government that the House would wish for an early opportunity for a Debate, after the Government had had time to consider the matter.
Mr. Maxton: In reference to the statement by the Leader of the House that he would consider giving a day to an Indian Debate as the situation develops, would it not be much more intelligible for this House to debate the situation in India before any tragedy happens rather than after?
Mr. Eden: I had carefully considered the reply I gave to the House. It is the Government's considered view that there will be no useful purpose served by a Debate at present.
Mr. Mander: When is it proposed to take the Committee stage of the Catering Bill? Will it be before Easter in any case?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I hope we shall be in a position to get on with it soon, but I cannot give a definite date.
Sir Herbert Williams: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the Motion standing in my name and that of a very large number of Members for a very early date on the subject of delegated legislation?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. These matters, I understand, are being considered.
Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the Government propose to introduce legislation dealing with the subject of old age pensions?
Mr. Eden: The work on that is proceeding, but I cannot give an actual date when it will be ready.
Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this was promised last Session?
Mr. Eden: If I remember aright, it was promised in the course of this Session. That promise will be kept.
Mr. Gallacher: When are we to have the promised discussion or proposals with regard to old age pensions?
Mr. Eden: That is the question I have just dealt with. The Government undertook that the proposals would be made available in the course of this Session, and they will be.
Mr. Driberg: How soon will the Government be able to make a statement regarding their reconsideration of the Beveridge Report as promised in the light of last week's Debate?

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
John Beattie, Esquire, for the Borough of Belfast (West Division).
Group-Captain William Helmore, C.B.E., for the County of Hertford (Watford Division).
Violet Emily Mildred Bathurst, commonly called Lady Apsley, for the Borough of Bristol (Central Division).

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1943
    Order for Committee read.

    SIR JAMES GRIGG'S STATEMENT
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I beg to move, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    This time last year our fortunes were at a low ebb, perhaps lower than at any time since the summer of 1940. Singapore had fallen a few days before, British troops were falling back all too rapidly in Burma, and the threat to India was growing daily. In the Middle East the Eighth Army had been pushed back again to the Gazala line, after having reached El Agheila only a short time before. On the Russian front the Germans were surviving the persistent Russian attacks throughout the winter without losing their grip on any of the key points they had captured and fortified the year before. Indeed, it was known that they were building up a formidable new striking force for the summer campaign. The U-boat war continued with unabated intensity—but there is no need for me to prolong this dismal catalogue.
    Nor had we seen the end of retreats and disasters. Helped by his shorter supply line, Rommel was able on 26th May to launch his attack on the Gazala position, and just over a month later he was at the gates of Cairo and Alexandria. The issue of the Gazala battle had hung in the balance for many days, but in the end, in spite of the heavy losses inflicted on the enemy, our armoured Forces were definitely worsted, and the Eighth Army was swept back along the old familiar road. On the way back occurred the terrible incident of Tobruk, which bit very deeply into the heart and conscience of us all, and the torrent was not finally stemmed until Rommel's eyes could almost see the rich Promised Land—the literally promised land—of the Nile Delta.
    322
    All the time these events were in process Malta was undergoing intense attacks from the air. Once the Eighth Army had retreated beyond Martuba the possibility of running in convoys under fighter cover had disappeared, and to the ordeal of air bombardment there was added the threat of starvation. How she survived is a story well known to all the world, and the feats of the Island and its garrison have rivalled in heroism and glory the earlier defence of the Knights of St. John 400 years before. No praise can be too high for the share taken in the succour and defence of the Island by the Navy, the Merchant Navy and the Royal Air Force. But I should not like, in renewing our tribute to these Services, to overlook what was done by the soldiers, both British and Maltese, during those dark days. The anti-aircraft gunners, for example, destroyed more than 100 Axis aircraft in the month of April alone. Equally valuable, if less spectacular, was the work of thousands of other soldiers, who, besides manning the defences of the Island, were called upon to maintain airfields and build new ones, fill in craters, remove wreckage and incidentally to unload the all too rare ships while bombs fell around them. Bomb disposal, rescue work and fire fighting were the daily tasks of the Army in Malta and all this on a diet which was very little more than enough to support existence.
    In the Far East until well into the summer the Japanese continued to stretch out, Westwards towards India and Southwards towards Australia. After the disasters of Singapore and deprived of the assistance of the U.S. fleet, there was little we could do to stop them, and they quickly completed their conquest of the Malayan barrier and advanced deeply into Burma. Here, however, they were slowed up by General Alexander's masterly withdrawal. By keeping his force undivided and by imposing the greatest possible delay, he prevented the enemy from reaching the Assam border before the rains came in May, and vital time was gained which enabled Field Marshal Wavell to organise the defences of India. It was undoubtedly a great feat of arms, this Burma campaign; it was fought under great disadvantages, but largely due to their fine fighting spirit and good leadership our men survived this most gruelling of retreats through what is perhaps the most difficult country in the

    323
    world. It is foolish to try to anticipate the judgments of history, but it is quite conceivable that this campaign may prove to have been the crucial point in deciding the fate of the Japanese hegemony.
    To add to our discomfiture, there were what seemed to us then the heavy misfortunes of our Soviet Allies. After holding the early Russian attacks near Kharkov, the Germans broke through to the heart of Stalingrad and the Northern foothills of the Caucasus. In retrospect we can see that these retreats were less disastrous than they looked, and it is possible, of course, that Stalin had decided to repeat Kutusoff's strategy against Napoleon. Space is the easiest thing for Russia to give up, and the Germans certainly gained lots of space, but they gained very little else—certainly not oil, nor the vital passes of the Caucasus, and certainly not the destruction of the Russian Armies. On the other hand, they suffered immense losses in that for them most precious of all commodities—manpower—and once they had failed to consolidate themselves on the Volga they were in a very vulnerable position. However, it did not look at all like this six or eight months ago. But all this time there were powerful factors developing in our favour, and the immense resources, the reserve power and the spirit of the United Nations were bound to tell in the long run. In the latter part of the summer these factors began to assert themselves and the enemy's apparently irresistible progress was definitely halted, and finally, in recent months, we have seen it put into reverse.
    The magnificent defence of Stalingrad and the Caucasus meant the end of all German dreams of a Russian collapse. It meant more than that, for once the Germans failed to break up the Soviet Forces and to get the oil of Caucasia the winter was bound to be a terrible ordeal for them. To-day the Sixth Army, which had so nearly taken Stalingrad, has been obliterated, Rostov has gone, and only a few minor footholds remain in the Kuban. Moreover, the Russians have, further North, captured Kharkov and made deep penetrations into the defences to which the Germans clung so fiercely throughout last winter. There will clearly have to be a considerable shortening of the line, though
    324
    where it will be has not yet been revealed to us.
    British Armies, too, have turned to the offensive and have inflicted a heavy defeat on the Axis. After a period of recuperation and preparation, which included the defeat of Rommel's final desperate bid for Alexandria, on 23rd October the great Battle of Alamein was begun, heralded by an intense bombardment by 800 guns, with over a thousand tanks waiting to exploit any break-through by the infantry. Ten days later, the Battle of Egypt and Libya, which had been rolling to and fro ever since June, 1940, was at last and indisputably won. Three months more and the Eighth Army entered Tripoli, 1,500 miles further on, and the new Roman Empire had ceased to exist. Apart from being a glorious feat of arms, this advance was an almost incredible triumph of organisation. After the initial battle, the problem was, primarily, one of maintenance and supplies, for Rommel abandoned one prepared position after another, as soon as General Montgomery arrived in front of it in strength. I do not repeat here the tributes to General Lindsell's work which the Prime Minister and I myself have already publicly expressed. But that is only because the work speaks so clearly for itself.
    Fifteen days after the attack at Alamein began, the Allied offensive was launched at the other end of the Mediterranean. This met with great initial success, for the French turned almost immediately from resistance to willing co-operation, and we were able, therefore, to start the race for Tunis much sooner than we expected. We only missed taking the prize by a narrow margin. Our chief enemy has been the weather, for two months of heavy and continual rain turned the ground into quagmires, which meant that our forces became practically roadbound. Nevertheless, these two operations between them have resulted in the clearance of the enemy from North Africa, except for the comparatively small area of Tunisia, and, although hard battles will be necessary before the process is complete, as the recent setbacks in the centre have warned us, very clearly great possibilities are open. Besides these major victories, a successful campaign has been fought by British troops in Madagascar; in the Far East the Japanese have been stopped and the operations in New Guinea and the Solomons have relieved if not removed the

    325
    threat to Australia. Another sign of the turning of the tide is the preparatory advance into Burma which has brought us within sight of Akyab, 70 miles from the starting-point.
    So then, the year which has passed has seen disaster turn into the beginnings of victory. It has given fresh proof of the resilience and will to conquer of our great Russian Ally. It has revealed the enormous resources available to the United Nations. It has produced, in the Eighth Army, the finest instrument of war which has, so far, been fashioned in the history of the British Empire; and it has renewed on the field of battle that great union of American, British and French troops which saw its first expression in 1918. I do not wish to give the impression that we have already won the war. I do mean to say that the black darkness of the night is over and that we can see the dawn approaching. But there is still some time yet to high noon and still more to the calm of evening.
    Against this operational background, the great task of administering and organising the Army has had to be carried out. This has not been an easy undertaking, and that is why I want now to describe what has been going on behind the scenes to enable the Army to play the part it has done and to shape it for the work which it will have to do in the future. I spoke just now about the administrative triumph of the advance from Alamein to Tripoli and beyond, but I am not sure that the immense preparations required for the successful launching of the North African expedition are not equally worthy of praise.
    The preparations were begun as long ago as last March. They included the provision, collection, packing, marking and despatch from depots to ports, of hundreds of thousands of tons of stores, as well as many thousands of vehicles. Numerous troop transports and cargo ships had to be collected, berthed in selected embarkation ports, and the men and materials brought to these ports from all over Great Britain. As an indication of the magnitude of what we had to do, the House may be interested to know that 185,000 men, 20,000 vehicles and 220,000 tons of stores had all to be moved in a period of about three weeks from billets and depots to ports. This meant running 440 special troop trains, 680
    326
    special freight trains and 15,000 railway wagons by ordinary goods services, and the subsequent embarkation of this mass of men and stores in transports and cargo ships.
    Moreover, this was an operation of war. For all we knew, the landings might be bitterly contested. Cargo could not then just be stowed anyhow. Success or failure 1,200 miles away in North Africa, might depend very largely on the speedy discharge of equipment, vehicles and stores in the order required for operations on shore. The cargo for each ship had, therefore, to be chosen in meticulous detail before ever stores were sent from the depots and moved to ports.
    All this involved weeks and months of preliminary work, which was made more anxious by the inevitable insistence on the utmost secrecy and the consequent restriction to the absolute minimum of those who were fully or even partially in the secret. The almost complete surprise achieved in an operation of this magnitude in unbelievable and reflects the greatest credit on all concerned, among whom, incidentally, I may mention the representatives of the Press, because the great newspapers were asked to nominate their representatives to be war correspondents in that area and therefore must have known what was going on. And, further, this operation was a joint Anglo-American one, which meant continuous and wholehearted co-operation between the two Armies as well as with the other services. For example, the supply systems had to be sufficiently integrated to prevent any overlap or confusion. At the same time, steps had to be taken to ensure that the known and tried systems of each nation—to which they had grown accustomed over long years—were not thrown out of gear by the introduction of a new and untried scheme. Yet all the time that these vast armadas were being prepared and despatched—and the convoy containing the assault force was the largest that ever sailed from this country—shipping continued to arrive here bringing the country's civil and military requirements from overseas, and convoys for the maintenance of our Armies in all the other theatres of war abroad continued to load and leave for their varying destinations. I have already referred to one of the natural difficulties which confronted our troops on their arrival in North Africa,

    327
    namely, mud. But this was really only a super-imposition on the other natural difficulties, and these had all to be taken in the day's work by the Royal Engineers works and transportation units, the Royal Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers. It would be invidious to pick out any of these for praise above the others, and so I select for special mention a different Corps altogether, namely, the Pioneers, those men-of-all-work of the Army. The Pioneers have done and are doing quite excellent work in North Africa, and I am glad to be able to remedy to some slight degree the lack of appreciation which I know their Colonel Commandant, Lord Milne, has sometimes felt that they have endured.
    Another of the major administrative achievements of the Army is the building up of the Forces in Iraq and Persia and the development of communications between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. Events in Egypt, Libya and Tripolitania have been more spectacular, but if the Germans had broken through the Caucasus, there would have been plenty of excitement in and over Persia and Iraq, where lie the vast oil-fields so vital to the war effort of the Empire. In September, 1942, Persia and Iraq, which had previously formed part of the Middle East Command, became a separate Command. This decision was reached not only on operational grounds, but also in order to effect a greater concentration on the development of aid to Russia through the Persian Gulf ports. All the same, it was no easy matter to split up one Command into two, and ceaseless problems have arisen, for one example, over the allocation of resources between the new Command and the Middle East Command.
    Of their work in these countries, where the terrain is even more difficult than the Western Desert, British and Indian engineers may well be proud. Ports have been developed or enlarged, roads and railways have been constructed or increased in capacity to take supplies to Russia as well as the maintenance load for our own forces. We are still working on the problem of increasing the volume of aid to Russia. There have been many difficulties to be overcome; disappointments and setbacks have occurred, but a great work is being carried on. All the
    328
    material, locomotives, rolling stock, cranes and transport vehicles required to develop the routes have been carried by sea from this country and America. Similarly, every ton of stores and munitions sent by these routes to Russia—and the total is very large—has also been transported over vast distances by sea and sent forward through the Persian Gulf ports. In recent months a greater and growing share of this work is being carried out by our American Allies, including the actual operation of the Iranian railways.
    At home we have had the problem of the movement to, and accommodation in, Great Britain of United States troops. This has involved rehousing a considerable part of our own Army in order to hand over to the Americans hutments, billets, hospitals and storage space. In addition, a large programme of new building has been necessary, and though this has been kept down as much as possible by reducing scales of accommodation, it has thrown a heavy burden on our Works Services. It is a burden we have been glad to accept, and we shall be glad even to see it increased as the flood of American troops pours across the Atlantic.
    This movement has also meant a great strain on shipping, and we have therefore tried to do everything possible to economise in shipping space. Arrangements have been made to furnish on demand for the United States Forces in Great Britain everything that we can hand over without seriously impeding the supplies of our own Armies. Equipment, warlike stores, machinery of all sorts have been provided and huge numbers of more prosaic but bulky items, such as socks, underclothing and blankets. I saw the other day some calculations as to the ratio which these reverse Lend-Lease transactions bear to what we have had so generously from the United States. I do not quote them here, because I do not want to stir the embers of a controversy which has almost burnt itself out, but I can assure the House that we have no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of them. Moreover, between Allies there is no room for a nice reckoning of our respective contributions. It is sufficient to say that in this matter of accommodation and equipment, as in the more exciting matters connected with the North African preparations, there has been, and is, the most admirable Anglo-American co-operation.

    329
    I have more than once referred to the strain on shipping of special operations and projects. But we must not forget that the day-to-day maintenance of our Forces all over the world makes continuous demands on our not over large resources. As an example of what this maintenance means in the way of British and American shipping, I may tell the House that 1,000,000 tons of stores have been sent round the Cape to various destinations during the past year, together with 500,000 men, and 50,000 tanks, guns or vehicles. It has naturally been one of our paramount preoccupations to save shipping in every possible way. Vehicles are broken down and packed in boxes of the most convenient form for stowage. This applies not to vehicles only. I give two examples of saving from many that I could quote. An improved form of pack has been devised for the 6-pounder which has reduced the amount of shipping space required by nearly three-fifths.
    Mr. Belleoger: Are these the 6-pounders fixed to the A.22 tanks, which I thought went out long ago, or are they other 6-pounders?
    Sir J. Grigg: They are anti-tank 6-pounders, of which no doubt the hon. Member has heard. Among the unwarlike stores boneless meat is now being used with a consequent economy of 60,000 tons of refrigerated space. Experiments are constantly going on to ensure that no space is wasted, and measures to reduce the consumption of petrol and rubber make an important contribution towards the solution of the shipping problem. Petrol consumption by the Army at home has actually been reduced, in spite of an increase in the number of vehicles on charge, and by various means the Army has effected a saving of 5,000 tons of rubber a year.
    I now come to some of the developments in this country during the past year as a result of the change from a primarily defensive role to one of active preparations for the offensive. This has, in fact, meant a very considerable re-organisation of the Forces in Great Britain. The whole re-organisation has been carried out against a background of man-power shortage. No more than any other service or branch of the war effort has the Army been allotted all the men it believes
    330
    it needs. In the earlier part of the war it was equipment that was short. Now that equipment is available in vast quantities we cannot get all the men we want. The demand for men is insatiable. Apart from the complete formations we have sent overseas to India, to the Middle East, to North Africa, we have to send reinforcements to keep them up to strength. We have had also to provide British cadres for the enormous expansion of the Indian Army. At the same time we have had to build up the Field Army in Great Britain.
    The House will remember that in the months immediately after Dunkirk, when the defence of the coast line and vulnerable points all over the country was the primary necessity, new intakes into the Army were predominantly disposed as infantry and a large number of new infantry units were formed. As the immediate crisis grew less acute, the first preparations were undertaken for the ultimate return to the offensive. Some of the infantry was converted to armour, some of it to artillery and some of it was used to provide the ever growing signal requirements. But so long as its role was primarily defensive the Army could rely to a considerable extent on the civilian resourres of the country for its rearward services. For example, the civil railway system met most of our rail transport needs, and the Ministry of Supply undertook a good deal of the repair and maintenance of equipment which in the field we should have to do for ourselves. But when the Army goes abroad it is certain to have to operate in what I may call an administrative desert, and it must therefore be provided with everything necessary to make it a self-contained entity. The enemy is not going to leave us ready-made railway systems, waterways, docks and harbours, petrol installations, telegraph systems, and the whole paraphernalia of civil organisation upon which we depend, quite properly, in this country. So all kinds of technical units, are needed and must be formed. The strength of existing units must be increased.
    It follows that we have two conflicting tasks to perform. The first has been to ensure that the greatest possible number of fighting men are produced from the resources available and, secondly, to ensure that the Field Army is provided with all the technical units and skill in the

    331
    absence of which the fighting man is helpless. I should expect to find that from time to time one of the tasks has been allowed to dominate the other and that we have not invariably achieved the right balance between them. Certainly external criticism of the Army has swung from side to side, with one exception. At one time we have been accused of wasting the skill of the tradesmen now in the Army. At another we are told that far too many young men are employed in jobs behind the line when they ought to be fighting.
    The first of these charges was contained, as the House knows, in an earlier Beveridge Report. As a result of that Report the recruitment of skilled men from outside was practically shut down while we investigated, with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour, something like 12,000 cases of alleged misuse of skilled tradesmen furnished by employers and trade unions. I think they were predominantly in the engineering and allied, trades. In the end it turned out that only 1 in 8 of these named cases was substantiated, and that means no more than 1 in 100 of the soldiers engaged in this particular field.
    The truth is that there are two kinds of comb-out going on all the time. The Army is being combed to discover unused technical skill. It is being combed so as to ensure that young and fit men are taken from sedentary and static employment for more active, mobile duties. As regards the second of these, the younger men are, of course, replaced where necessary by older men and men of lower medical category or by women. But we have also to be very careful to see that no more than is absolutely necessary of these younger men are replaced at all. Incidentally, something like 100,000 men of high medical category were released for more active employment in 1942.
    Of course, with new intakes all this sorting out is now done in the first few weeks of service. A recruit is posted to the General Service Corps so that he can be scientifically tested and graded by specially trained officers at a Primary Training Centre before being posted to any particular Corps. A subsequent posting can then be made in the light of the capacity and aptitudes of the soldier and, therefore, as far as possible square pegs can be sent to square holes and found pegs to round
    332
    holes from the start. But in this connection we must remember two things. It is not by any means always possible to use a man at the trade he has carried on in civil life, for the primary purpose of the Army is fighting and somebody has got to do that. Secondly, the modern infantryman's is a very skilled calling so that any idea that the infantry should get only the residue after every other arm has had its pick is a pernicious error. At this primary training stage potential officers can be marked down so that no time need be wasted in posting them to an O.C.T.U. when they have proved their worth during a reasonable period in the ranks. Finally, I may mention that one of the factors taken into account in posting men is the locality from which they come. This should help to ensure that regiments obtain so far as possible men from their own areas, although I do not want to exaggerate the degree of possibility.
    The House will have gathered from the changes which I have described as taking place at home that units of the Field Army have been subjected to a great many variations of personnel. This has been a sore grievance with commanding officers, especially bearing in mind that the drafts for overseas have sp far had to be found from these same units. I hope that we have largely removed this grievance by the creation of a special organisation for providing reinforcements for all our overseas Forces This consists of a number of reserve divisions not forming part of the Field Force. It is from this source that the great bulk of the drafts can be drawn, and in them additional training can be given so as to fit the men for operations in the field overseas. Meanwhile, the Field Army can be left practically undisturbed; it can be trained as a whole and built up into a powerful striking force to play its part in offensive operations. Units are given time to settle down and acquire a corporate entity and a regimental spirit, instead of being constantly upset, as in the past, by the withdrawal of men either for drafts or for training as tradesmen, and by constant changes in their officers. The old system was perhaps inevitable in the days when it was necessary to deploy the maximum possible defensive Forces in this country, but now that we can turn our attention to the offensive the new system clearly has everything to recommend it.

    333
    I have told the House something of the changes that have been taking place in the organisation of the Army as a whole, and I would now like to say a little about the centre of that organisation, the War Office. First, let me pay a well deserved tribute to the unflagging zeal and efficiency displayed by the staff of the Office, both military and civil, not only during nearly 3½ years of war, but also for a considerable period before that, without which the successful creation of our great modern Army out of a small but efficient nucleus would have been impossible.
    I should like next to bring the House up to date as regards the reorganisation of the General Staff which I announced on 10th June last. I described the dichotomy of the General Staff below the C.I.G.S. into the departments of the V.C.I.G.S. and of a new post of D.C.I.G.S.—the former to be in charge of Operations, Intelligence and Training, and the latter of what I may call compendiously the structure of the Army plus the vitally important work of Weapon Development. The work allotted to the V.C.I.G.S. represented no strikingly new departure and I want to talk, therefore, mainly about that of the D.C.I.G.S. His job really amounts to discovering what kind of Army we need and the kind of weapons it requires. For both purposes some body of tactical doctrine is essential. For the second there is the additional task of formulating our needs to the Ministry of Supply and seeing that they are fulfilled. Needless to say, the constant revolutions in what is demanded of the Army has effected policy in both directions. One obvious and very important result has teen to induce pre-occupation with short rather than long views. The danger of short as against long views is, of course, that we are apt to be one step behind the enemy and not a jump in front. However, I hope that we have now put ourselves into a position to take sensible views—both short and long. We have set up in D.C.I.G.S.'s Department a General Staff Research Directorate to examine continuously the lessons to be derived from our own or enemy operations and to produce a properly digested body of doctrine—whether tactical, organisational or relating to weapons. The aim is to ensure that the Army will go into action organised, equipped and trained in accordance with a doctrine in advance of the enemy's.
    334
    As the House knows, an essential adjunct to this General Staff re-organisation was the appointment of a Scientific Adviser to the Army Council. He is a member of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Ministry of Supply, and has complete freedom of access in the War Office and in the Ministry. I am sorry to say that we shall shortly be losing the assistance of Sir Charles Darwin, who has held this post since its inception and has given most valuable service; he must, however, return to the National Physical Laboratory. We are lucky in having his present deputy. Professor Ellis, to succeed him. Operational Research Groups have been set up both at home and in the theatres of war abroad. These groups study current events in the field to find out how improvements can be made in equipment, in the technique of its use and in the tactical employment of troops. They provide the vital link between the users of equipment in the field on the one hand and the designers and producers on the other. The sections, who are in close touch with the users, report both to the War Office and the Ministry of Supply how weapons and equipment behave under battle conditions, and by this means the lessons learnt in the field can be speedily and effectively applied to future production. They are staffed by highly qualified scientists and technicians as well as by soldiers. The Scientific Adviser is closely linked with the General Staff Research Directorate and with a new Committee which has been set up in D.C.I.G.S.'s Department on Weapons and Equipment—its object being to formulate and keep under constant review—I might almost say continuous review—the Army's weapon policy.
    When the War Office policy on weapons has been formulated it has got to be worked up in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, and there must be the closest possible bonds between the two Departments. Apart from there being day-to-day contacts of individuals at all levels, the D.C.I.G.S. is a member of the Supply Council and he is also the Chairman of a Weapon Development Committee on which—if I may be permitted to use the phrase—the high-ups of both the War Office and the Ministry of Supply sit. This Committee does not formulate policy. It is the essential link between policy and research, development and production, and one of its cardinal functions is to

    335
    press forward weapon development in correct priority. Finally, I mention the periodical meetings to co-ordinate weapon policy between the D.C.I.G.S's staff and representatives of the Dominions and between the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.
    I am afraid that under pressure of time I may have telescoped my description of this organisation unduly. Its broad aim is to ensure that the War Office knows what the Army wants and sees that it gets what it wants as quickly as possible. Personally, I feel sure that its beneficial results will in time, and no very long time at that, be obvious to all. Already the Select Committee on National Expenditure in its 18th Report has commented favourably on what we have done, and I am confident that its verdict will be justified. Incidentally, this improvement of machinery in the War Office has been accompanied by parallel improvements in the Ministry of Supply. It would be out of place for me to speak of these in detail, but I can say that the relations between the two Departments are now about as frank and co-operative as it is possible for them to be and that I have no doubts whatever of the willingness of the Ministry to do everything they can to meet our needs.
    The process of decentralising administration from the War Office to Commands and from Commands downwards has continued steadily. Progress cannot, however, be spectacular, for it involves the meticulous examination of a mass of detail in every sphere of military administration. The objects of this policy, to which I personally attach the utmost importance, are to speed up decision and action, to encourage initiative, to avoid unnecessary reference to higher authority and to reduce paper work. On this last point one of the main difficulties is to find out exactly what are the causes of excessive "paper." One method which is being employed with success is to take a census of correspondence at various key points in the Army machine. This shows us more or less at a glance what are the most frequent topics dealt with in all these troublesome letters from on high and enables us to ask in appropriate cases "Is your letter really necessary?" These reviews of correspondence have been carried out in the War Office and also at certain Commands, districts and
    336
    corps districts and recommendations to save work have been made ranging from important improvements of organisation to the proper mode of typing letters in order to save paper.
    The multiplicity of statistical returns is, as the House very well knows, particularly the serving Members of it, one of the standing grievances of the regimental officer. Statistical work is therefore being concentrated in a few expert sections in the War Office and in the Commands. Every Command at home now has a statistical section whose first aim is to ensure that while a body of statistics, essential for good administration, is available, the minimum number of returns from units and lower formations is called for. Similar steps have been taken in the War Office. The results are encouraging. For example, by about a month from now we shall have succeeded in abolishing some 50 per cent. of the returns hitherto made by most of the Field Force units in this country, and I do not suppose that there will be any noticeable loss of efficiency in consequence.
    I turn to the vitally important subject of the training of the Army at home. After Dunkirk, as I said just now, the Army was preoccupied with defence, and defence of a predominantly infantry character. Now, as I have also said to-day, we can take on a primarily offensive outlook but it is not only from to-day that our training takes the offensive. This has been the case for at least a year past and great strides have been made in this direction under the inspiring leadership of General Paget.
    The most notable innovation has been the introduction of realistic battle training on a large scale, in the course of which the conditions of a modern battlefield are reproduced as nearly as possible—including the firing of live ammunition. This is the best prelude we can devise to the actual contact in battle with the highly trained German troops, nearly all of whom have had ample first-hand fighting experience. Formations trained in these battle schools at home have proved in battle overseas the value of their training, and I hope that more will do so in the coming months. I have visited one of these schools, and to me the training seems admirably designed to promote toughness, initiative and at the same time discipline.
    Then we have exercises—again with live ammunition—on a sufficiently large scale to enable formations of all arms to operate

    337
    together and with air support. I am afraid that in connection with this realistic training we have had to avail ourselves of very large areas—as much as an additional 7,000,000 acres in the last year, although the great bulk of this has fortunately been used without dispossessing the owners or occupiers. This has naturally involved some interference with food production, but we have done our best to do as little injury as we possibly can. I am glad to say that in this matter we have had the utmost help and collaboration from the Ministry of Agriculture and indeed from the whole agricultural population.
    So much for collective training. As regards individual training, I spoke just now of the recruit's first weeks at the primary training centre at the end of which he is posted to whatever arm of the Service is considered most suitable. He goes to the appropriate corps training centre, where he gets from 8 to 20 weeks of the more specialised training required for his own arm. Only then is-he posted to a Field Force unit or to a unit in a reserve division, and I repeat that we try wherever possible to post him to a regiment associated with his own part of the country. Incidentally, the Army now uses films very largely as an aid to training, and I fancy that this provides a useful variant to the sergeant-major's voice. I may also perhaps mention in passing the good work done by the much expanded Army Cadet Force in giving pre-service training to some 180,000 boys.
    The individual training of officers, as well as men, has been substantially altered and, I trust, improved in recent months. In the first place, the selection procedure by War Office selection boards has been made more comprehensive and thorough. The essential feature of the new system is that potential officers spend two or three days living with the board. During this time they are given a series of mental and physical tests designed to bring out whether a man has the qualities necessary for an officer. These tests are not primarily of the examination variety but are designed to give an opportunity for seeing how a man behaves under the stress of circumstances. To take a very elementary example, the candidates may be told, with a party of five or six men, to improvise a bridge over a stream by means of a few bits of tree and lengths of rope. The tests are carried out by specially trained regimental officers and
    338
    officers of the War office Personnel Selection staff, assisted, where necessary, by a psychiatrist who, I am told, is called something quite different by the troops. Once past the board very few of the candidates are turned back at the O.C.T.U. stage, and thus our new plan involves the absolute minimum of misuse of training resources. Personally, I believe that this innovation has proved a great success, and I think that those hon. Members who recently visited one of the selection boards will agree with me.
    Another innovation is the institution of pre-O.C.T.U. training. The object of this is to remedy any gaps that may exist in the efficiency of the candidate as a private soldier. This means that very much less time need be spent at the O.C.T.U. in the teaching of elementary military subjects at O.C.T.Us. and that more emphasis can be laid on teaching the cadet to be a self-reliant leader with a full sense of responsibility towards his men.
    And now a few words about air co-operation. The Army Co-operation Command is still the background of our training organisation, and it has been largely expanded. It has, moreover, gained valuable experience in the course of numerous operational flights. In addition, training on a greatly increased scale has been carried out in conjunction with the R.A.F. Commands, and in this connection I should like especially to mention Fighter Command and to thank them for all they have done to help. In the Middle East campaign we have learnt much from actual experience in what has, I think, been the most successful example of close Army/Air support and co-operation this war has witnessed, and we are ready to apply the lessons to other possible theatres of operations. We now have a number of air observation post squadrons manned by artillery officers, some of which have been in action. Finally there are our airborne Forces. In spite of the mishaps which attended a certain recent expedition, I think that hon. Members will agree with me that we have a great deal to show for our labours in this respect. Already our parachutists have participated on quite a considerable scale in the North African operations, and I have no doubt that other fields of endeavour are opening up.
    There are two or three topics more on which I must touch briefly before I come to my conclusion. I should like to have

    339
    dealt with them at greater length, but I have already trespassed too long on the patience of the House. The first concerns the Home Guard. The improved training and equipment of the Home Guard have made it possible to rely upon it for the local defence of this country to a greater extent than ever before. The effective protection of the home base is an integral part of the plans for offensive action elsewhere, and the Home Guard can well be proud of the contribution it is making, both directly, by readiness for actual operational duty, and indirectly, by releasing numbers of Regular troops on whom, in the earlier days, the responsibility for home defence had fallen. Compulsory enrolment, and compulsory training and duty, which were introduced with the approval of this House just over a year ago, have, I think, been amply justified by the higher standard of training now achieved; and I am assured that the keenness which was so wonderful a feature of the old volunteer Home Guard is no less marked in those who are known as the "directed men". There have been two other notable developments in the Home Guard during 1942. A large number of anti-aircraft batteries have been formed and are directly replacing Regular units. Those in the London area took part in their first major engagement on the night of 24th January to the full satisfaction of their commanders and, I think, of the public also. At any fate they were very well heard on that occasion. The link between the Home Guard and Civil Defence has become closer. Plans for co-operation have been greatly improved and in some cases tested in air raids. These ensure that, economically used, the requisite man-power will be available, whether for blitz or battle. Furthermore, as these plans are completed and the training of the individual improves, the hours of Home Guard training and duty are being adjusted to the urgent demands of industry and agriculture.
    The second is the A.T.S. To-day we have 10 times the number of A.T.S. we had in 1939, and, if they were available, we could do with 20. In 1939 there were five employments for women. Now there are 60. In all of these they are releasing men and doing great service. The high spot is, of course, the anti-aircraft Command, where by June we hope that more than 40 per cent. of the total personnel
    340
    will be women. The event of the year for the A.T.S. was Miss Markham's Report, which killed stone dead the ill-natured, and indeed slanderous, criticisms which had been bandied about previously. Of the Committee's recommendations a number were already in operation by the time the Report was published, and we were interested to see that the other Women's Services were in some matters exhorted to follow the good example of the A.T.S. We are deeply grateful to Miss Markham and her colleagues, not only for good advice but also for putting this magnificent corps in its right place in public estimation.
    And, thirdly, I should wish to refer to our Canadian comrades. They have been for a long time in this country helping to guard the citadel of the anti-Axis forces. We have been more than glad to have them, and I hope and believe that they have been glad to be here. They have made many friends among us. But they have been irked at the fact that their chance of engaging themselves in bulk against the enemy has been so long in coming. We trust that they will not have to wait much longer and, when their chance does come, we know that they will acquit themselves doughtily and that the Mother Country, as well as the cause of civilisation generally, will have abundant reason to be grateful to them.
    I cannot hope to cover in the time at my disposal the whole field of the operations, administration and training of the Army, but I have tried to pick out the more important developments in so far as they can be talked about without giving information to the enemy. I have said nothing about the military administration of territories occupied, and to be occupied, nor have I added anything to what the Minister without Portfolio told the House recently about our demobilisation plans, but a great deal of work is going on under both heads. I have not mentioned the health of the troops, for the simple reason that in this matter the Army's history for the past year has mercifully been a blank, to the immense credit of the Army medical and nursing services in general and in particular. I have left out of my account the entertainment, welfare and education of the troops, but these we are to discuss on the Amendment to my Motion. I should, however, be failing in my duty if I did

    341
    not express publicly our deep sense of loss at the death of General Willans, the Director-General of Welfare and Education. His work for the soldiers was selfless, unremitting and most competent, and it will be a matter of the utmost difficulty to fill his place.
    Important as are many of these subjects, and vitally interested in them as the soldier must be, I regard them as secondary to the actual business of training for battle. The soldier's duty is, first and foremost, to fight and, to make him into a first-class fighting man, or an Army into a first-class instrument of war, two of the prime necessities are toughness and discipline. Discipline is absolutely essential for a modern army, just as it has been throughout history, and we cannot afford to pass it by as something out-moded or undemocratic. When it is combined with good leadership there is nothing degrading about discipline, nor need it involve any undue uniformity or loss of self-reliance. Discipline means unquestioning obedience to those set in authority over us and is vital for the efficient and harmonious working of an Army. It is the force which helps the good soldier to round the tightest corner and to go on beyond even what seems to be the limit of human endurance. Discipline is, then, essential in a fighting Army. So, too, is confidence. A great deal has happened and a great deal has been said that might have shaken the soldier's confidence—inactivity at home and humiliating defeats abroad; attacks on the quality of his equipment and on the capacity of his leaders—but the British soldier has come through all these, and the Prime Minister's description of the proud and confident bearing of the Eighth Army in Tripoli, besides being, to me, profoundly moving, is a happy augury for the other Armies who will, in their turn, tread the path of struggle and victory.
    I have tried to-day to blow the trumpet of the Army for once in a way. But I have not done so in any spirit of complacency, still less to induce in others any such spirit. The Army has done much in the past year, despite the initial disasters. But there is much more left for it and for all of us to do. Napoleon survived for some years after Moscow and fought many bloody battles. We cannot afford to relax or to sit back watching the
    342
    exploits of our friends. Every ounce of our strength will be required before the evil things against which we are fighting are finally vanquished. But vanquished they will be, and we shall see the nation in arms "kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam."
    Mr. Lawson: It falls to me to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what I shall call his maiden speech as far as Estimates are concerned. I think the House will agree that he gave us a speech on the Estimates equal to the best we have ever heard from a Secretary of State for War. It was packed with good things, and it has given us much information, concerning inside War Office organisation particularly, which we much needed. I think the House will be particularly pleased that the right hon. Gentleman gave full praise to the men who have done such wonderful things in North Africa. He rightly described what the position was last year, and to those of us who sat here then and have vivid recollections of what the position was in the country, as well as in North Africa, the change is welcome indeed. I said a few weeks ago that the world had been startled by the great victory then and that it had had an electrical effect upon world opinion.
    I had the privilege with some of my friends of covering a good part of the battlefield during the past few weeks and of seeing some of the men and their officers up as far as Benghazi, and I can endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the splendid spirit that prevails among the men, the warm relationship between them and their officers, and the fine spirit of discipline. I had the pleasure of staying two nights among the troops, and the thing that rather stirred me was the warm and free relations between the officers and the men. As an instance, I asked that certain names of men and units should be given to me. It involved a certain amount of work, but I was surprised at the quickness with which the information was supplied. The right hon. Gentleman would have been surprised, too, at the great interest of the men in outside questions. It was a sign of the modern-minded officer that I was supplied in advance with a whole list of questions which the men wanted to ask me. I cannot remember them at the

    343
    moment, but I can remember that beer rivalled Beveridge in those questions. The Army are vitally interested in questions that affect them immediately and also in questions that will affect them after the war. We are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has underlined the change of atmosphere for which the troops have been responsible in that great victory in Africa.
    We were pleased, too, to have the right hon. Gentleman's account of the new organisation that has been set up to ensure that the War Office knows what the Army wants and sees that it gets what it wants. I had assumed, however, that the War Office already had an organisation of that kind, and I should say that there has been considerable delay in setting it up. Everybody knows that modern war is totally unlike anything the world has seen before. Nobody knows that better than we do. The training is hard now, and it requires men to be tough either in this country or out of it. Another striking thing about the training is that the men like it. They are very proud of the fact that they have to go through the kind of grilling training that the soldier of the last war did not know about, particularly if he is getting a Commando training. The real training, however, can only be got on the battlefield, and that is truer in this war than it was ever before. Nobody knows that better than we do, for we have suffered considerably because our enemies had had long tests in Spain and in other parts of the world long before we thought about the kind of weapons we were to use or the kind of conditions we were to face. It is only on the battlefield that real training can be obtained. New conditions develop, and I should have thought that those new conditions and their lessons were so striking that the War Office would have had this kind of organisation long ago. I want to underline what the right hon. Gentleman said of the difficulties of getting troops and stores to the points where they are needed. In the last war we got so many million men over the Channel, with guns and stores, and we used to think it was a wonderful feat. If that was a wonderful feat, what shall we say about bringing modern weapons, tanks, guns and all the supplies and equipment needed to-day to the Mediterranean and even round by the Cape to the shores of Africa in sufficient strength to meet the conditions
    344
    of modern warfare? It is a great tribute to the Navy that this kind of thing can be done.
    The soldier has not any grumbles, but among the many questions that he asks if he is married are questions about his wife's allowance. I was one of those who in the last war lived on a comparative trifle. We had a copper or two for a cup of tea after we had paid the allotment for the wife's allowance. The soldier does not bother too much about himself. I have never been much concerned about large pay as long as the soldier has a margin for himself. We ought to see, however, that his wife and children lack nothing and have something like equality with people among whom they live. The soldiers feel strongly on this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman would earn considerable gratitude from them if he would give serious consideration to raising the allowances for wives and children so that the soldiers would have no fears while they are fighting their country's battles.
    The right hon. Gentleman told us that we had now at least 10 times the number of A.T.S. that we had when the war broke out and that we needed many more. Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that on the Estimates we do not vote women at all; we just vote men? I am wondering how we stand legally about that. At least we ought to give the women the honour of being mentioned. They have rendered such service as entitles them to be mentioned. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the fact that the committee that inquired into criticisms of the A.T.S. had given an encouraging report. Those complaints were much resented by the women in the A.T.S. They were no more entitled to be criticised than the women in either of the other Services, and it passes understanding why there should have been criticism of the A.T.S. None of the other women's Forces do work equal—I say "equal" advisedly—to the work that the A.T.S. do, particularly upon the guns. They are doing an amazing class of work. I have a daughter who talks to me about these matters. I was a gunner in the last war, but my daughter talks to me as though I were in the infants' class in view of the complicated guns and the high class of work they have to do in these days. I am not sure that we have done ourselves justice abroad in publicity concerning the wonderful

    345
    work that these girls of ours do in the various Forces, not least in the A.T.S.
    There is much room for criticism, and I have many points I would like to raise, but I do not wish to take up time. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, our position has considerably improved. There were countries which a year ago thought we were certain of defeat. Some of them waited to see what they were likely to do in given circumstances, but we had many good friends, even among the neutrals, who stood by us in the worst days. Of that, I have had undoubted evidence in recent times.
    In conclusion, I should like to say that it is clear that there are people who are beginning already to manoeuvre to bring about a compromise peace if necessary. The Government attitude on that matter is very definite. I am pleased the Government have been so definite, but it is not for the House to let the Government and the members of the Government remain alone in expressing their determination to pursue this war to an end without compromise. It is for the Members of this House to accept their responsibility. While we realise that the tide has turned, though I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are still a long way off full noontide, and that there is a very great price yet to be paid—we are under no illusions about that—we say that the country supports the Government in its determination to pursue this war to an end which will destroy the Nazis, and that the House is behind it. If anybody is manoeuvring in the other direction, and I think I see signs of it already, let him understand that the country is determined to put an end to this sort of thing once and for all. There has been suffering; great masses of people have paid the price, and great masses of people will pay the price in future. The work of the men who have fought with such determination and courage in North Africa and elsewhere, including the men who on occasions have had to retreat—and it takes, sometimes, greater fortitude to retreat than to go forward—is not going to be undone, is not going to be brought to nought. This country set out to war reluctantly, it was the last country in the world desiring to go to war; but those who would try to bring matters to a compromise can understand that we will finish what we started.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I should like to join with great sincerity in the words of appreciation spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I have listened to many speeches of this kind by many Ministers of War, and I do not think I ever heard such a masterly and informed, even dramatic, survey of the change that has taken place in the British Army in the last year or two. We recall what we started with; the material, so slender; the training so short; the weapons so meagre; we remember that at Dunkirk all that was lost, and only the spirit and the bodies remained to us; and now to-day we see these armies erect in every part of the world, defending, attacking, never giving way—except in the face of such superior numbers that no ammunition could resist them. I do not know who is responsible for the change, whether my right hon. Friend or his predecessors, whether the Staff at the War Office, or the leaders of the various Commands, or the training officers or our leaders abroad, but whoever it is I think the House and the country ought to express admiration and gratitude for what has already been achieved. We should also bear in mind—as my right hon. Friend has said—that this war is still largely in front of us and the great testing time may come, from what the Prime Minister has said, this year. Therefore, the more support we can give to our Army and the greater the faith and the confidence that they feel we have in them, the more likely are the results to justify our hopes.
    I shall not endeavour to deal with the broad field which my right hon. Friend has covered. Other speakers will, no doubt, take up different points, and I shall only try to direct the attention of the House—such of it as remains—and the Minister to the most democratic, the least expensive and the most efficient force of its kind that this country has ever seen. In view of the fact that practically every Member of the House either belongs to it or is closely associated with it, I do not think I need plead for forgiveness for talking for a few minutes about the Home Guard, that name which the Prime Minister devised in one of his many happy flashes of genius. In connection with the Home Guard, I must again ask

    347
    the House to join with me in a tribute to my right hon. Friend—though I must warn him that my remarks will not be all tributes—for the way he and the Financial Secretary have dealt with Home Guard matters. They have taken a deep and knowledgeable interest in all matters brought before them by the Home Guard Joint Parliamentary Committee and for the intimate contact they have maintained with that committee. In their very busy lives they have found time to listen to all our suggestions and complaints, and although they have not been able to rectify all our grievances they have always accepted cur point of view with sympathy and, where possible, have met our case. But there are one or two points on which the House ought to have further information and about which neither members of the Home Guard outside this House nor the Home Guard Committee itself are satisfied. There is on the Order Paper a Motion by the members of the Home Guard Joint Parliamentary Committee which may cause the House—at least those who are more ignorant of the matter than others—some concern. No doubt they will wonder why it was necessary to put down this Motion. The Motion reads:
    "That this House urges the Government to grant the same travelling, medical and other facilities to officers of the Home Guard as are enjoyed by officers of the other fighting Services, arrangements which, while costing little or nothing, will aid discipline, promote comradeship with the Regular Forces, prevent unreasonable anomalies and eliminate the present appearance and sense of discrimination against the least expensive branch of the combatant Services."
    The House might well think that because reference is made to officers this is a social matter. It is not. The man who to-day is an officer in the Home Guard may be in the ranks to-morrow, or vice versa. If an officer finds that he is not in a position or has not the time to carry out his duties, he reverts to the ranks. There is no question of social implications in this Motion. It merely raises an issue which is causing a certain amount of misunderstanding and resentment and a lessening, perhaps, of the control and authority which all Home Guard officers should have. As far as we can ascertain, no one except the Secretary of State and the Army Council know exactly why the present discrimination
    348
    exists. A few diffident justifications of it have been put forward, without, however, carrying much conviction to the listeners. A good deal of talk has centred on the word "voluntary," but that word "voluntary" was dropped, as soon as conscription was brought in, for "equality." The word "equality" means nothing as an excuse, because we are all equal in the sight of God and man, but some are chosen to lead and others are chosen to follow. That is the position in the Regular Forces, too, and it also applies in the democratic armed forces of Russia. We cannot eliminate that difference, because it is through fine leadership and the loyalty of the followers that we get the truly disciplined and the best fighting troops.
    It is difficult to follow the argument of the War Office that because we started as volunteers in the Home Guard, because we started uncommissioned, because we started unpaid, and all equal, matters should be allowed to remain as they are in this best of all worlds. So many changes have taken place since those early days that that argument does not now have any force. The Government have selected certain of our ranks to hold His Majesty's Commission. The House has decided that those who did not wish to answer the call voluntarily shall be conscripted. The War Office has shown, by the training it has prescribed for us, by the weapons it has given us, and by the organisation and administration it has imposed on us, that we are more and more drifting towards or becoming akin to the Regular Army. The Secretary of State himself, following what the Prime Minister and other leading members of the Government have said previously, assured us that the Home Guard will inevitably become the defenders of this Island, and very stout defenders they will be, and yet for some unexplained reason we are denied a certain status, if I may put it like that, certain powers and position which prevent the enforcement of discipline, even to the extent of not enforcing saluting in the Home Guard.
    The denial of these powers and this position is weakening the authority of the officers and, in my opinion, lessening the value and efficiency of the Home Guard. Hitherto the efficiency and the discipline of the Home Guard have relied solely on two factors—the character and personality

    349
    of the officers and the patriotism and devotion of the men. We ask for something more than that. We ask for sanctions in order to enable Home Guard officers to award summary punishments to recalcitrant or lazy conscripts. At present there are only two methods by which Home Guard officers can exercise sanctions. They can take a man to the civil court in the case, say, of failure to turn up at drill or parades or training exercise, or a general court-martial can be held if there has been an act of sheer insubordination. Those processes take time; days, even weeks, pass while the necessary preparations are being made, and time is wasted by officers having to attend courts. The result is that by the time a decision has been reached and punishment has been awarded the whole thing has been forgotten, and all the good which such action should have achieved has been lost. Therefore, I plead with the War Office that power should be given to inflict a summary punishment, no matter how slight, because if given immediately it is of far more value than a punishment which only follows months after the offence has been committed.
    Here is another matter. This may not be known to the House, but a Home Guard officer is not allowed to recover from injuries incurred on Home Guard service in the company of his brother officers of the Regular Army. I do not know whether the House quite appreciates that the Home Guard officer is turned out of officers' convalescent hospitals. Why, I do not know. One Home Guard officer wrote to me and said that it was treating Home Guard officers like lepers, in case they might infect men with whom they might one day have to fight side by side or might even have to command. I have the very document here from the War Office. It is dated 13th October last year, and it was issued to D.D.M.S. of commands. It starts in the following way—and hon. Members can follow the implications of horror and shock which are conveyed:
    "Five officers of the Home Guard were recently transferred from a military hospital to an officers' convalescent hospital."
    The writer of the letter goes on to say that that must never occur again. Home Guard officers must be treated as private soldiers and relegated to the nearest ordinary hospital. We do not mind that. But we mind the effect that it has upon the Regular
    350
    soldier, who sees also that Home Guard officers are not allowed to travel first class Take, for example, the case of a Commanding Officer, and his adjutant whom probably he himself has appointed. They travel together in the same motor car to the railway station, after which the Commanding Officer, being a Home Guard officer, must travel third class, while his own adjutant, being, by virtue of his appointment, a Regular officer, travels first class. Regular troops see this, and ask what kind of treatment that is for officers, and wonder how it is possible to respect them. These are the men the Regular troops may have to serve under in the defence of this Island.
    The Secretary of State for War and his Financial Secretary have tried time after time to explain this intolerable discrimination, which would be ludicrous if it were not so humiliating. I can tell them that the Home Guard throughout the country have not accepted the decision. While, being a loyal and disciplined force, the Home Guard do not wish to make any trouble for the Department, for which they have a soldier's regard, they point out that these are small matters, rectification of which need cost nothing to the State. The Treasury cannot come in with its deadening hand. If only the Ministers concerned dug their toes in and said that these alterations must be made because they were only right, just and fair, all the difficulties and obstacles that are at present being put up to these very reasonable requests would be overwhelmed.
    There is only one further point I would like to make, and it is a point that we have already raised and which no doubt my hon. Friend has considered with his advisers. Our argument has now been reinforced by the Trades Union Congress. The Secretary of State made reference to it to-day. It is the question of relieving some of the more highly trained Home Guard soldiers of some, at any rate, of their parades, drilling and training. You get to a state which the Regular Army describes as browned-off. We have been hard at it for several nights a week and during week-ends as well, for over two years. I would again put before the War Office the advisability, not of relaxing the parades, drilling and training, because that might create a feeling of injustice between one man and another, but of creating a Home Guard reserve, so that the more highly trained

    351
    men of two years' or 2½ years' service can be passed on to the reserve and men can be selected who are perhaps not quite up to the highly active functions which Home Guard training now prescribes or whose civilian occupation is of such importance that they find it difficult to comply fully with the demands of national production and their Home Guard duties. Let those men pass into the reserve, as a definite body, and come back for a refresher course, say, once a month for a couple of hours to keep them in touch with their weapons. It would make vacancies for the younger men whom we badly want, and at present cannot have without interfering with our ceiling strength. I hope that that suggestion will sink in.
    I have one final request, which will balance the other, and it is that the present age for cadets should be lowered to 16½ years. As we know, cadets can stay in their cadet units until the age of 18, which means that it practically overlaps with the calling-up age for the Regular Army, so that those cadets are pushed into the Regular Army without any knowledge of arms or how to handle them. If the cadet age could be brought down to 16½, and the cadets were then automatically passed in to the Home Guard we would have them at their best and most impressionable time. We could train them in the use of arms and various other kinds of weapons. We would have the use of their services while they were with us, and would pass on something worth having when the time came for their call-up to the Regular forces.
    I have said my say and have kept strictly to the one subject with which I set out to deal, the Home Guard. I would not like Ministers to think that I do not appreciate the magnificent job of work the War Office have done in the creation of this new and magnificent Army. The Secretary of State said that we probably had in the Eighth Army the finest fighting instrument that the world possessed to-day; let us make sure that the rest of the Army are on the same standard as the Eighth Army, and then we need not have any doubt about the future of this country or of our final victory.
    Mr. Horabin: My hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps forgive me if I do not follow him in the argument
    352
    he has put to the House, but I would like to join him in his tribute to the very clear and able statement made by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman started by repainting that gloomy picture which we discussed on the Army Estimates 12 months ago, when Singapore had just fallen. The Secretary of State, the War Office and the Army are to be congratulated upon and should have full credit for the way in which they have learned the lessons of their defeats and made the Army to-day a first-class, efficient fighting machine. The right hon. Gentleman ascribed that change, in part, to the immense resources of the United Kingdom and the United States being more fully mobilised than they were 12 months ago. It is also due to the change which has taken place in the war and the Army. Twelve months ago there was no certainty whatsoever of ultimate victory, but to-day ultimate victory has become certain. It may be delayed, but it is ultimately certain, and that is due in a large measure to what has been done with the British Army in the last 12 months. It is also due to the tremendous and magnificent work which the Russian Armies have done.
    We expect a great deal from the British Army during the next 12 months, and that expectation should be governed by what I call the stark arithmetic of total war. It is clear from what the Secretary of State said that population has a bearing on it and also the width of the industrial basis. In this country we have a population of only something like 45,000,000 people. It is true that we have the Empire behind us. If you take the resources of the Empire, they are to some extent cancelled out by items of debit. We have to use a tremendous part of our manpower and a very large part of our industrial capacity to provide the means of guarding the communications of this great Empire, which sprawls all over the world. As against our 45,000,000 of population, Japan has something like 90,000,000, the United. States 130,000,000 and Germany 80,000,000 or 90,000,000, or, with the occupied territories, something like 300,000,000. The Russians have somewhere about 190,000,000. We, with the smallest population of all the major combatants, are setting out to do something which none of the other belligerent nations has attempted, not only to maintain a tremendous Navy and Air Force, but an Army of Continental size. Japan, with a

    353
    population almost twice the size of ours, has made no attempt to build a strong air force, but has confined her main efforts to a strong army and navy. Germany and Russia have large armies and air forces but almost negligible navies. The United States is still building up her army. To build up and maintain a large Army as well as an enormous Air Force and Navy places us under a colossal strain. That colossal strain is no alibi for making mistakes and we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. Criticism should be all the sharper because of the great strain imposed upon this nation as the result of trying to maintain a large Navy, Army and Air Force.
    We have certain compensations. As regards our assets, I suggest we are, potentially, the strongest military machine in the world, because we are the most compact and also the most highly industrialised of all combatants, even including America. Japan is mainly agricultural, and her industrial basis is very narrow, and that is a very serious thing from her point of view. Russia is still mainly agricultural, although during the last 20 years she has done a tremendous lot to build up a large industry. Here are we, the most highly industrialised and compact nation in the world. We have a greater reservoir of highly-skilled industrial workers, and yet, in spite of all this, is it not shameful that we cannot provide our troops during the fourth year of war with the best tanks in the world? We are all justly proud of the work of the Eighth Army which has proved clearly that the British soldier is as good as any other soldier in the world. He is as good as the Russian or the German soldier. It proves another thing, about which I have been critical in the past, which is that British officers, given the chance, are thoroughly competent on the field of battle. Experience in battle has made the Army really efficient. Even the Russians found that out. It took them three campaigns before they were able to forge the Red Army into the highly efficient weapon it is. What were the instructions the Prime Minister sent to General Alexander? He said:
    "Your prime and main duty will be to take or destroy at the earliest opportunity the German-Italian Army commanded by Field-Marshal Rommel together with all its supplies and establishments in Egypt and Libya."
    We are all justly proud of the exploits of the Eighth Army. But it failed to carry
    354
    out the directive sent to its leader by the Prime Minister. We have taken the supplies, we have taken the establishments, but we certainly have not taken or destroyed Rommel's army, which is fighting at the present moment in Tunisia. Why then was this magnificent Eighth Army, one of the finest Armies in the world, unable to carry out the directive of the Prime Minister in full? I think in considering this we have to go back to the Debate on the Vote of Censure, and the speech made by the horn Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who dealt at some length with the failure of the central direction of the war to provide dive-bombers and transport planes. I am not going to repeat the arguments about this matter which were used then, but I would say there is also a lack of gliders for our airborne troops, and I hope that that matter will be discussed when we come to the Vote for the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I think that is as much of a scandal as the tank scandal. What we have failed to do is to use our tremendous potential industrial capacity in order to give our troops the right weapons at the right time. If these fine soldiers are to achieve decisive victories they must have the right weapons at the right time.
    Surely, having driven Rommel out of El Alamein, the only way to destroy him before he got to Tunisia was to move faster than he could by throwing troops ahead of him to hold him up for our main forces to catch. That meant gliders and air transport. Then his tanks and transport should have been destroyed from the air. That meant dive-bombers. What is the real reason for this failure to have the right weapons at the right time? Surely it is that those responsible for the central direction of the war have not got a clear strategical conception of how they are going to win the war, of how to enable our Army to achieve decisive victory. Because they have not got that conception they have not been able to plan so as to have the right weapons at the right time in the hands of our soldiers. When the Prime Minister spoke in the Debate on the Vote of Censure, his words showed the deep conflict of technical advice at the centre. The Army wanted dive-bombers, but the Air Marshals were against them. Apparently that situation has not yet been resolved.
    I turn to another aspect of this failure to reach a clear-cut strategical conception.

    355
    I think this failure is well illustrated by the Battle of El Alamein. Why on earth did we attack at El Alamein when we intended—I think the Secretary of State said to-day that the preparations for the North African campaign were begun in March—to attack Tunisia from the West? Surely that was a major strategical blunder. Surely we should have left Rommel in Egypt until we had taken Tunis. Then we should have been across his lines of communication, and the destruction of his forces would have been a certainty. As it is, we have shortened Rommel's lines of communication for him and increased our own. I think we have done more than that. We have driven into Tunisia for the use of the Germans the flower of the whole German army—Rommel's forces.
    Mr. Bartle Bull: Surely the first principle of warfare is that you must destroy the enemy's armour and troops?
    Mr. Horabin: I think I have dealt with that point. I think the whole point is that Rommel got away with an immensely powerful striking force of something like 60,000 men. They should have been destroyed, had the Prime Minister's directive been fulfilled. What was the result of this—I hesitate to call it strategy? The whole object of this North African campaign was to do one thing, to enable us to strike swiftly at "the soft under-belly of the Axis." To-day that soft under-belly of the Axis is armour-plated. I think this House must face the fact that this war can only be won on land. After three and a half years of war, we are engaging something less than 10 German divisions. The Russians are engaging something over 240 divisions. Having regard to the size of our industrial base, I think that measures the extent of our failure to mobilise ourselves effectively, and measures the extent of the failure of our central direction of the war. In proportion to our relative strength, we should be engaging 40 to 60 German divisions. If we were doing that at the present time, I submit that the bells would be ringing for final victory and the war would, in fact, be over.
    Mr. Bull: I will not make a long speech. I will say what I wish to say and sit down. There are so many long speeches that it is difficult to get an opportunity to
    356
    speak. The Secretary of State said, I think, that the soldier's duty first and foremost is to fight. Obviously that is perfectly correct. Everyone knows that in order that the soldier may fight efficiently in a war such as the one we are engaged in now he must be really properly equipped. He must have the guns and the general equipment in order to do it. I imagine this point has been flogged to the bone before, but the fact that our tanks in the desert had been out-ranged for a year and a half by 1,000 yards is quite inexcusable. There is no reason why it should be mentioned again provided it does not occur again. The troops are all right, but they cannot do the job without the proper equipment. I was in America a few months ago on my way back to England, and our troops had then fallen back to the Alamein line. I was asked what the morale of our troops in Libya was like. I replied that the only thing that the troops there had had for the first year and a half of the war was morale and that that was the only reason they were there still.
    I have heard something said about the health of the troops. The man is more important than the machine, I agree, but I think their health on the whole is good. I have heard a few comments in this Debate on discipline. Anyone who knows anything about the Army—and I am only a war-time soldier—knows the extreme value of discipline and knows what discipline means in battle. If the old soldier could salute with both hands, I think the young soldier can salute an officer when he sees him. If the officer is no good, let us change the officer, promote the private soldier who did not want to salute and let the officer salute him. But you must have discipline if you are to have a good Army, and good discipline is invaluable, particularly in the field. If you do not have good discipline in training, you will not get it in the field. I have the greatest respect for the Regular soldier, both in this country and in America, who has given up his life to serve in the Army, Navy or Air Force. They know their job. If they did not, we should not be debating quietly here today.
    There are one or two small points I would like to mention. It might be of some service if for a year, say, before any man is called up to join the Forces,

    357
    particularly the Army, he should be able to drive a truck and maintain a vehicle. A lot of time is wasted in the Army on that kind of training which could well be done beforehand—knowing about driving and maintaining a vehicle, which would be much better at the moment than studying Greek. I agree that this war is not over yet. The Germans are good soldiers, and they have not yet been conclusively beaten in the field. On the question of a compromise peace, I agree entirely that most certainly there will not be any such peace. I do not think that occurs to anybody. A compromise peace would mean that we have all wasted our time and would have the job to do again another day.
    Regarding the troops in the desert, there are some points which should be mentioned, for example the cigarette issue, I think it is 50 a week. It does not always get forward to them for reasons of transport which they understand perfectly well, but my experience was that sometimes the cigarettes of well-known brands which are those which the soldiers and, I think, most other people like did not get forward to them. They got things which they called "Spitfires"—they had little or no taste and burnt out quickly. They have the impression, and I think they are right, that the decent cigarettes were pinched by the men on the lines of communication. I quite understand that if the forward troops had been back on the lines of communication, they too might have taken he good cigarettes. But the matter should be seen to, so that the good cigarettes get to the troops right forward. It depends on whoever the officer may be who is keeping an eye on the matter. You need a heavier guard for cigarettes than you ever do for any amount of ammunition.
    Another point—I understand it is a little better now—was about the delivery of letters, etc. When I was there, deliveries were extremely bad, and an Under-Minister came out there. I think this matter could bear improvement. They do bear on the outlook of the soldier, and in view of what they will say to some hon. Members of this House when they get back, I advise those hon. Members to attend to the matter a little now while there is still time. Another question I wish to mention is that of leave. They used to get leave in the desert of five clear days every two months. Leave in the Army is a privilege, not a right,
    358
    and this was supposed to be given every two months. Last autumn a regiment I know had not had any for six months. I do not say any particular one; it applied to others. I think it would be better to have 10 clear days every three, or four months. Five days is not enough to get the atmosphere of the desert out of the system. You have a bath, a hair cut, and it is time to go back. As hon. Members know, some regiments have been in North Africa for four, five or six years, some of them in the front line for nearly two and a half years. I suggest that it would be reasonable, on the grounds of good service—having done well—that on the recommendation of their commanding officers, particularly as a number of officers have returned from the Middle East for various reasons, and I think it must be feasible and could certainly be done—that a certain number of N.C.Os. and men as a reward for good service should be brought from each battalion to England every year. It really should be possible now. I am not referring to men shot up, etc., but as a reward for good service—any number you like per battalion, six or a dozen.
    I have heard a lot of talk since I got back about the civilian population, but I have not heard very much about the soldier. I think the pay of the private soldier and junior officers most certainly ought to be raised. Another small point is that there were—it is a little better now—too many young men and young officers on headquarters staffs. I do not say they were just sitting back, but it makes a very bad impression on troops coming back from the field. No one should be on headquarters staffs, without some special reason, unless he has fought either in this war or in the last. More attention should be paid to the question of wounded soldiers and their dependants. The returned soldier, or the dependants of the soldier who is unfortunate enough not to get back, should be the first charge on the nation. After that, let us think of some of our other charges. I hope that after the war we shall still have a measure of unity between the parties, and in particular on foreign affairs. There are plenty of other things left for us to fight about. I think we ought to be united on remaining strong after the war, so that we shall not allow this nonsense to happen again. I do not think anybody can justly accuse this nation of adopting a bullying attitude.

    359
    The stronger we are, the less chance there will be of another war. But if we are to have another war, which God forbid, and if our sons are to fight in it, let us remain strong and allow our sons to be on the winning side from the beginning and not three-quarters of the way through the war.
    Major Sir Ronald Ross: I admit that I am startled by these strategical views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin), who has argued that Rommel should have been prevented from escaping to Tunisia. The Battle of El Alamein was a tactical triumph by a new technique. We did it the hard way, and our troops wrecked their army, which had been refitted to some extent. The proposition that if the German Army had been left alone in Libya it would have been static is fantastic. When our troops landed in Algeria Rommel would have left strong rearguard at El Alamein and retired to the Halfaya position and fortified that and we should have had to try to advance over many hundreds of miles of waterless desert.
    On the question of the use of dive-bombers over land, I happen to have been employed with the Air Force and to have had an opportunity of discussing these matters with many air officers of considerable practical flying experience, some of whom had been in Libya. These are not my views I am giving, but theirs. They all seemed to be in favour of the low-flying fighter-bomber rather than the dive-bomber, because the dive-bomber is extremely vulnerable to fighter attack. If you see what happened to the Ju 87 or to our "Fairey battles," it will be appreciated that the dive-bomber has a very bad chance when there happen to be fighters about.
    I really wish to address myself to one subject only. I am not a Member who takes a particular delight in unearthing what appears to be a scandal, but I have been very startled at the way the War Office treats officers and men who become sick in the course of their military service. This has a bearing on pension cases later on, but it is not a matter connected with the Ministry of Pensions; it is connected entirely with the War Office and with War Office practice and administration. We are fortunate in that the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who, I hope, is listening to these few remarks for a moment or so, is a lawyer. He has no
    360
    doubt been often engaged in cases of workmen's compensation. This House is very jealous, and properly so, that a workman who is disabled or who becomes sick is given a square deal. On what grounds is an officer or a soldier treated far worse than a workman in an ordinary compensation case? I could not have believed the way things are done if it had not happened to me. If I rely on my own experiences in presenting this case, it must not be thought that I have the slightest desire to have the case reopened. That would be improper. But personal experience teaches as nothing else can. What happens in the case of someone who becomes ill or who has an accident is that the decision is reached by the War Office as to whether this disability is or is not due to military service. There is a ruling, I believe, that only when there are special circumstances which make it clear that the disability could not have happened to the man if he had been a civilian can the War Office take responsibility for looking after the case. Otherwise, the individual may be obliged, as I was, to pay his medical expenses, or a large portion of them; he may be put, as I was, on the unemployed list until he can manage to pass, a medical board, and deprived of all pay; he may be thrown right out of the Army and his chance of a successful approach to the Ministry of Pensions entirely ruined by having it held that the disability was not due to military service.
    This decision is not reached at once and is not reached on medical evidence. It is reached upon the consideration of a number of precedents. The officer or soldier who is ill has no opportunity of presenting his case or of presenting medical evidence. The case is decided against him without his being heard, on a series of authorities. Those authorities are the precedents for cases of that type. He has no access to those authorities and cannot tell why the case has gone against him. In my own case, I was, I admit, surprised. The first winter of the war was very wet; we were sent to low-lying lake country, where we were in barracks which had been condemned as barracks in, I think, 1886, and nothing had been done to them since. I, a comparatively elderly soldier, went down with double pneumonia and rheumatic fever, a thing I had never had before. Four months

    361
    later I was told by the doctors that they regretted that it was not due to my military service. I had seen no medical report. This is a grave scandal, not to me personally, because I can take the rap, but it is quite untrue to say that military officers have gone into the Army to spend their time in an agreeable way and are not dependent on their pay. They are dependent on their pay. A man's case is decided against him on authorities which he cannot see, and apparently without consultation with any doctors except military doctors, who are under Army discipline. That is a gross injustice, although, so far as I can see, it has never been seriously ventilated. Why should not officers and men have an opportunity of putting their own case, and why should not the matter be decided by an impartial body of some sort, on the analogy of the workmen's compensation law, in respect of which the Financial Secretary is, I know, a very formidable exponent of the workmen's rights?
    Earl Winterton: My hon. and gallant Friend is inaccurate in thinking that this matter has not been ventilated. An absolute barrage of questions has been directed to the Minister of Pensions on the subject, and we have had no satisfaction at all.
    Sir R. Ross: I am very much obliged for my noble Friend's interruption. I am aware of that as regards the Minister of Pensions, and I have the fullest sympathy with hon. Members who have put those questions. But I would not be in Order if I said anything now on the Ministry of Pensions Vote. I must confine myself to the War Office Vote. The case of the officer or soldier is hopelessly prejudiced before it gets to the Ministry of Pensions, by some caucus—and I do not know who they are—sitting behind closed doors, who are judge, jury and highest authority on discipline and who do not give the grounds for their decision. My case is completely finished, but if I can do anythng to get soldiers and officers a square deal when they, in their country's service, get sick, my time will not have been wasted. Why, because you are serving your country, should you be treated worse in this matter of disability than you would be if you were a civilian?
    Mr. Stokes: I would like to add my support on the treatment meted out to sick and disabled Service people.
    362
    It is astonishing that after the regular tornado of questions which, as the noble Lord has said, have been put on this matter, we are still without any satisfactory reply. I want to bring the Debate back to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. Probably this is the only agreeable thing I am going to say about him—I do not know that anything else will be agreeable to him. I would join with others in congratulating him on the precise lecture which he read to us. The rest of what I say will be entirely disagreeable. It was made abundantly clear by him to-day and by the Minister of Defence on nth February that the situation is still dependent on shipping, and that until we get topsides of the submarine warfare and increase our shipbuilding generally we are not going to be able to do overseas anything substantially more than we have done already. That is so, but on one point I hear rumours constantly from people who are supposed to know about these matters, that although ships go from this country heavily laden, carrying troops and supplies overseas round the Cape, they often come back empty. Is that true? Is care taken to see that the maximum supplies are brought back to this country?
    The right hon. Gentleman said that external criticism of the Army has swung from side to side, with one exception; and he smiled genially at me, as if to suggest that I was always trying to drag the Army down. Nothing that I have ever said has been in criticism of the Army. Everything I have said has been said in an effort to stimulate efficiency among the Whitehall panjandrums, who do not in many cases know so much about their jobs as they ought to. Everything that I have said has always been in defence and support of the fighting soldier. I was not here at the beginning when the right hon. Gentleman talked about El Alamein, but I am told that he said that at the time that attack took place there were 1,000 tanks waiting to go into action. That really forms the gravamen of what I want to talk about, and while it may be very nice to get up and say that there were 1,000 tanks, it all depends entirely upon what sort of tanks they were. It is no use sending a swarm of gnats to swat an elephant, because it does not work. The elephant wins. I want, as far as I can within the ambit of this Debate, to talk about the tank

    363
    situation and to raise the whole question of the tank policy in the Army, especially after all the wrongful, incorrect and sometimes, in my opinion, untruthful, statements made from time to time both inside this House and elsewhere by Ministers.
    I would emphasise at the outset that I am not making any criticism of the training of the Army or of the gallantry of the men in action who use the weapons. However lacking some of these weapons may be it does not make the slightest difference what kind of speech we make in this House. It does not alter the weapons in the field. It does not depress the troops, for if indeed they have had wrong weapons and things were not what they should be, they do their best anyway but especially if they know that someone is ventilating their grievance. I will quote a short statement made by Major-General Fuller in one of the weekly papers shortly after the exchange of words that I had with the Prime Minister just before Christmas, when I was accused by him of things which, if he had said them outside this House, would have been actionable. What General Fuller said on this very point was:
    "Give him a reliable weapon, and no criticism will shake his confidence in it until a better is produced. Give him an unreliable one, and, as he is gagged by King's Regulations unless others speak for him, he is dumb—yet angry."
    It is from that point of view that I speak again on this subject. I have talked with all sorts of eminent people on this question. I appreciate that, naturally, criticism that weapons are not what they ought to be has a most depressing effect on production. What can be more disturbing to a large body of workpeople than to be told, when they have sweated in producing the maximum quantity of a weapon in the shortest possible time, that the thing is no use? I have seen tanks of all kinds in production, and I take off my hat to the quality of the workmanship shown in these machines. It is absolutely magnificent. The craftsmanship is splendid, and there is nothing whatever wrong with the production side or the material that goes into them. My criticism is of the people at the top, whom I would describe as the sixth columnist, far more dangerous than the fifth columnist. A sixth columnist is the fellow who holds a responsible position and who really is not
    364
    capable of holding down his job and yet hangs on, and is allowed to hang on by people who ought to know better. My criticism is entirely of the people at the top.
    I know that the Secretary of State for War is not responsible for the Tank Board, and if I started analysing the Tank Board or pulling it to pieces, I should be told that that came on another Vote. But he is responsible for a number of the people who sit on the Tank Board, and I want to know whether he really is satisfied with the representation that he has there. So that the House may be informed on the subject, I will refer briefly to what has happened to this Board. This Board has always had representatives from the War Office. Since the year 1940, when it was formed, there have been 25 different members, 20 of whom had no previous experience of design, production or use of the weapon in the field prior to their appointment to the Board. Two only had had field experience, one of whom has unfortunately since been killed in action and the other is now seconded for service in America; and three only had previous knowledge of designs or production. At present, as far as I know, the position is not very much more satisfactory. The point that I want to press on the right hon. Gentleman is, Why is there still nobody who has had any close-up field experience seconded for duty by the War Office with the Tank Board?
    Anybody who really knows anything about the production of mechanical equipment knows two things: first, that you should never leave it entirely to the engineers, as that would be disastrous, and, secondly, if you are to have a preponderance of production elements, of the people interested in production on the Board and a minority of people who are not competent to criticise what the production engineers' representative may say, as often as not that preponderance of people will get away with the wrong design to the disadvantage of the man in the field. I shall not rest satisfied, and I hope that the House will not, until we hear from the Secretary of State for War that he has appointed somebody from the War Office who has had close-up experience in the field. I am not making any criticism of the present personnel as far as their capabilities and experience are concerned. They are splendid persons, but there is no one who has had

    365
    first-hand experience in the field or understands from his own tribulations the trials and difficulties with which the fighting soldier is confronted when using these weapons.
    May I remind the House and the Secretary of State that on the great occasion in June, 1940, when, apparently, the Army Council, or what is called the Committee of Imperial Defence, decided upon the production of the tank which is now known as the A.22 there was no civilian on the Tank Board who had had any experience even of the production of tanks, and yet a decision was reached? It really is an absolute outrage. As I have said before, it is time that we insisted in this House that there should be a full and proper inquiry into what has taken place and have the culprits dealt with, or, at least, moved out of harm's way, so that the same sort of thing cannot happen again. I am not going into details of the personnel of the Tank Board, but there is an American liaison officer, who, I suppose, is appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State for War, and there at least our cousins across the Atlantic have shown greater sense. They have at least appointed somebody who had experience of tanks in the last war. I realise the difficulty at the commencement of the war in getting enough people of experience of tanks in action; it was impossible. Though in this case they have found it hard to find men of experience of the machine in the field and elsewhere during the last war, I am wondering why somebody of the capacity of Major-General Hobart has not been taken on and used in this direction. He may have personal difficulties—I do not know—but his is one name that comes to my mind.
    I would ask the Secretary of State another particular question on the A.22 tank which never ought to have been called the Churchill and which was only so christened by Lord Beaverbrook. I protested more than a year ago against the stupidity of so naming it. The design of this tank never had anything to do with the Prime Minister. It was started long before he became Prime Minister and it actually became known as the A.22. I asked the Secretary of State whether he is satisfied that the A.22 tank is adequate. Some of us who have been critics of the Government have had it drummed into us
    366
    that troops have been equipped with weapons that are ample and adequate and we know that the A.22 has been produced by the thousand. As far as I know it was only designed to carry a 2-pounder gun but the War Office is responsible for saying what size of gun should be used. Were they satisfied with only a 2-pounder gun? It is an astonishing thing to me that they let it go at that. We shall be told that the A.22 is now mechanically all right but that is only because the top gear is now really the third, and the fourth and fifth have been cut out because they cannot be engaged with the engine power available. But that was not what was intended. As far as I also know, the machine gun fires in one direction only, and the wretched driver—and I have been inside the tank—feels that he is driving with blinkers on. You cannot see on either side, half right or left in front, and you want a man with a red flag to guide you onward. I do not believe the author or designer of that tank is known. I am surprised that with the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War and his staff, they should put up with a tank of this kind. I would like to know who really was responsible for putting it into production. Was it the War Office? In this House on 2nd July, 1942, when trying to explain how good the A.22 was, the Prime Minister said:
    "In June, 1940…I called a meeting of all authorities to design and make a new tank, capable of speedy mass production and adopted to the war conditions to be foreseen in 1942. In 1942—that was the test…All the highest: expert authorities were brought together several times and made to hammer out a strong and heavy tank, adapted primarily for the defence of this Island against invasion, but capable of other employment in various theatres. This tank, the A.22, was ordered off the drawing board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, July 2, 1942; col. 599, Vol. 381.]
    Every engineer knows that that statement was at least incorrect, and the tank cannot have been designed for this purpose if further statements made by the Minister are correct. In his statement of 15th December, after trying to explain, not how good it was, but how limited its scope, he said:
    "the problem…was to produce the maximum number of tanks of sufficiently powerful action for home defence."
    He went on to say:
    "This tank was never intended for the fast-moving long-range warfare of the desert."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, December 15, 1942; cols. 1772 and 1774, Vol. 385.]

    367
    But in July he had said the whole question was
    "to produce a machine capable of dealing with war conditions in 1942."
    That was the test, and not home defence. How can he reconcile those two statements? What were the conditions to be foreseen in 1942? Surely in 1940 we were all hoping that the war would be over by 1942, and certainly no one then thought of producing weapons merely capable of defending these shores. I would be interested to know who were the highest authorities consulted at that time and to whom the Prime Minister referred in his speech on that occasion. We have heard a lot lately both from the Secretary of State for War and more particularly from the Minister of Production, who makes rather wilder statements on this subject, that the A.22 tanks at El Alamein were really satisfactory. I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position really to tell the House the truth. I understand that only a handful went into action and that 80 per cent. broke down. Is that true or not?
    Sir J. Grigg: It is untrue.
    Mr. Stokes: Well, I hope it will be categorically denied because I understand that six went in and five broke down. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand up at that Box and deny it. I would like to ask whether it is true or not true that the German report on the A.22 was to this effect:
    "that after close and careful study of this vehicle we are satisfied that we have nothing to learn and still less to fear."
    Is that true? Lately we have had some phoney stories put over the wireless of how our 6-pounder and 2-pounder guns have been knocking out German tanks at 2,000 to 3,000 yards' range. I will not attempt to bore people with figures of ballistics and all the rest of it, but as an ex-gunner I say that if a 2-pounder gun succeeded in knocking out a German tank at 2,000 yards' range the shells must have gone in through the window! It is disastrous that the Minister of Information, or whoever is responsible for these broadcasts, should put that sort of thing over the wireless—it only misleads the public. It seems to me to be a horrible thing that the same sort of thing that
    368
    happened in the last war is happening this time—I mean the inadequacy of supplies and weapons. Anybody who has been at the fighting end and who knows what a miserable business fighting is, knows what a great responsibility rests on us here at home to stir up the Government and prod them into getting the right weapons. Is it true that the A.22 was tested at Farnborough in September, 1941, and was declared to be unbattle-worthy? Is it true that the officers responsible for carrying out these tests—both well-known colonels—were kicked out of their jobs and sent away to the East? An eminent American came here to help us, but he was returned to America for his trouble in saying the machine was useless.
    Sir Granville Gibson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fourth and fifth gears being taken out of this tank, leaving only three. Has he any information to give to the House as to the effect of that on the speed of the vehicle?
    Mr. Stokes: Certainly, I can give some information. It is not nearly as good information as the Secretary of State for War would give if he could, or could give if he would, but the A.22 was designed for a speed of 20 miles per hour in top gear and now does only 10 miles an hour. Of course, my information is, naturally, secondhand. Another question I want to ask about this tank is this—and I gave the Secretary of State notice of this, indeed, of nearly all my other questions. Did those with experience of the tank protest at the time at its being put into quantitative production? I understand they did. On 15th December the Prime Minister went for me, and I tried to deal with this the next day. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker ruled me out of Order. I have seen a letter written in May, 1940, by the Chairman of the Special Vehicles Development Committee, which reads as follows:
    "In the meantime, I most urgently ask you not to allow the new model infantry tank, Mark IV, to be put into production until this has been re-considered by an impartial tribunal, any neutral mechanical engineers of standing, before whom I am prepared to put forward my reasons in detail. A vital one is that it has a petrol motor, with terrible danger of fire to members of the crew who are completely huddled up in this tank. The designer of this tank in these critical days has, I understand, never before designed a tank. In our opinion, this tank is a bad

    369
    machine and is clogging, or will clog, the factories and machine tools of the utmost importance."
    Since then several thousands have been produced with the unsatisfactory results to which I have already referred. I would remind the House of what the Prime Minister said about this matter on 15th December:
    "I am glad to have this opportunity of informing the House of the history of this tank and publishing the names of those who took the bold decision to introduce it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1042; col. 1774, Vol. 385.]
    It seems to me that it was a gambler's decision. Again, I must quote the words of General Fuller on this subject. Referring to this statement by the Prime Minister, he said:
    "I should prefer to call it a dice-box transaction for the chances of reliability in an entirely new model are those of being dealt a royal flush in a game of cards, that is 64,000 to I against."
    I believe that if a Select Committee report on this subject were put into the hands of Members of this House, the Government would be in a pretty mess to justify what has happened. On the subject of how long it takes to make a tank, I do not propose to dwell, but anybody who says that a tank can be built off the drawing board and produced in six months does not know what he is talking about, and if a Minister says this, then he, too, does not know what he is talking about—and both the Prime Minister and Minister of Production have said so.
    Now I come to the future, which is much more important. It is against the background of the miserable happenings in connection with the A.22 tank that one looks forward with the hope that things will be put right. I want to quote what the Minister of Production said on 14th July:
    "The tanks which are actually coming out of the production line now"—
    presumably with the full approval of the War Office—
    —"will have the necessary fire power for today's battle and the new types which are designed to be made in the United States and this country give us a reasonable assurance of that superiority which is required for victory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1942; col. 1107, Vol. 381.]
    Let us examine the position in Tunisia. The Germans turned up with a tank called the Tiger, which "The Times"
    370
    stated recently was a weapon of 55-tons weight and carried an 88 mm gun and fired a shell of about 30 pounds weight. What have we got in reply? The A.22—with a 6-pounder—though this was never designed for a 6-pounder. In a few moments I will quote to the House extracts and reports from the field as to how this 6-pounder fared against this big enemy tank. The Americans have their Grant, which we know has its limitations, and they have something much better in the Sherman, with its 76 mm. high velocity gun. We also have, I believe, a tank which the Secretary of State for War told the country about in a veiled way recently, but about which I will not talk in a detailed way, as much of the material concerned with it is confidential and cannot be mentioned in public. On 20th September the Secretary of State for War said:
    "We have new tanks coming into production better than our Forces had before. I have seen them, and they are better than anything produced by the Germans, Italians or Japanese—better than any tank in the world. The effect of this tank on the war is incalculable."
    Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that in his considered judgment that tank is capable of taking on the German Tiger?
    Sir J. Grigg Sir J. Grigg indicated assent.
    Mr. Stokes: I want to get it on record; I do not want to get it by a nodding of the head. I want the right hon. Gentleman to stand up at the Box there and say so. If he does say so, I shall disagree with him because it is not. I want to ask him, can be tell the House whether the A.27 has been delivered to troops either here or abroad. I would like to ask him is he in a position to say whether we have anything coming into production or even on the drawing board which is capable of carrying our 3.7 A.A.-gun as a tank weapon. Finally, I want to make one or two remarks about what has happened in Tunisia. I feel hot under the collar about sending men into action with inadequate weapons. It is easy enough to stand up in this House and make vain and glorious speeches about the marvellous way in which the war is going. I would like to put the Prime Minister, the Minister of Production and the Secretary of State for War into an inadequate tank and put them into the front line.
    Sir J. Grigg: And the hon. Member.
    Mr. Stokes: Certainly, I would go like a shot. I spent three years as a fighting soldier in the last war.
    Sir J. Grigg: So did I.
    Mr. Stokes: I object to people standing up and saying that our soldiers have adequate weapons when they have not. What are the reports from Tunisia? Here is a report by Mr. William Stone-man, special correspondent of that reputable newspaper, the "Daily Telegraph"—less reputable since it merged with the "Morning Post." It was written on 6th February at American Headquarters in North Africa, and says:
    "Our best medium tanks (American) have been equal to the German Mark IV tanks. What they would do if they ever ran into the 52-ton tank armed with an 88 mm gun, anybody can guess for himself. The British have been using a lot of Crusaders and Valentines, which are thinner shelled and more lightly armed than the American mediums, and have been no match for the German mediums."
    What does the Secretary of State for War say to that? Only two days ago, in the "Daily Mail," Mr. Ward Price, their correspondent there, described what happened.
    Captain Duncan: What sort of paper is that?
    Mr. Stokes: Well, in my youth, as far as I can remember, it was called the "Daily Liar," but as they all lie now, I do not see that it makes much difference. As I was saying, Mr. Ward Price described what happened in Tunis. He wrote:
    "As the German armoured column began to debouch from the mouth of the Faid Pass, 20 American Sherman tanks posted opposite the exit charged forward to attack. The German Mark IVs. fanned out right and left, revealing the heavily armed Mark VIs at the apex of the angle. The 20 Shermans were quickly under fire from ahead and both flanks. Not one returned."
    What has the Secretary of State to say to that? Let us have production which is better and more advanced than any German design.
    I have about half a dozen further questions to ask of the Secretary of State for War. I gave him notice of about 20. I want to ask him one or two things as to the history of our policy. After all, it is strategy which decides upon and controls your weapons. You do not decide what your strategy should be from day to day,
    372
    or, if you do, you should be locked up as lunatics. In 1942, there was a visit by General Richardson to the Libyan Desert. Was the report which General Richardson made on his return made available by the War Office for the information of the Tank Board?
    Secondly, is there any declared policy that we in this country will not go in for tanks over approximately 40 tons? Thirdly, have the War Office or High Command seriously considered the importance of dual-purpose guns in tanks? As far as my information goes they seem to go in for solid shot entirely. From my own recollection, there is nothing more pleasant on land than being shot at by a naval gun, because when the shell goes into the ground, it goes in so far that it does not hurt you, and if it hits you, you do not know because it comes, so fast! Surely, what we want now, with tank guns and with anti-tank guns, is a dual-purpose gun which can fire not only a high velocity armour-piercing shell but a shell with high explosive in it. It is no use trying to make that out of a 6-pounder gun, because the 6 lbs. shot can take only one ounce of explosive, and that is of no use. Has proper consideration been given to the importance of having a high explosive shell not only for dealing with anti-tank gun personnel but for the purpose of damaging tanks in action? One cannot expect to hit a tank every time, and therefore, one should try to blast its tracks off with high explosive.
    Thirdly, I want to refer to a rather personal point. I hesitate to mention individual names in the House, and the gentleman to whom I am about to refer to is no friend of mine, but he is one of the most competent gun designers in the country. Why has Commander Stokes-Rees been relieved of his job and sent to Canada? He has a better brain for guns than anybody else in the country, and apparently, because he knows too much about the matter, he has been relieved of his job. Fourthly, can the Secretary of State tell us whether we or the Americans have anything approaching the Russian Klim II tank, which mounts a 4-inch gun and weighs 52 tons, or the German "Tiger" tank which weighs 55 tons? Finally, I consider the position now is more deplorable than it was two years ago.
    Sir J. Grigg Sir J. Grigg indicated dissent.
    Mr. Stokes: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I want to take him back to the speech he made in September of last year, when he told us that we had a tank which would beat everybody. Nobody can say that the A.27 is equal to the German "Tiger" or the Russian Elim II. With the A.27, if you get in under the enemy's belly, you will probably blow him up, but try to get in under his belly and see how you like it. I say in all seriousness that I think this scandal is a worse scandal than the shell scandal of the last war. I hope public opinion will be roused and that people will rise in their wrath and insist that a full and proper inquiry shall be made into the whole situation.
    Sir J. Grigg: I ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the indulgence of the House for not more than two or three minutes, to pick up the worst mis-statements of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I cannot go into all of them, partly because, for obvious reasons, I am not going to give information to the enemy, and partly because it would be an infliction on the generosity of the House if I dealt with more than the very minimum. Let me answer the hon. Member's statements about the Tank Board. It would be quite silly for me to say that I am satisfied about the Tank Board, but I am sure it is better now than it has ever been before. I am not in the least sure that the proper place for the user is on the Tank Board. Outside the Tank Board there is a great deal of experience in the Middle East available. Not only are there in the D.C.I.G.S.'s Department at least half a dozen names which spring to my mind immediately of people who have experience in the Middle East, but there are the Operational Research Groups and all the machinery out there which I tried to explain in my statement. There are innumerable reports from the Middle East, both from people stationed out there and from people who have been sent out, including characteristic ones from General Montgomery himself. There have been all sorts of visiting missions. To take up the point about General Richardson's report, certainly that report has been seen by the Tank Board and discussed by them.
    Mr. Stokes Mr. Stokes rose——
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot inflict myself on the House for more than two or three minutes.
    Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting me.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not in the least misquoting the hon. Member. Moreover, Middle East experience is not the only kind of experience that is wanted on the Tank Board. As far as the Tank Board is concerned, I am prepared to rest myself on the 18th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. They did not say that the present arrangements are perfect, but they did say that the present arrangements in both Departments are founded on what they consider to be sound basic principles. As the hon. Member pointed out, the development of a tank from the initial design and conception to its being in the hands of the troops is a very long process. If we do not cut out stages and take short cuts, we are blamed, and if we do so, we are blamed. One of the examples which is quoted as showing the folly of short cuts is the Churchill A.22 tank, about which the hon. Gentleman made a great song and dance. I do not propose to go into that or to re-peat over again what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Production have said in the House, but I shall be prepared to take up the matter at greater length on an occasion when I shall not trespass on the indulgence of the House. To my knowledge, quite a number of the statements which the hon. Member made about the Churchill tanks are inaccurate.
    Mr. Stokes: Which ones?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Churchills were used—and I say this in answer to the hon. Member's question—in small numbers at El Alamein and the figures he gave about the numbers which were put out of action were inaccurate. They are being used and are in action in larger numbers in Tunisia, and we ought to have a very good chance of seeing who is right, and whether the hon. Member is right in thinking they are no good. Personally, although I have not in the least the certitude which the hon. Member displayed, I am pretty confident that in its present form this tank will be an extremely useful battle instrument.
    With regard to the future, I have not the slightest intention of telling the hon. Member what is going on. The hon.

    375
    Member talked a great deal about his knowledge of what is going on. From the actual quotations he gave, it is clear to me where his knowledge comes from. I have heard all that story over and over again from the same person. But a great deal more is going on than the hon. Member evidently knows about. There are only two things I have to say on that part of the hon. Member's oration. Of course, we have not a full report on the Tiger or the Mark VI, but one of the Tigers which was knocked out showed four or five penetrations from the six-pounder gun, for which the hon. Member has such contempt.
    Mr. Stokes: At what range?
    Sir J. Grigg: How can I tell the range? The six-pounder put four or five holes into the Tiger, and into the turret of the Tiger. With regard to what I said at Cardiff, the hon. Member quoted me more or less verbatim from the newspaper report. I said then that these new tanks were coming into production. I confess that the period of teething has been several months longer than I hoped and expected then, but subject to that, I am completely impenitent about what I said at Cardiff. With regard to the hon. Member's question about solid shot and high explosive, all that sort of thing is being taken care of. We are not quite so simple as the hon. Member seems to think, and most of the developments which he demands, and says are being completely neglected, have been going on, to my knowledge, for months and months past. But there again, obviously I am not going to tell the House in Public Session what is going on. I do not want to pretend that everything is well and I do not want to claim too much, but I am pretty confident that things are a great deal better than the hon. Member pointed out, and that in the end all will be well. I end by commending to the hon. Member the advice which Cromwell gave to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland:
    "Gentlemen, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken"
    Mr. Stokes: On the subject of the Tank Board, will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? Have the responsible fighting soldiers in North Africa—I do not mean the rank and file—expressed satisfaction with his composition of the Tank Board?
    Sir J. Grigg: That does not seem to me to be relevant for this purpose. The only thing that is relevant is whether all the views which they express on technical matters are at the disposal of the Tank Board, and that is certainly the case.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Are we to understand that General Montgomery assured the right hon. Gentleman that all was well as far as the tanks are concerned?
    Sir J. Grigg: What I said was that, in order to prove that we were not so devoid of information of what was going on in North Africa, we had innumerable opportunities for the interchange of information and reports from the front, including a characteristic report from General Montgomery.
    An Hon. Member: What does that mean?
    Sir J. Grigg: Exactly what it says.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What is the characteristic message?
    Sir J. Grigg: It is full of information.
    Mr. Hutchinson: I am sure the House will not expect any ordinary Member to intervene in the controversy in which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) engaged with so much vigour and energy with the Secretary of State, except, perhaps, to say that the House will agree with him when he says we should not say in this House that our troops have been provided with adequate weapons, if in fact they have not; and I think that the House will consider it equally important that we should not say in this House that our troops have not been provided with adequate weapons, if in fact they have. The only other reference which I desire to make to this controversy is that many of us who are not so familiar with the technicalities of the matter as the hon. Member for Ipswich may think that my right hon. Friend would be well advised to direct that this matter should now be inquired into by a Select Committee of this House, or some other body, in secret so that our doubts may be finally and definitely resolved.
    I am sure the House has listened with interest to the account which the Secretary of State gave both of the operational events of the last 12 months and of the

    377
    background of administrative progress which has been made since he last spoke. I think his speech will help to dispel the impression that was prevalent in the House, and I think in the country, not very long ago that our military organisation moved slowly and adapted itself very slowly to changing events. My right hon. Friend has shown that that is not the case.
    There are one or two matters to which I desire to invite my right hon. Friend's attention. He told us that a special organisation had been introduced for the purpose of finding drafts for field force formations at home and overseas. It came to me rather as a surprise to hear that at this stage of the war we were still engaged in organising machinery for draft-finding. I understand that what has been done is that reserve divisions have been formed whose task it is to find the necessary drafts for formations overseas. I should like to ask what is the nature of the units which have been transferred to the reserved formations, because one has heard that units which for many months have been organised and trained as field force units have now been converted to a draft-finding status and have been transferred from their original field force formation to these new reserve formations, where their chief function will be to find drafts. That is a treatment which is very discouraging to the troops. Naturally a unit which has been for many months fitting itself to take the field, particularly if it is an old established unit, feels very strongly that it has not been fairly treated if it is reduced to a draft-finding status.
    I should like to ask this question also. There are, I believe, certain old established Territorial formations, to which the attention of my right hon. Friend has recently been drawn, which have been broken up and many of their units, I understand, have now been reduced to the status of draft finding units. That is a matter which will arouse a great deal of disappointment not only amongst the troops themselves but in the areas from which they were recruited. My right hon. Friend will recollect those formations to which I am referring. Some of them come from parts of the country with long and loyal traditions of territorial recruiting and service and the populations in those areas, as well as the troops themselves, feel that their units have not received fair treatment by being transferred in this way to
    378
    reserve formations whose function is to provide drafts for other units.
    The Secretary, of State dwelt on the question of man-power. I hope he will be able to tell the House whether he is satisfied that adequate officer material is now forthcoming. Some time ago difficulty was experienced in finding suitable candidates for commissioned rank in the Army and I would particularly invite my right hon. Friend to say whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for distributing suitable officer material between the Army and the other Services. At one time a large number of young men who possessed the necessary qualifications of character and education to make successful officers in the Army were being permitted to go into other Services, the Royal Air Force in particular, where the qualities of leadership required in the officers are different from those called for in the Army. Are the present arrangements providing the necessary number of potential officers for the Army?
    There are still being retained in the Army a large number of men who have sunk to a low medical category, not sufficiently low to entitle them to discharge, but too low to make them fit for active forms of employment. I understand that the War Office was actively engaged some time ago in reviewing these cases with a view to their discharge. What progress has been made with that review? The impression I and other Members are under is that there are still in the Army a large number of men in the lower medical categories for whom suitable employment in the Army cannot be found. Many of these men possess qualifications which would make them of value in civil life, in the difficult labour conditions that exist, not only in industry, but in the retail trades and other forms of business. I frequently encounter cases among my constituents of men in medical category C who tell me that they can be found very little useful employment in the Army. If I take a case up with my right hon. Friend's Department, my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary writes, as he always does, a courteous letter saying that it is hoped that suitable employment would be found for the man in his medical category. The impression left on my mind, and I think on the minds of many hon. Members, is that there are a large number of men in this class who might be usefully released and that what is going on

    379
    is a desperate attempt to find them suitable military employment although employment of a suitable character is not really available. I would like my right hon. Friend to consider whether a substantial number of these men, who cannot really be found suitable employment in the Army, could not now be released to civil life where they would be of much greater value.
    In the earlier stages of the war arrangements for dealing with soldiers undergoing detention were not altogether satisfactory. They were particularly unsatisfactory in that no arrangements were made for affording separate treatment for young soldiers who were first offenders. These young men were treated in detention barracks with men of a different type who in a civil prison would be regarded as hardened offenders and who would be kept apart from those who had gone to detention for the first time. That system continued in military detention barracks until recently, but I believe that some time ago a committee was appointed by the War Office to inquire into it. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether any results have followed from the appointment of that committee and whether their inquiries have been completed? I hope he will be able to give us some assurance that changes have been made and that first offenders and youthful offenders are treated now in the same way as they would be in civil prisons and are kept separate and given different treatment from that given older offenders. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us this assurance because to-day the Army has the responsibility for a large and increasing number of young soldiers. It is most desirable that if these young men are sent to detention barracks for comparatively small offences, of a purely military character, the treatment which they receive should not have any permanent effect upon their characters. Experience in civil prisons shows that this is the result of associating young men during their first period of imprisonment with old offenders.
    Captain Duncan: I think that I can answer most of the questions that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has asked, but I will leave the Secretary of State to answer them. I would, how
    380
    ever, make one suggestion. It is that in connection with the new system of detention, Members of the House, including my hon. and learned Friend, might be invited to visit detention barracks and see the working of the scheme that has been set up recently to deal with young soldiers. Judging from this Debate the politician seems to be satisfied with the Army to-day. The Army is glad to know that it satisfies the politician. The Army was not always satisfied with the politician, and a large part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) might have been avoided, if more money had been spent by the politician on the development of tanks in the days before the war.
    I wish to raise only one question, the future of the Army. There is no doubt that after this war is over we shall have to retain compulsory military service. We must have a fairly large Army for all our commitments. First, there will be the ordinary peace-time garrisoning of our Empire, the Colonies and home stations, and reserves must be maintained so that those overseas garrisons can be properly relieved. The international security aspect will loom large in the future of the British Army. Can my right hon. Friend say what the War Office is doing in regard to fixing the future size of the British Army? The question of demobilisation cannot be settled until we have decided the future size of the British Army. I remember being in Maubeuge on nth November, 1918. We soon started to march into Germany. We went to Cologne, where we arrived early in December, but before we reached the town a rumour went round that miners were wanted at home, and the whole of my platoon said they were miners. I believe, though I have not looked it up, that the British Army in France in 1918 numbered about 5,000,000, but the numbers fell to somewhere in the region of 100,000 in less than a year.
    Mr. E. Walkden: I am not a miner, but I was a ranker in the last war, and I remember that men who made such a claim were court-martialled, because their pay-books proved that they were not miners. Is it not true that the evidence was that of their paybooks, and that they could not get away unless they had such evidence?
    Captain Duncan: The fact remains that, in spite of whatever plans were made, the Army did practically disappear, and I

    381
    think I am not far out in the figures I have quoted. The numbers got so low as to embarrass the Government in maintaining our overseas garrisons, and the fact that men came out of the Army so quickly led to all sorts of complications when the slump in trade came. I believe that plans were made for orderly demobilisation which were never carried into effect. Is there a Department of the War Office now making plans for demobilisation? My right hon. Friend did briefly allude to the matter in his speech. I hope plans will be completed and that we shall stick to them this time instead of allowing them to be broken as was the case at the end of the last war.
    I have assumed that for men there will be in future some form of compulsory military service, and that the obligation to garrison Europe and our Empire and maintain troops at home will be carried out. If that is so, then the last question I want to ask—and I have not yet been speaking five minutes—is whether there will be room for the A.T.S. after the war. In the small army which we had before the war, I think it would have been impossible for the A.T.S. to have fitted into the Army's organisation, but if we are to have a much larger Army, with recruiting depots through which our conscripts will go, things will be on a sufficiently large scale to warrant the A.T.S. being continued. I believe there are a considerable number of girls in the Army to-day who want to go on serving. Not only would it be useful to keep the nucleus of the A.T.S. organisation going, but I think it would be welcomed by the A.T.S. themselves, provided some sort of career is open to them.
    Mr. Bellenger: The only reference which I want to make to the very powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is to say that I for one, and I think other hon. Members too, are not entirely satisfied with the answer which was given by the Secretary of State for War. I do not think he himself is quite satisfied, and I would venture the suggestion that I do not think he is quite in a position to give the complete answer. The answer must be given by some right hon. Gentleman who has greater authority to speak than he has. When my right hon. Friend the Home
    382
    Secretary, who was then, I think, Minister of Supply, set up the Tank Board, he told us that the trouble up to that time was mainly that the Army did not specify what sort of tanks they wanted, and that that was why we had so very few tanks in France for the Battle of France. It is a very serious charge that my hon. Friend has made to-day, and it is a very courageous attitude he has taken up. If he is right, the situation is serious and demands an answer, and this House should insist on one. If he is wrong, his statements ought to be denied categorically and authoritatively without delay.
    My right hon. Friend made a very conciliatory speech, a very good speech from the Army's points of view, and it was about time that he or somebody did so, because the Army has not been so well understood by the general public as has the Air Force. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the reason for this is that the other two Services, particularly the Royal Air Force, have had a better system of press relations than the Army, but I wish to pay my tribute to the Army's Press Relations Department now. We have to depend upon the newspapers to interpret the Army to the public, and it is admitted throughout Fleet Street that the press relations department of the War Office is now working very satisfactorily indeed.
    When, as in the latter part of his speech, my right hon. Friend, probably emulating the Prime Minister's style, becomes provocative and rather deplores the speeches of hon. Members calling attention to the deficiency of the weapons and the inadequacy of the equipment of our soldiers in the past, I think he is making a great mistake. He himself knows, because he has been in a different position at the War Office, that civil servants, to say nothing about their political chiefs, do pay attention to what is said in this House and do get a move on if hon. Members continue to press their subjects. The hon. Member for Ipswich has a particular subject at the moment, and I can only say, in view of the attempts that were made to get investigations undertaken into such deplorable incidents as Singapore and Tobruk—when it did not need any speeches of hon. Members in this House to affect the morale of the Army, as they saw the things that were happening—that when we find that we come up

    383
    against a blank wall we are right to have a sense of frustration if the Government, through their spokesman, pass by and short-circuit criticism made on the authority of the Members of Parliament.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will not forget that a certain number of hon. Members recently paid a visit to the airborne division. I am not going to say anything about the experience we had. Some of us went up in gliders and came down, some not so whole when they came down as when they went up. I say in all seriousness to the Secretary of State for War, under whose charge the airborne troops are, that the situation there is serious and will have to be looked into by him, and probably by the Minister of Defence himself. He knows, as do hon. Members who went to visit that airborne division, that everything is not well with those troops. We have information derived from responsible sources. The right hon. Gentleman knows some of those sources. He cannot smile that off. This Debate has dealt, in the main—
    Captain Duncan: I hope the hon. Gentleman will go into a little more detail about that matter, or the effect will be felt upon recruiting. If he is going to make wild statements—
    Mr. Bellenger: My hon. and gallant Friend was not there and did not hear the statements by responsible military and Air Force commanders. If I am overstating the case, there are other hon. Members present in this Chamber at the moment who can get up and deny my statements. I think I have been understating the case, if anything. I want to make no wild charges. Those troops of the airborne division, both paratroops and others, are excellent and first-class. If they are denied the right to aeroplanes or gliders or opportunity for training themselves and are then sent hurriedly overseas, a grave responsibility will rest on whoever sends them. I do not want to develop that side of the matter at the moment, but I hope that the House will be given an opportunity of going into that question more in detail. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend opposite from giving a reply to questions which have been put to him in the Debate, and to one or two which I shall put to him.
    384
    Nothing has been said by the Secretary of State for War about personnel. He roamed at great length and breadth over the whole world, and he justly paid tribute to the efforts of our troops in action. I endorse every word he said in that respect, but he must understand that many hon. Members, particularly after the recent Debate on pay and allowances, are not satisfied. The Army is not satisfied. That has nothing to do with the morale of the troops. If my right hon. Friend will not set up any organisation which can deal with these matters outside this Chamber, and can deal with them in a satisfactory way, what alternative have we but to bring them on to the Floor of this Chamber? As has been said before, the Army have nobody to speak for them, no trade union or powerful influences like that, except hon. Members of this House. I am very glad to see the number of serving Members who are now returning here, and I hope they will put the case of the Army very forcibly before the Secretary of State. In respect to pay and allowances, there are grievances which have not yet been settled. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the increasing tendency of wages in the country, as is exemplified in the reports issued by the Ministry of Labour, he will see that there is a growing divergence between the pay and allowances for members of the Forces and their dependants and those of the civil population. I do not wish to make any invidious distinctions. I believe that the labourer should get what he is worth, but if one section of the population is worth a certain sum and can get it, the Army are entitled to their share.
    There are many things I should like to bring up to-day. I will lump them under one heading, which the right hon. Gentleman has given to me, a term which he is content to use, "anomalies." There are many grievances and anomalies which should be put right, and I will refer to one only, the difference which is made between officers and others ranks in the rations that they get. In the home country there is a difference of 2½d. in cash between what the offijcers receive and what is received by the other ranks. It works out when you consider other factors, to a discrepancy of more than 2½d. in relation to rations drawn by units of a strength under 100, but in war-time there can be no justification for making a difference between rations drawn by

    385
    other ranks and rations drawn by officers. That may be a slight anomaly and the right hon. Gentleman may pass it off by saying that officers are in a different position and that it has always been accepted that an officer shall provide himself with part of what he eats and drinks. However that might have been in peace-time it is not good enough in war-time. Officers on leave are paid the same ration allowance as are other ranks, and they get exactly the same quantities of food as other ranks when they go overseas.
    I think the right hon. Gentleman does not yet realise the amount of silent discontent, or discontent expressed perhaps only between officers and in their messes, at the way sick officers are being treated and, when it comes to that, the manner in which men discharged from the Army are being treated. Part of it rests with the Ministry of Pensions but part with the Army, and a very serious part too. Before the man or the officer is discharged he has a medical board which states certain conclusions, which go on to the Ministry of Pensions. When the Ministry of Pensions officials assess whether the disability is attributable to the service of the officer or the man, or was aggravated by his service, they go largely in the first place on what the medical board has said. What opportunity has the man or the officer to state his case? He is asked a question, "When did you first get your disability, and to what do you attribute your disability?" I suppose 99 out of 100 men would answer, "To my Army service." That question might just as well be left out for all the attention it receives from the Ministry of Pensions.
    In conclusion I want to pay one or two tributes. I have been a critic in the past and I still am a critic, as hon. Members know. I hope they will not think I am a fatuous critic. I want to pay a tribute to the way in which officers are selected now under the War Office Selection Board. I have complete confidence, and I think the candidates have too, in that system. I know there are some officers still who object to the new system of selecting officers but the War Office Selection Boards are doing very well indeed. Why is it not possible by working co-operatively between this House and the Department to get more innovations started like that, which are due in the main to a very broad minded and sensible member of the Army Council? It is not usual to pay tributes
    386
    to individual members of the Army Council, but sometimes criticism has been made, of officers, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech. Therefore it is only right to say that, under the present Adjutant-General we are effecting many considerable and desirable improvements. I wish to pay my tribute to him and to those associated with him who are able to give effect to those improvements in war-time. We can do those things in war-time. Just think of the large amount of work entailed in altering the system of training to the present general service Corps system and the whole system of selecting officers by War Office Boards. If that can be done, why cannot some of the other things be done for which we have constantly pressed? If my right hon. Friend replies later, or perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, I hope he will say something—I know it is impossible to say everything—on this question of pay and allowances. We are not satisfied with that position, and among other matters it will very soon have to come up again in this House.
    Wing-Commander James: I wish to make a very few remarks. They follow closely on those of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The Secretary of State in his review referred to the extraordinarily good supply arrangements which have been evident in the recent Libyan campaign. I think one might compare the attitude of the military-minded public to-day towards the War Office with the position in the equivalent period of the last war. One cannot but be struck by the fact that there are very few complaints about the operations side—G-branch—and about Q-branch. I believe that the very marked improvements there have not been quite so marked on the A side. I would like to give one or two specific examples. One is rates of pay. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw finished on that note.
    One difference between the present war and the last war is the very much closer integration of the civil population and the Services. There are many more officers and other ranks serving in England in this war, and there is a much closer basis of comparison between the three Services than there was then. Whereas the Navy and Air Force rates of pay are comparatively simple and straightforward, the Army rates of pay are incredibly complicated.

    387
    It cannot possibly only be due to the increase in the Army. If the other two Services can have a relatively simple system, why cannot the Army? The anomaly is heightened by the fact that in a hospital, or very often on a station, there are men of all the three Services together. Whereas naval "other ranks" and officers and those of the Air Force, know what their rates of pay are, the Army do not and their officers cannot explain it to them. Could not the Minister appoint a small committee of a few bankers and accountants to straighten out this surely unnecessary tangle? It is a great pity that the Opportunity was missed when there was a recent increase in the rates of carrying out the necessary revision to secure simplification.
    With regard to officers' pay and allowances—again I follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—I think there is real hardship in the way allowances, particularly, are paid in arrears. Take, for instance, travelling. It frequently happens that an unfortunate officer, probably living on his pay, is sent on what may be an expensive journey and he may have to wait weeks, even months, before he is recouped. In civil life,. I understand, the practice is that a man who is sent away on duty for his firm is paid either half or three-quarters in advance and then completes his claim on return. Surely there could be some system of the same kind in the Army. There are cases of real hardship in this matter of outstanding claims. In hospitals—again an A matter—I understand that private soldiers can only receive up to 10s. a week. Would it not be possible to allow them to draw, say, an extra 2s. 6d. or 5s. provided they put that in war savings stamps? If they could accumulate savings in this way many men will save as they go along and many men actually want to save as they go along.
    Another striking anomaly between the three Services relates to leave when in hospital. I understand that a soldier, as distinct from an airman or a naval rating, cannot have sick leave from hospital and also cannot accumulate privilege leave. It is very hard on a man who is in the same ward with men who are accumulating privilege leave, while he cannot. Of the three systems one must be right. As regards Army medical boards—I am being very disjointed to
    388
    save time—there seems to be a great lack both of uniformity and of powers of discrimination. Again, you have three separate systems in the three Services but I understand there is a rigid rule in the Army whereby a man who is sick in hospital, if he is not cured of injury at the end of nine months, is automatically out of the Service. I actually had a case brought to me the other day of a regimental sergeant major with a broken leg who was discharged from the Service at the end of nine months when one of the best civilian consultant medical opinions in the country was that two more months would have made him 100 per cent. fit. Could not such rigidity be changed?
    There is another point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, that of disability being attributable to military service. I agree with everything the hon. Member said. I would add that we all know from pre-war experience the awful aftermath, the drag that goes on for years in pension cases, on the question of what is or is not attributable. Surely the hardest hit is the officer or N.C.O. serving for pension. He may be, I think unjustly, deprived of a legitimate expectation for which he has served. Again, I had a case the other day of an officer with about 17 years' service—10 in India—who developed one of those filter-passing germ diseases. One could not say that it was directly attributable to military service, of course, and he was turned out and lost all that pension because of a rigid rule. I hope that particularly in the case of long-service men, serving for pension, this difficulty—I know how difficult it is—will be looked at again.
    I wish to refer to War Office selection boards. Again I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that they have been enormously improved. There is just one further improvement which might be of use and which the Secretary of State might consider. There is a feeling that in some cases the personnel of the boards have not quite sufficient experience of civil life to be able to assess the probable power of command a man may have on his civilian experience. There may be cases where the addition to these selection boards of experienced employers and experienced trade union officials, would enable a judgment to be given on the probable power of command a man would have from his

    389
    civil life experience. Finally, I would say a word on the Judge Advocate-General's branch. I do not think it is working quite satisfactorily at present. The idea that a court-martial is the fairest form of trial generally holds good, but with the enormous extension of the Army we do get a much more difficult problem. I suggest that the present personnel of the Judge Advocate-General's branch is rather too young and inexperienced, and might be improved. Again, could not free legal aid which is provided or available to other ranks be extended upwards, to cover warrant officers and subaltern officers?
    Earl Winterton: We have had to-day a method of discussion which I hope will be generally followed—that is, of Debate and not merely of set speeches by a' number of people, who sometimes have a discussion on a subject in which the majority of the House are not interested. From the last two speakers we have had most valuable contributions, following upon another from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). I want, in the very short summing up which, if I might say so, I thought would be for the convenience of the Committee before the Minister replies, to follow upon what they have said.
    I would beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to whom I would pay a tribute for his speech—to give attention of this question of Army pay. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) did not exaggerate. The position in many respects is worse than he says. It was complicated in the last war, and is more so in this war. In some cases serious hardship is caused. Secondly, there is the question, raised by three speakers, of the attribution of incapacity, total or otherwise. I am speaking quite impartially, not from the point of view of criticising the Government. Hardly a single Private Member in this House is convinced by the Government's argument that the present system is fair to the officer or to the man. Again and again, we have had examples, both in the Army and when the matter comes to the Ministry of Pensions afterwards. Surely some system could be devised which would be fairer. Then there is the question of temporary rank. In this war, as was the case in the last war, it is, to say the least, not very encouraging to the individual officer when a man
    390
    who has been a substantive lieutenant and has risen to acting colonel goes sick, through no fault of his own, that he should revert to his substantive rank. I know that the difficulties are very great, but if we could get some assurance that these questions of pay and allowances and of temporary rank will be dealt with it would do a great deal to allay public feeling, both in this House and outside.
    I come to the question of leave. Several hon. Members have pointed out the position of many officers and men, mostly of the old pre-war Regular Army, who have been in the Far East or India for five or six years, and who have gone through a lot of fighting. I admit that I am on very delicate ground and may cause offence to some Members, but I hold the opinion, which I held strongly in the last war, when I made myself unpopular in the House by giving voice to it, that there is more privilege about getting leave than there should be. That was my view in the last war, and there are cases which give ground for it in this war. Certain officers with influence, either because they are Members of this House or of the other place or because they are related to Members—[Interruption]. No, I am not thinking of any particular case, it is more serious than that—are able to obtain more leave from the front than they should have.
    Mr. Bernays: Is the Noble Lord attacking Members of this House who have come here on leave?
    Earl Winterton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make my speech. I said that in the last war there were some who obtained leave through influence, either because they were Members of this House or of the other place, or through relations who are. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my statement, I will make this confession. In the last war I came home twice on leave from Palestine, getting, I think, 80 per cent. more leave, than other persons got. It is true that I had good reasons—business reasons—but I must honestly confess that I should not have got leave if I had not been a Member of Parliament. It would be out of Order to discuss on this occasion whether or not it is right that a Member of Parliament should have the right to come back to this House, but the mere fact that they have that right should make them very careful about using it when

    391
    others cannot get leave. I knew that some Members would not like me saying this, but, other things being equal, say that there is a limited amount of accommodation, by the Clipper or by any other means, from Egypt or anywhere else, I say that the first right should go to men who have been wounded. I feel very strongly about this, because in the last war I saw bad examples of what was happening. A Member of this House said to me, "You are a fool to ask for leave through the ordinary channels; send a telegram to the Secretary of State and you can come home." If I find that sort of thing happening in this war, I shall take strong action.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: The Noble Lord says that he came home on a matter of business. Perhaps it would be different if a Member thought that he should come home and fight the battle of the troops in this House.
    Earl Winterton: I agree. I only say that I would not like to be in the position of a Member of Parliament who had to decide between himself and another man who had been out there for years. I would not like to be in the place of a man who decided in favour of himself.
    Mr. Bernays: Who has done it?
    Earl Winterton: I do not say that anybody has, but I saw this sort of thing in the last war. When the hon. Member has had as long an experience as I have, he will understand. I do not wish to quarrel with him; I only wish to say that those who have first claim to leave are those who have the longest service. I do not think anyone will deny that. I come to an analagous question, which I think will even more upset my hon. Friend; I am afraid that he will go up in flames about it. I am sure most of the House will agree, but not my hon. Friend. I think that, so far as possible, positions on staffs, of a non-technical character—that is, the positions of aide-de-camp or of assistant aide-de-camp, should be given to people who have had long military experience, and not to men who have had none. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend assents to that proposition. I am sure that my hon. Friend would obtain a post on his merits, and not for the delightfulness of his character and personality alone.
    392
    The only other point I want to emphasise—it is not of a personal character—is this. It is a matter on which I think the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) was guilty of an injustice to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). There is no question of those of us who had the privilege—because privilege it was—as guests of the War Office, of visiting the airborne division, carrying out any raging, tearing propaganda in this country about what we saw there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was right in saying that there were certain matters which it was not desirable to discuss and debate where the equipment of the division might be improved. All of us who went there, irrespective of party, and whether soldiers in the last war or in this war, were immensely impressed by what we saw. There were certain things that I would not mention across the Floor of this House where we think there should be an improvement. In particular, we hope very much that the number of gliders available for the troops will be very greatly increased. That is essential, and we hope the Secretary of State will be able to impress upon the other authorities of the Government the need for that. I wish to refer, as have other hon. Members, to the value of the reform made by the right hon. Gentleman since he has been at the War Office in the way of endeavouring to send to units men as far as possible who come from the part of the country in which the unit was originally recruited and of endeavouring as little as possible to upset the identity and continuity of the unit by not removing officers and men in the numbers in which they were removed in the early days of the war.
    That is of the greatest importance. A number of us in this House, both serving soldiers and those who were soldiers in the last war, went to see the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a few years ago because we were very dissatisfied at the way in which changes were being made. We thought that changes were being made merely for the sake of making changes, though we might be wrong, in the Territorial Army. Huge blocks of officers and men were taken away from the Territorial units and sent to other units, and men were sent to the Territorial units who had no connection with the Territorial Army. That was a grievance

    393
    of the last war. I happen to be a foundation member of the Territorial Association. We were told that the Territorial Army would not be treated as it was treated after the last war. We ought to have some regard for the fact that the Territorials are the patriotic people who join the Army in peace. While they cannot be given any undue privilege, they should as far as possible be kept together.
    I do not propose to join with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in the controversy over tanks. I do not know who is right. I regard both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member as two very honest, forthright people, and it is really difficult to judge between them when they take such a completely opposite point of view. I would say one thing in support of the hon. Member for Ipswich, that in the past some of the charges which hon. Members have made on the subject of armament generally, unfortunately, have only too often proved to be true. I just cannot understand the mentality of people, mostly outside this House, though some in this House have that mentality, who seem to think when there has been some major disaster to British arms such as occurred in Burma and Malaya last year one should not ask for an inquiry. I never thought that I should live to see a patriotic English newspaper like the "Daily Telegraph" refer to all of us who, very properly and naturally, in the discharge of our Parliamentary duties, asked for information about an appalling disaster which may or may not have been preventable—as only history can tell us about what occurred in Burma or elsewhere—as croakers. I will not enlarge on that subject, but we ought to be grateful to the Secretary of State for telling us about the progress of the Army. It has been said that he has an aggressive manner. I wish that there were more people with an aggressive manner. What this House has suffered from in recent years is that you must not look in a nasty way or say anything to upset anybody. I may say I was not looking at a particular hon. Member.
    Mr. Baxter: Is it not possible in a case like Singapore that the very hon. Members who are pressing for a statement have already information at their disposal which makes it very difficult for the Government and inadvisable to make a
    394
    public statement? In that case do not hon. Members exceed their duties and therefore to that extent is not the "Daily Telegraph" justified?
    Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend is usually so lucid that I hesitate to say that on this occasion he is not quite up to his usual standard. My right hon. Friend presented a picture which was one of the most satisfactory given by any Defence Minister during the war, and that much abused institution, the War Office, is entitled to the greatest credit for this state of affairs. Leaving aside the question of tanks, which is a difficult and vexed question, and I agree an important one, the criterion of success which we should apply to the Secretary of State and the War Office, and indeed to any institution of the kind, is, Have they or have they not succeeded in producing an Army which can fight? I think that they have. There is one thing that should be said, though it is a delicate thing to say. I believe it to be true, from information which reaches me from all sources, that the Russian, British, Polish, Canadian and Japanese Armies—and I exclude the Germans, to whom it applied once, but not to-day—are the most highly trained in the world. The test of endurance and training in these armies is very much higher than in the armies of other countries fighting on other sides. That is a very important thing. We ought to be grateful to the Secretary of State for War and to the Army Council, and to the General Officer Commanding Home Forces all the more because in this very properly democratic country, where the individual in the past, owing to our way of looking at things, does not very much care for discipline, for producing during this war this highly disciplined and highly trained Force. It is the severest training the British Army has ever gone through in so short a time. I am convinced that we shall gain from that enormously when the really big fighting starts.
    Any of my hon. Friends who are in the Army to-day have a great advantage in that respect over those of us who were in the Army in the last war, because it happened again and again last time, with one or two exceptions, that when there were tremendous casualties—and it was due sometimes to mismanagement of manpower—the ranks were filled up with officers

    395
    and men who had had no proper training. They were sent to us in the line in Palestine and Mesopotamia, as all "old sweats" in the House will agree, after having had the most inadequate training. Sometimes the selection of officers was bad, and sometimes it was done through influence, and it is pleasing to note that the officers in this war are selected on the best possible basis. I say to anyone who is disposed to criticise the Secretary of State for War and the War Office—and no person or institution in normal times is more likely to be criticised—that we should remember with gratitude the vast change that has come over the Forces during the last two or three years and the magnificent Army which has been formed.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I propose confining my remarks to only a few minutes. I feel that if any hon. Member can take part in discussion of a topic such as that which was brought up by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and can bring to light any evidence which will enable the House to form a judgment, it is his duty to do so. I do not want to question the motives which actuate the hon. Member for Ipswich in the attitude he takes about our tanks generally, but for the House to form a proper appreciation of this matter, two points must be borne in mind. The first is that, rightly or wrongly, the Germans decided before the war—and have maintained their decision—to form for tactical purposes one standard armoured formation. Into that formation they put all their types of tanks, the B.K.W.2, the B.K.W.3 and the B.K.W.4. The British Army, again rightly or wrongly, decided that that was not necessarily the soundest method of employing tanks, and we have generally two formations of tanks. We have what is commonly called the armoured divisions and the tank brigades. The armoured division is made up in general of a much lighter type of tank, and the purpose and usage of that division is for what is called "soft spot tactics." That in itself explains that these tanks are not necessarily either armoured or have weapons which are comparable with the heaviest and strongest, tank in the standard German formation, that is to say, the Mark IV, which so often is compared with such tanks as the Covenanter, the
    396
    Crusader and, in a lesser degree, the Valentine.
    If we compare our heaviest tank with the Mark IV—I am leaving aside the question of the Tiger—we must compare the Churchill, the successor to the Matilda. Whereas I would be at one with the hon. Member for Ipswich in his point of view that at one time there was rightly a great deal of disturbance throughout the Army as well as in this House about the A.22 both as to its mechanical efficiency and as to the gun it was mounting at that time I think it is fair to say that to-day, certainly so far as the Army in England is concerned—I cannot speak for the Army in Libya—that feeling has in a great measure gone. By and large both officers and men who are equipped with the Churchill tank are becoming increasingly pleased with its performance and its ability to deal with the heaviest type of German tank when it meets it in action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said he hoped in the near future to be able to give us an account of what happened. As I have said, a great deal of the worry of the Army in regard to this tank has been assuaged, and to-day there is increasing confidence among those who use it. The attitude which has been taken towards it has altered in five months in a way which it seemed impossible to expect.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman two questions? Is he aware that the German Mark IV tank, mounting the 76-mm. gun and firing a 13-pound shell, was known of before the war? While it is true that the mechanical efficiency of the A.22 has improved, does he really want to tell the House that a tank equipped with a 6-pounder gun, with an effective range of 800 to 1,000 yards, is the real answer to the Mark IV, which fires a 13-pounder shot and has an effective range of 2,000 to 3,000 yards?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: No, I do not want to suggest to the House that it is necessarily the answer, but I would like to repeat that whereas the A.22 was criticised, and reasonably so, on the score of mechanical deficiency, at small range a 6-pounder is perfectly capable of dealing with a Mark IV. Also, as the hon. Member knows, the only way of dealing with a tank is not necessarily with another tank. We have now an anti-tank gun

    397
    which is quite capable of dealing with any German tank.
    Captain C. S. Taylor: There is another Debate to follow, and I do not want to delay the House for more than a few minutes. First, let me say for the benefit of my noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) that I have not had 40 years' experience in this House. I have been here for only a brief period, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow the trend of his speech and the rather vague accusations contained therein. Listening to his speech was more like listening to a lecture. There are two or three questions I would like to ask arising out of the very able speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He mentioned the question of Army and Air co-operation in so far as the Eighth Army was concerned, and I would like to ask him from what date it was decided to introduce the principles which had been learned about Army and Air co-operation by the Eighth Army to the training of troops in this country? Before the First Army was sent out to take part in the North African campaign was anybody from the planning staff of the War Office, or the planning staff responsible for making the plans for this vast manoeuvre, sent out to learn from the only successful Army we had had in the field—the Eighth Army? Furthermore, was anybody having experience in the Eighth Army brought back to teach the First Army some of the lessons that have been learned? If not, I feel this is a most serious thing and a thing which hon. Members should know. If not, why not, who was responsible, and has action been taken?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In view of the fact that the House has still to consider the Amendment to the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend, perhaps I may be allowed now to deal with some of the many questions that have been put by hon. Members. I am afraid it will not be possible for me to answer all those questions, but the points that have been raised will be given proper and due consideration at the War Office, and, if necessary, replies will be sent to the hon. Members who raised them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) made one of his characteristically friendly speeches
    398
    as far as the Army is concerned. He has always taken a very great interest in the British Army, and we appreciate most sincerely the references he made to the men in the Forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), as one would perhaps expect, knowing his great interest in all matters concerning the Home Guard, raised several points which are not new either to him or to me, and which, as he knows, have been receiving the consideration of the War Office authorities. He raised a point that in my opinion is fundamental when one is dealing with the Home Guard. He asked why should not Home Guard officers be allowed to travel first class in certain cases and why should they, if they are sick, be refused treatment in officers' hospitals. My hon. and gallant Friend, realising the great weakness of his case, endeavoured to by-pass it by suggesting that conditions had changed since the inception of the Home Guard and that the original basis was no longer feasible in present conditions. I am afraid it is not quite as easy as that. The 1,500,000 men, or whatever the exact number may be, who joined the Home Guard joined on the basis that there would be equality of rank and of status, and if I may use the word "democratic" in relation to our Forces, we have always prided ourselves on the fact that if there was ever, a perfect example of a democratic force, it was our Home Guard.
    Mr. Bellenger: The old L.D.V.
    Mr. Henderson: I suggest it would not be consistent with that fundamental basis if now we were to give special preferential and different treatment to the officers of the Home Guard compared with that which the other members of the Home Guard receive.
    Sir T. Moore: It was not the Home Guard that changed all these matters; it was the House and the War Office which, by granting His Majesty's Commission to officers; changed the whole basis of the Home Guard from what it was in the old L.D.V. days.
    Mr. Henderson: I was engaged in other duties at the time that the announcement was made, but—
    Sir Edward Grigg: I think I was responsible, and it was laid down quite clearly that they were not altering

    399
    the basis on which the Home Guard was raised. The point was emphasised throughout the Debates in the House.
    Mr. Henderson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for stating with greater force what I was about to say. I think the same objection applies to the suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Home Guard officers should be authorised to award summary punishment for offences committed by members of their company or battalion as the case may be. It has always been understood, at any rate prior to mustering, that offences committed by Home Guards should be tried in the same way as civil offences and not before military tribunals, though I believe it will be a different position once the Home Guard is mustered as an armed force. After all, at present its members are part-time and unpaid, and I think it is reasonable not to treat them in the same way as enrolled, enlisted soldiers.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) gave an account, in somewhat passionate terms, of a personal experience that he has had in relation to an illness from which he suffered some little time ago. I am sure he will not expect me to attempt to deal with the facts of the case, which I realise he raised rather as an illustration of the argument that he was addressing to the House. But I should like to respond to his appeal by saying I am certain my right hon. Friend will go into the procedure which is operating in relation to the particular type of case to which he refers with the object of satisfying ourselves that these cases are being treated in a proper way and, if not, deciding what improvements may be made if we consider them necessary.
    Earl Winterton: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps go further and consider making a statement in reply to a Question, say within two or three months' time? Great interest is taken in the question throughout the country.
    Mr. Henderson: We will go into it very thoroughly.
    Mr. Bellenger: All ranks?
    Mr. Henderson: It will apply obviously to all ranks.
    400
    The hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) was concerned with the effect of the new organisation establishing reserved divisions, and he feels apparently that the best units have not been chosen to constitute the divisions in question. I can assure him that the problem has reached the higher levels in the War Office, and investigations are being made certainly into one case which has been reported to my right hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member also referred to officer material and asked whether we were reasonably satisfied that there was an adequate supply from which officers were to be obtained. We are constantly paying attention to this very important problem of choosing the best officer material, and also of ensuring that the best officer material is not kept in a unit because of a desire on the part of the commanding officer not to part company with him. It is a difficult problem, and all I can say is that we are endeavouring to ensure that the material is available.
    Mr. Hutchinson: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that a due proportion of the officer material which becomes available and might be better suited to Army requirements is not going to the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Henderson: The Royal Air Force has a limited priority, but apart from that we are treated pari passu with the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Mathers: Can candidates for commissions be given some indication of why they are turned down? There seems to be great mystification about the causes of men failing to be chosen, and if they could have the information it would be helpful to them.
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend can be assured that that point has come to our notice and is under consideration. The question of detention barracks was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, but I would rather deal with it later, on the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) raised the question of the future of the Army. I obviously cannot make a statement at this moment about policy on this problem, except to say that a good deal of consideration is being given to post-war military questions. The same applies to

    401
    the point he raised about the position of the A.T.S. in the post-war Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton raised the problems of pay and allowances and of temporary rank. I am not in a position to carry the matter any further than it stands to-day. All I can say is that the representations which both Members have made will place on record what they consider should be done. The position with regard to temporary rank is not as bad as the Noble Lord appears to make it out to be by contrasting it with the position that existed in the last war. In this war we have granted substantive rank, which is only one step lower than the temporary rank, and that was not done in the last war.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) raised the question of travelling allowances being paid three or four weeks after expenditure has been incurred, and he suggested that officers have to borrow money before they go on duty trips. I should imagine that only an infinitesimal proportion of officers have to do that. Officers proceeding on duty trips are invariably provided with free travelling warrants and can, if they wish, get an advance of money from the unit. As far as the settlement of a travelling claim is concerned, there is no reason why that should take as long as has been suggested. I am advised that all these claims are cleared in the pay offices in 48 hours, unless they have been wrongly made out.
    Wing-Commander James: I could give my hon. and learned Friend the case of an officer who was sent on a long journey, involving an expenditure of more than £100, and it took more than two months to recover that sum on his return from that journey.
    Mr. Henderson: Obviously I can only state the general position. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind and lets me have particulars, I will go into it.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooked the substantial point which I put about the difference between the rations issued for officers and other ranks?
    Mr. Henderson: The position remains as stated in reply to my hon. Friend's
    402
    Question two weeks ago. I cannot at the moment take it any further. My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the question of the limitation of the pay of soldiers to 10s. a week when they are in hospital. I am advised that the rule is based on medical opinion. The soldier is allowed pay only with the permission of the medical officer, and up to date 10s. has always been regarded as sufficient to meet the needs of a convalescing soldier. There is this advantage in the present system, that after they leave hospital they have a balance on which to draw for the purposes of leave.
    Wing-Commander James: The hon. and learned Gentleman entirely misses the point I made. I did not suggest that the 10s. a week was inadequate for the man while he was in hospital, but that he should be allowed, if he desired, to purchase savings stamps. I was not querying the 10s. at all.
    Mr. Henderson: I gathered that my hon. and gallant Friend was criticising the limitation of 10s. He also raised a point about payment in arrear in the case of officers. There is no reason why officers in the Army should not adapt their expenditure to the system of payment in arrear, which is almost universal, and we seek to mitigate inconvenience to individual officers in the following way: On being first commissioned an officer gets an advance of £18 5s. designed primarily to tide him over the period of transition from weekly payments to monthly payments, and this advance is recovered over a period of a year at the rate of 1s. a day. An officer who is placed under orders for service overseas may draw an advance of a month in his pay. Officers who are serving overseas may draw the greater part of their net pay in advance, in cash, in the form of advances. The view is taken that, under a system of payment in advance, an officer might very well be seriously inconvenienced on leaving the Service. It is only fair to say that Regular Officers of the Army do receive their pay monthly in advance, but I am informed that this is an ancient privilege which may or may not continue after the present war is concluded. I have endeavoured to cover—
    Captain C. S. Taylor: May I have an answer to my question before the Minister sits down?
    Mr. Henderson: I thought I said expressly at the beginning of my remarks that I would not be able to deal with all the questions which had been put to me at the beginning of the Debate and that I would take steps to have the points, of those I was not in a position to answer in the course of my speech considered, and a reply sent to the hon. Members concerned.
    Captain Taylor: I will put it down next week.
    Mr. Henderson: If you please. In view of the fact that another Debate is to be initiated by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), I hope the House will permit me to content myself—not that I have sought to evade various questions—with dealing with the questions which I have already answered.

  WELFARE, EDUCATION AND VOCA TIONAL TRAINING
  Mr. David Grenfell: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "in the opinion of this House, it is essential that adequate arrangements should be made for the comfort and contentment of the troops and suitable facilities provided for their education and vocational training."
  I am sure the House will feel more friendly disposed to me if I state in advance that I am not going to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, but I have a duty to perform. Before I come to the subject of my Amendment I want to make a statement on the Estimates to which we have had our attention called to-day. They show that there has been a very considerable addition to the numbers of men in the Service and a very considerable additional range of age and physical condition in that large mass of serving men. We also know that there is a very wide educational divergence between the units now serving in His Majesty's Forces. In approaching this problem we have to realise that many of the men who have joined the Forces under war-time conditions have proved their capacity and have attained considerable standing in civil life before entering the Army. Many others were interrupted in their progress towards their later stations in life. Sometimes they were students at a university, while others were in stages of apprenticeship. Others were qualified for service in
  404
  the respective profession which they had chosen. Then there were many men skilled in industry.
  One of the subjects of our discussion has been the right use of those men who have been trained, craftsmen and others, and who have been called to military service, but whose services have not been fully used and whose skill and mental capacity have remained more or less dormant because of the difficulty of putting every man into his place—as the Secretary of State for War said, putting the square peg into the square hole and the round peg into the round hole in every case. It is impossible. There must be in the Army a very large number of men who have not been able to settle down for reasons of temperament, age or outlook on life. It is therefore far more necessary that we should provide for them.
  The Amendment I submit to the House calls for greater attention to welfare, education and occupational training for the troops. The men who are in the Army are men who have left home, and men who still look backward towards their familiar ways of life, and who, when they look forward, look forward to the resumption of those habits of mind and relaxation to which men have been accustomed at the end of their day's work. But Under these conditions of segregation, in military units, under military discipline, men have to obey orders and follow, not the dictates of their own tastes, their own ideas, their own sense of pleasure and satisfaction. They have at all times to be amenable to the orders conveyed to them in the units in which they serve, and they have to make the best of every opportunity provided for them when off duty and when their time for recreation comes. I think the biggest problem in the Army is the problem of leisure, of the right use of leisure. It is very difficult to fill in this gap between periods of work and periods of rest, and the men who are limited by circumstances, who are divorced from their home associations, who are not permitted to indulge in their individual pursuits, have to be catered for specially.
  There are, in my opinion, not sufficient facilities for the expression of individual tastes, for the development of individual qualities and for the indulgence of those mental interests which make life bearable, which make life more profitable and

  405
  which make life more a matter of satisfaction. There is more boredom, there must be, and monotony, in military routine, and it is as a counter to that in the first instance that we require the services of welfare to be built up and maintained. I am very glad to hear today that much work is being done, but I would like to call attention, first of all, to what I regard as the essentials of welfare. The first need, the foundation of all human welfare, is health and physical fitness, and the essentials of fitness are good food and healthy exercise and proper period's of rest. As regards the men in the Army, I will say nothing against the food. I think this Army has been fed better than any Army in the history of this country. As compared with the civilian population they have had both in quantity and in the quality of the food supplied to them, slightly the advantage of the civilian population. That is as it should be. These men are young. They are called upon to exercise very strenuously. Many of them are in the early years of maturity. They grow very rapidly. One of the things that has pleased me more than anything is to find ample evidence of good health, of development, on the part of these men who have left their homes, who have been subject to military routine and discipline, and the care of their officers and the attentions of those who have provided welfare and recreation for them.
  That foundation having been accorded to them, there is something more than mere food and drink in welfare. There is the provision of interests, mental interests. We have to be amused. Even Members of Parliament benefit considerably occasionally from the things said in this House which bring into play a latent sense of humour, and we find the tasks of legislation considerably lightened in their effect upon our health and happiness because we are a people fortunately, though we are not given credit for this throughout the world, with a sense of humour. We are amused at simple things. A joke, a song, a cheery whistle, a caricature in words or in line, enlists a human attention of all our people. In the Army, as anywhere else, a collection of Britishers will always find comic or humorous interest even in the most tragic surroundings or in surroundings of the greatest danger. I have found that to be the case among working men, sometimes in the most unwholesome
  406
  conditions. It is good to find that in the Army our people are not only allowed, but encouraged, to express their humour, and that their sense of humour is stimulated. From my distant—I might say, my nodding acquaintance, for sometimes I do nod over these programmes at midnight by my own fireside—that I am satisfied that this innovation, provided by Ensa and other organisations of that sort, have been an indispensable agent in keeping up the morale of the people. When people have to live uncomfortably, far away from home, with their minds on the troubles of those whom they have left behind, concerts of this sort help to maintain their spirits and their morale.
  I have listened to community singing, and here I think the Army is missing a great chance. Those who, like myself, have heard the Russian soldiers and the Bulgarian soldiers singing on the march, and soldiers of other nations singing under military conditions, may well be surprised that somebody, not necessarily a musical genius but with an understanding of what singing means to men who live and work together, should not have done something about this. The old sea shanties are an example of the effect of music on the minds of men who work together. We have a heritage of the finest songs in the world. English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh songs are unequalled. I do not know why the Army has not been taught to sing, in suitable harmony for a thousand voices, these beautiful songs. It would be of infinite advantage to morale, and would have great possibilities for the improvement of physique. There is nothing better than singing to keep the spirits up. In my country we have a saying, "Singing in the storm: that is the best kind of song." When things are dark and there is no external aid to happiness, you can sing through the trouble. I would like, in addition to the concerts, to have men taught to sing in lusty harmony, with the treble cadences of the A.T.S. joining in. To play in games, and even to watch games well played, has a spiritual influence. We have improved very much. We have a sense of satisfaction at seeing a job of work done, and football, cricket and all games out of doors should be encouraged. I know that they are encouraged, but facilities are not afforded to every unit in this country. In addition to the outdoor games, we have during the period of the

  407
  war the hours of black-out, when more games should be provided indoors, and there are wet days when out-of-door games are not possible. These are entertainments, some kind of body, soul and spirit building, which we ought to develop to the utmost, which I do not think has yet been reached.
  The need for the provision of snacks and extras in the way of food and drink has been brought to my notice. All young people have always wanted that sort of thing, and they always will. They always want the extra cup of tea or the bun and the cigarette. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Army that N.A.A.F.I. is still engaged on profit making. The system of demanding the highest price for the goods at N.A.A.F.I. causes a good deal of discontent, and it does not make for welfare and good feeling. I commend this question to the Minister. I would emphasise the 5th and 10th Report of the Select Committee on National Expendiutre, and I believe that these recommendations will receive attention. There is a great opportunity in this Army of ours. I refuse to believe that our young men to-day are inferior to their fathers and grandfathers. They are not. Their very appearance belies that, but their minds are not being fully occupied. Education should be much more encouraged and promoted in the Army. Again I speak of something about which I know. I left school with my full-term instruction ended at 11 years of age. I made a short cut through education from different vantage points, with many gaps between, and I am satisfied that for the men in the Army both class and private instruction can be developed to a far higher standard than has been the case in the past, with infinite advantage and a steadying influence. Give the men plenty of work and interesting subjects to tackle, and we shall have most beneficial results. The men will be far better soldiers, but even more important is that, while you teach the civilian to be a good soldier, you can also teach the soldier to be a good civilian when he comes back. There ought to be far more special instruction and an improvement in the provision of books. Paper is not plentiful, and good writers are not always available, but there are men who can write books and primers on subjects intelligently, and
  408
  these should be provided for the Army and instruction given so that the time may be fully utilised in building up the character and understanding of the men who will be the citizens of this country in the future.
  I saw something of the work—and I want to pay tribute to it—of Major-General Willans, whose lamentable death on active service in Libya we all note with regret. We desire to pay tribute to him as head of both the Welfare and Educational Organisations of the Army. We are pleased to note that the Secretary of State is planning to appoint a successor. May I make a suggestion? It is that he tries to find a good man but does not give him the two responsibilities. Let him appoint the best man he can to look after the welfare section and find an equally good man, if he can, to look after educational activities. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Violet Markham Report. Has he put all the recommendations of that Report into operation?
  Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, not all, but a vast majority.
  Mr. Grenfell: In pre-war days I was permitted to see much of the work done by the Army Educational Corps. I read and examined hundreds of papers of candidates who were trying for their 1st, 2nd and 3rd class certificates. They were very good in their way, but I think the time has now come for progressive measures, for a little imagination, a little width of vision and a little recognition of the special obligations of the State to the men who are not soldiers except in the sense that they had acknowledged their patriotic obligation in this world of disorder and are playing their part accordingly. We must not let them be without the very best kind of education, and I would like the Secretary of State to make up his mind to infuse some young blood into what are called the "high-ups." Get some younger men, men with broader ideas, who have a high standing in the educational world and are perhaps more acquainted with the educational activities of civil life.
  One other thing. These men are good soldiers; they are going through their training willingly and are working tremendously hard. There is no desire to shirk. But they are looking forward to their return to civil life, and their minds are not void of ideas as to the kind of

  409
  civil life to which they desire to return. They are just as political as other representatives of our race, just as much as our coalminers, steel miners and farm workers. The temporary soldier must get the best instruction on all problems relating to the post-war period. He should be instructed on the subject of post-war reconstruction and be encouraged to study the Beveridge Report. I was sorry to see an impediment in the way of studying this Report some time ago, and I hope that has now been removed. Many of these men may not come back to play their part in civil life, but let those who do return come back on equal terms with the best of us, feeling that their time in the Army has given them an opportunity to exchange views.
  I do not think there is much wrong with the general education in this country. I saw in an article in a newspaper last week that Mr. H. G. Wells was almost offensively bitter on the subject of our educational achievements and our educational system in this country. Mr. Wells has said some wonderfully good things, and I do not think his advice has always been wrong; but I do not think our educational system, about which he was a little bitter, is entirely wrong. We must, however, acknowledge that the world has changed, that this war is a portent of change, that conditions will come in which we shall demand and require, if we are to live, a higher standard of intelligence and understanding from our people.
  Let Army discussions be as free as possible. Let our people be taught how to speak. One of the weaknesses of our educational system is that we have never been taught to speak well. There is no organised effort to teach us how to speak. I remember that when I was in Soviet Russia in 1925, I heard school children there speaking far more freely than the children in this country. I knew that should a war come the Russians would be, as speakers, far superior to us. They would talk the heads off the Germans. The victories they have won show that they have talked to each other with some purpose since 1925. The world must learn to talk. It is better to talk about your differences, to sharpen your intelligence by talk, than to blunt your sense of right and wrong by strife and war. I hope that our Army will be allowed to talk freely, that men will go to talk to them, that good books will be published
  410
  for their direct benefit, so that the soldiers, having performed their soldierly duties with credit to themselves and to the nation, will come back and play an equally creditable part in rebuilding society.
  Colonel Medlicott: The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has performed a valuable service in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. By his speech he has shown that he takes a sympathetic and understanding interest in the welfare of the men in the Services. The Markham Committee's Report on welfare in the Women's Services said, in regard to welfare, that it is a word of varying significance which covers a large and ill-defined field of social activity. Those of us who have had practical experience in the Army welfare organisation know how true that is. There are some who regard welfare as being a matter mainly concerned with canteens and dart-boards, but on the other hand, there are those who regard it as something which is very near to the very root of morale and fighting efficiency. Upon whom does this responsibility rest? I suggest that it rests primarily, and indeed at all times, upon the regimental officer, and that nothing should be done to undermine or indeed to qualify that vital principle. In normal times before the war, the Regular Army could be counted upon to look after the welfare of its men. The Regular soldier's interests were in Army life and his family were safe in the care of the various regimental associations. But I venture to suggest all that has changed, probably for an indefinite time, and that the type of Army that we have to-day, which is primarily an Army of civilians in uniform, may continue throughout perhaps the greater part of this generation.
  I should like to refer to the increased emphasis that must now be placed upon the role of the Army by the coming of the airborne type of warfare. The balance of importance is being shifted back on to military grounds, and the fact that vast airborne armies can now be transported in a very short space of time means that the Army will have to play a vital part in the defence of territory, and that means that we shall have to face keeping up a standing Army ready for instant action for as long ahead as we can visualise. That means that the conditions of to-day will continue, and we shall need a large number of men—whether they will be

  411
  recruited by voluntary means or by some form of national service we cannot foresee, but it must mean a large and well equipped Army which will consist substantially of men serving for a short time and coming in from civilian life for that purpose.
  Therefore it is clear that the welfare, or well-being, of large numbers of men is going to be a very important task which the War Office will have to deal with for a long time to come. There are certain matters which are essential to the well-being of the soldier—good food well cooked, adequate pay and allowance, suitable accommodation, good clothing, an intelligent standard of discipline, an interest in method of training and the possession of equipment and arms in which the soldier has confidence. These are all matters primarily of staff work and regimental administration and, whatever may have been our shortcomings in the past, of which many of us have to bear our fair share of responsibility, I think it Can now be said, especially in the light of the achievements of General Montgomery's Army, that in staff work and regimental leadership the British Army is the equal of any in the world to-day.
  There is, however, a vast field of interests and of needs outside those that I have mentioned, and these all have to be taken into account in considering the well-being of the soldier. I would place first and foremost his interest in the well-being of his family. This, I believe, comes first in the minds of the vast majority of serving soldiers. Secondly, he is interested in the possibilities of employment after he leaves the Army; thirdly, he wishes to have opportunities of continuing if possible in his trade or of learning a new one, in other words vocational training; fourthly, many soldiers desire to improve their general education and to extend their knowledge of current events, which is amply demonstrated by the popularity of the A.B.C.A. He is desirous of obtaining legal aid where he has got into a tangle with his private affairs and, lastly, he is interested in entertainment and sport.
  If anything, over-emphasis has been placed on the need to entertain men with variety shows. There are so many of these variety shows that they cease to he variety and become monotony. I have
  412
  found in my own work in the Army Welfare Organisation the immense interest which men will take in tasks to which they can turn their own hands. I visited a unit which was in as remote a site as could be found in this country, just before Christmas. The men had made with their own hands enough toys to provide an ample supply for the children of all the married men in the unit. They had done it by collecting driftwood from the shore and by using damaged petrol tins. The results of that activity were much more important and beneficial than any amount of artificial entertainment which could have been provided.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously suggest that in the region over which he has the oversight there is an ample sufficiency or even an excess of entertainment for the troops?
  Colonel Medlicott: I have not gone as far as to say that. There is only a limited amount of entertainment available and only a limited amount of material for vocational or educational training. All I would suggest is that in deciding which of these is to receive priority we must not be led into thinking that all the soldiers all the time want ordinary entertainment. I merely suggest that we should place more emphasis on the men who want to look ahead and to spend their time in training themselves for the post-war period.
  I purposely placed some emphasis on the importance of the soldiers' interest in the welfare of his family, and at this point I would like to pay my tribute to the work of General Willans, whose death we all so deplore. General Willans was a most remarkable man, and produced amazing results in the time he was Director of Welfare, and he will be very difficult to replace. The matters which I have just touched upon come within the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Welfare and Education over which General Willans presided.
  I want to make what I hope is a constructive suggestion. Stage by stage as the war has proceeded the various subjects that we have been discussing have been dealt with under the Directorate of Welfare by creating branches of that Directorate. There have been entertainment officers, cinema officers, A.B.C.A. officers,

  413
  and so on. Each one has been provided with an appropriate staff, and this has been repeated at Command headquarters and in some matters it has been carried down to regimental headquarters. All this is very proper and helpful, but I suggest that the time has now arrived for a similar strengthening of the machinery for dealing with the soldier's personal and family troubles. A legal aid department has been set up, and it has made wonderful inroads in the mountain of accumulated cases which existed. I think that it will be found, however, that a large percentage of those cases are of the matrimonial character, concerning divorce or separation. It is quite proper that these matters should be cleared up, but I would in passing like to touch upon a suggestion made earlier that consideration should now be given to extending legal aid to officers. I am not going to express an opinion upon the merits of the suggestion, but I should like to make one remark upon the practical machinery. I believe that the legal aid scheme has resulted in 3,000,000 men becoming potential clients of the legal profession. I am a member of that profession in peace-time, and I really cannot see how the solicitors' profession, certainly, can cope with any more work at the moment. Solicitors have made an immense contribution to the national effort. The numbers who are serving and the numbers who have been killed are quite extraordinary, and although solicitors are anxious, I am sure, to do even more in the national effort, it is no use putting on to the profession more work than it can do. We shall only get back to the position which existed two years ago when there was a mountain of cases with which no one was able to deal.
  What I do suggest is that more should now be done to deal with the family and home problems of soldiers—not so much in those cases where the home is being broken up by divorce as where there are other difficulties. There is a vast field here awaiting attention—difficulties with landlords and with hire-purchase and other creditors, housing problems, the care of children where the wife has died and further help in the home where the wife is ill or otherwise occupied. These are matters which are vital to morale, and I suggest again that it is useless to provide a lot of entertainment for troops if they, or some of them, are racked with anxiety about their home problems. I only wish
  414
  that some part of the money spent upon entertainments could have been available for these really pressing problems. I speak from practical experience. Entertainments and lectures can do a great deal to raise or maintain morale, but a sense of injustice or a feeling of anxiety about affairs in the home can destroy morale, or lower it, ten times as quickly. Already there are many organisations dealing with soldiers' family problems—the British Legion, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families' Association, the Incorporated Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Help Society, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the W.V.S. and many local committees and regimental and other associations, as well as the Army welfare officers themselves. While they are all doing a very valuable work I urge that some measure of co-ordination ought to be brought about.
  In the case of canteens, the great voluntary bodies, such as the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army, have already coordinated their work by conferring together on the Council of Voluntary War Work, and that has brought about an immense saving of time and labour, and I think it is now urgent that a similar body should be formed for the associations dealing with soldiers' legal, personal and family problems. There need be no loss of identity on the part of those organisations, no giving up of valued traditions. I suggest that not only should the initiative in this matter come from the War Office but also possibly some financial aid, which would put this coordinating body on its feet and in a position to face the immensely increased problems which demobilisation will bring.
  I conclude as I began by re-emphasising that welfare is the responsibility of the regimental officer. To that I would add that it is also the responsibility of the sergeant, who occupies a very important position between the officer and the private and can do a vast amount either to assist or obstruct the passage of welfare facilities to the other ranks. On the matter of the responsibility of the officer, John Buchan has an apt word. He says of Cromwell:
  "His regiment was his family; their prowess was his; his honour was theirs; he had no interest beyond their welfare. With such a spirit in their commander, small wonder that a new type of fighting force was born in England."

  415
  That is still true to-day. We have an immense number of young officers who are trying to live up to that tradition of leadership. Welfare organisations and the Army welfare officers are an auxiliary service to assist in this primary task of the regimental officer. I suggest that there is a vast fund of experience and skill possessed by these voluntary organisations and welfare officers. The War Office can perform a useful, indeed essential, task at this stage if they will try to bring about some means whereby the work of those valuable organisations can be better co-ordinated and their skill, experience and good will placed even more readily at the service of the regimental officer, in his task of maintaining the well-being of the men for whom he is responsible.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has had a unique experience in supervising welfare in the Services. I know well of the excellent work he has done. In regard to the Select Committee on National Expenditure, the Sub-Committee on which I happened to be, visited practically every Command in the country. We have issued two Reports to Parliament on these questions of N.A.A.F.I. and welfare generally. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to direct his attention to Report No. 10, which gives the replies of the War Office to the recommendations, and I think he will find in that Report answers to two or three of the points which he raised.
  I find it difficult to speak about General Willans. He was a great personal friend of mine, and I do not think the country realises the tremendous loss it has suffered. He was a man of vision, and he did something which will last a long time in this country. He had sense enough to realise what the Scottish people have always known, that education is nothing more than wanting to learn. There is no end to it. General Willans and I were together the night before he flew off, and we were discussing the use that could be made of his ideas upon demobilisation. He was interested not only in vocational training, but he wanted to direct the attention of men to the openings that were available and to prevent them from being disappointed. He wanted to direct them and help them in their work. He was full of
  416
  all that subject. Some of us feel rather strongly about this matter. He was the 49th staff officer killed in an air crash—valuable lives thrown away. I would like to see an inquiry to find out why it happened so often. We cannot afford to lose men of that kind.
  The Secretary of State may like to consider whether the time has not now come to divide the two branches, education and welfare, which are very different things. We have reached a stage now at which the organisation wants strengthening. There were plenty of men who realised what the post-war problems mean. I believe that the Secretary of State would have great assistance from universities and from others who could recommend men who have this knowledge. I am sure the desire to learn by the Army, and indeed by all the Services, is almost insatiable. We have a great responsibility in this House. We have taken a lot of young men away from what they were going to do. We are suffering from the last war. Why are these benches filled with old people like me? Because the men who would otherwise have been here were killed in the last war. Now we have another war. Therefore education is of primary importance, and there is such an opportunity in the Army to-day to learn together and to think together.
  I know the Secretary of State has this very much at heart. I know through going round with the Select Committee that I have not met one single general officer in command in this country who does not attach the highest importance to this work. There is no question of being close about money. All the money wanted ought to be used. It is absolutely futile, as has been said, to throw away money in paying the expenses of a lot of old men and women who are too old to be called up and yet are still in the entertainment world. You do not want to go to a garrison theatre and see chorus girls of 60. I feel that that is all wrong. All the money spent on that would be far better spent, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in helping the men to play for themselves. How many actors are in the Army now? Dozens of them. If you want to put on a play in London, you can hardly cast it, because the actors are all in the Services. Why not let the Services have their own entertainments and have, as in the last war, regimental concert parties and the rest of it?

  417
  We have not got very much time, and time is very precious, and the opportunities for raising this matter in Parliament are very small. I hope it will go out from this House that the time has come to have a Director of Education and a Director of Welfare for the Army. No one, unless he is unique, like Harry Willans, can do it, and even he began to feel the burden of doing the two things. You have many willing workers in the country, but the officers and non-commissioned officers of he Army are the backbone of the whole thing. I feel the time has come when his question of the application of education to our post-war demobilisation must be tackled. The right hon. Gentleman must, I think, bring from the universities and elsewhere as many people to help him as he can. And let this House not stint one penny in helping that forward.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I think we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) for raisins: this question and for drawing attention to what, as every speaker has said, is a very important aspect of Army work and an aspect which is, from the point of view of publicity, sadly neglected. I would like to say that I do not intend to be controversial. In particular, I do not intend to mention the vexed subject which we discussed the last time Army education was mentioned, namely, the subject of a certain Report of which we have all heard a considerable amount recently. I wish, however, to mention three specific things on which I would like some information from whoever replies. The first thing I wish to refer to is the lack of personnel in the Army Education Service, do not know whether hon. Members realise—I speak with a little experience, as I have myself been in that Service—that there is one officer, one full-time officer, for every 15,000 men, and I do not think that can be considered a very great number. But it may be said that much of the work is done by volunteers. That is correct. You get an officer who is supposed, among his other duties, to look after the education of his unit, but I submit that there are two defects in this.
  The first is that the officer has plenty of other work to do and may not have enough time to devote to education. The second is a difficulty which does not occur in every unit but can occur in some, and I think it should be mentioned. A com-
  418
  manding officer may appoint an officer for whom he can find no other work to be education officer, instead of choosing the officer best suited for the job. I hope the War Office will see that, wherever possible, the educational branch have a say in the appointment of these voluntary officers to each unit. If the number of officers available is insufficient I hope that use will be made of N.C.O.s and even of privates, especially in serving on regimental committees. Certain regiments have such committees, and I hope that they will be made universal. It is not necessary always to have an officer in charge. In the Canadian Army the welfare and education officer, who I think has been already referred to to-day, was when I saw him a gentleman known as Private Bickersteth. He was in charge of the whole service. He met General McNaughton and discussed matters with him on equal terms, although his only rank in the Service was that of private.
  I wish now to refer to the question of illiteracy. I was once ordered to make a report on the number of people who could not read or write in the division to which I was attached. You may say that 39 was not a very great proportion out of 15,000 men, but remember that those 39 were men who either could not read or could not write or possibly could do neither. I got all the facts, as a result of a great deal of trouble on the part of all the people concerned, and I sent them to my superior officer. Nothing happened. Indeed I was told months afterwards that the only thing that could have happened was that arrangements could be made for voluntary tuition for these men by any people who might be kind enough to give it, at a time convenient to themselves. It is obviously undesirable, from a military point of view, that a soldier should be unable to read or write. It is unfortunate that an Army should find in its ranks men, who might be sent out as messengers, on important duties, who could not read or write. A proper training should be given to those men.
  Finally I want to pay a tribute to certain organisations which have not yet been mentioned. I refer to the local education authorities and the universities, which have played a very important part in the whole Army education scheme. I do not know whether Members realise the tremendous work that they have had to do

  419
  as a result of this scheme. Let me give one example. The education authority of a large town in the south-west of England was asked to provide tuition, involving the use of equipment and technical instruments, for nearly 1,000 men from one division alone. It made all these arrangements—it was only too willing to do so. Then that division had to move to another area, and the whole of the work went for nothing. That is inevitable in war-time, but some tribute should be paid to these organisations, and in particular to the universities, which provide the majority of the lecturers to go round to military units. I think that sometimes, if a lecturer asks, he should be paid a little more than the almost insulting sum which is now paid to those who lecture to our troops. I know that we frequently speak for nothing. We do not expect payment, but some people expect rather more payment. I have had it said to me by certain people, "We know what payment we would get if we went elsewhere to some other organisation, and we do not really think we can travel all this very long distance for £1 or 30s."
  There are still some people in the Army—not in the War Office, but many commanding officers—who do not yet realise the value of education in their unit. I would say to them, first, that it has a semi-military value; there is the value of education in map reading in English and, indeed, in German which is carried on in many units. Secondly, it is training leaders. Where do our officers and N.C.O's. come from. They do not come from the men who can shoot the straightest or run the fastest. They come on the whole from the men who are the best educated and have been taught to think for themselves. The Army Education Corps is performing a service in educating these men which will help to do something that everybody who has the welfare of the Army at heart wishes to do, and that is to train more and better soldiers as rapidly as possible.
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: My work has been principally concerned with the Dominion and Empire Forces on leave. Reference has been made to the need for co-ordination, and I should like to pay a tribute to the Joint Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee under Field-Marshal Lord Milne,
  420
  which has the task of co-ordinating all the Empire societies—the Royal Empire Society, the Victoria League—which has done such good work with the King George and Queen Elizabeth Clubs—the Overseas League, and Lady Frances Ryder's Organisation, which specialises in organising private hospitality all over the country. All these are pre-war Empire societies and were doing good work both for Dominion and Empire visitors in peace time.
  I would also like to pay tribute to the Empire Rendezvous, under Miss St. Ledger Hill, which, incidentally, has also been looking after some of the Americans, although that is not in the curriculum. If these societies had a little more money available they could do a great deal more. As it is, they have to raise the vast majority of what they spend, themselves. I also pay tribute to the various Empire clubs, like the New Zealand Forces Club, the Australian Boomerang Club and, above all, the Canadian Beaver Club, as well as to the various Canadian organisations, such as the Knights of Columbus, the Canadian Legion, the Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A. and the Salvation Army, all of whom have taken over large hotels and made them available to the Canadian troops at a charge of 2s. 6d. a night for bed and breakfast, and look after them in every possible way. The Canadian Auxiliary Services have done a marvellous work, particularly at the week-ends, for the thousands of Canadians who turn up on leave and have nowhere to sleep. They arrange accommodation and direct the men to wherever they should go.
  One thing I discovered from my experience, in going round the clubs and hostels, is that the men would far rather go to a place where there is dancing than to one with a higher standard of comfort, but where they do not provide any amusements. If you provide dancing for troops on leave it keeps, them out of the pubs and off the streets and gives them a chance to make friends, and it keeps them happy. There is one thing, I think, of which the British public can be very proud, and that is, that since the first Dominion troops came over here, there has been more private hospitality offered to Empire troops than could ever be used. There is no excuse for any Empire officers, men or women to imagine that they cannot have private hospitality in any part of the country. If only they take the trouble

  421
  to go to the authorities or one of the Empire societies it will be arranged for them, and at short notice, too. At one time the market was rather affected by troops from one of the Dominions accepting private hospitality and then not turning up. That, as I say, had rather a bad effect until the authorities concerned took appropriate steps and it was put light. Now we have no more trouble with any of the Dominion troops in that respect.
  One happy result of this private hospitality is that once an Empire Service man has been to a British home he almost invariably gets adopted and returns to it on his succeeding leaves. He just says he is coming home. There are one or two difficulties that Empire societies are having at the moment, and one of them is in connection with catering. We have far more troops to look after than before, and although we can draw rations on the number of meals served, if you turn down 50 per cent. of the people who want meals you still cannot get the extra rations for the next months. Another difficulty is the staff problem. We are continually having staffs called up and it makes it almost impossible to expand, even with the aid of voluntary help. Accommodation for Dominion officers in London is now much better than it was, and I think we ought to thank some of the better known clubs, like the Constitutional, for having put bedrooms at the disposal of Canadian authorities for their officers when on leave and also the private persons who have done the same thing when there has been no other place available. If any hon. Members of this House would like to see something of what is being done for our Empire volunteers, or to go round the clubs and hostels I shall be very pleased indeed to take them and let them meet the men. I suggest that they should try to come along on a Saturday night to Overseas House where we always have 500 to 600 Service people, of all ranks, from all parts of the Empire, dancing happily together and meeting and making friends. I am quite sure that when the war ends and our Empire volunteers go home again, they will take back with them many happy recollections of the friendships they have made here and that their many true friends here will deeply regret their departure.
  Mr. William Brown: I hope that the Members who have taken part in the discussion on the Amendment will not think it discourteous of me if I do not follow them on the many points they have raised in connection with the welfare of the troops. I sympathise deeply with the views which have been expressed. At least two of those speeches were remarkable contributions and in particular I would like to felicitate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Colonel Medlicott) on an extraordinarily good contribution to this problem of Army welfare.
  I want to raise one point only and I hope not to detain the House for more than a few minutes. It is with regard to the chronic waste of man-power within the Army. What I have to say concerns the Army Pay offices, the Ordnance depots and the Royal Engineer services. In all these establishments there are mixtures of military, civilian and A.T.S. personnel. The uniformed people, for the most part, do precisely the same work as the civilians. The civilians, however, are not recognised as being on war service, and when their appropriate age category is called up, they are sent into the Army just as if they were working in ordinary civilian life.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but perhaps unwittingly I misled him. His remarks in regard to man-power do not properly come under the heading of welfare, and he should speak on the main Question, to which we shall revert.
  Mr. Brown: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did consult you on the point, and the last thing I want to do is to take advantage of the Chair. May I, perhaps, return to the subject when the Amendment has been disposed of?
  Lieut.-Colonel Mayhew: I want to ask, in the first place, whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Air with a view to considering the advisability of inserting in the pay-book of every Service man and woman the name and address of the wife or husband respectively and whether they are co-habiting or are, legally or otherwise, separated. A great deal of unhappiness is being created by bigamy. I should be

  423
  grateful if my right hon. Friend could approach the appropriate religious authorities with a view to their demanding that any Service men or women contemplating marriage produce their pay-books and prove whether or not they are married. This is a serious matter. It is a very personal matter, and Service men and women might, at first, resent my suggestion, but I think that on reflection they would not do so, because there is no excuse for anyone sailing under false colours.
  The other point I want to raise concerns young wives and expectant mothers who have neither homes nor furniture. I ask whether there is any possibility of hostels being opened where young wives and expectant mothers could go, where they could have decent living conditions, companionship, and a matron to help and advise them until such time as housing accommodation can be found for them. I am sure local authorities do everything they can to assist the S.S. and A.F. Associations and Welfare Officers in helping the wives of Service men to get accommodation, but accommodation is very limited, and I think it is a very great grievance at the present time on the part of Service men who are ordered abroad at short notice. Their wives are left with nowhere to go. My third point is that the War Service grant is being cut. I understand that three months are allowed for a soldier to make an increased allotment. Without disclosing information which would be useful to the enemy, I think it can be said that it takes considerably more than three months to get a reply from the Middle East. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider an extension of the period, particularly where no answer has been received.
  Mr. Sexton: We all pay tribute to the Forces and the wonderful work they are doing and wish them God speed in the future, in the severe task that lies ahead of them. On the welfare side, in industry, especially during the war, much time and thought have been expended on the welfare of the workers in the factories, which is all to the good, but we should like the same welfare work to be extended to the men in the Forces. It is just as necessary to look after their interests as it is to look after men serving in the factories. Sometimes there are brought to our notice small but very irri-
  424
  tating grievances. We should see that soldiers when training have the best conditions we can give them. Owing to the exigencies of training and the difficulties of billeting, with units scattered up and down the country, it is pot possible to give them all the home comforts they have left, but men in the Forces have pointed out to me that six months had elapsed since they were served with a blanket, that the blanket they got had never been washed, and they were not sure it was clean when they got it, and that three months had elapsed since the straw of their palliasse had been changed. Small things like these irritate men, most of whom come from decent homes where they would not stand conditions like that. In our welfare scheme for the Army let us attend to these trifles, because trifles after all make perfection.
  Then there is the question of isolated units living in remote parts. I live in one of those remote parts and have come across quite a number of units. I want to pay my tribute to the inhabitants of the villages nearby and of the organisations in the villages which are trying to attend to the welfare of the men who are thus scattered abroad. The question of leisure has been mentioned in the Debate—the question of being "browned off." My opinion is that that is where education would come in. I want the men to have their recreations and entertainments, but I want them to have something which is more abiding and will be more effective for their future lives on the lines of the educational classes which are going on in some parts of the country. We must remember that most of the young men and women who are in the Forces are really young. Many of them have had a very moderate education. They had to break off school at 14, and now is our chance to give them the added education which we expect to be given to everybody after the war. We are not going to have the school-leaving age at 14; we hope to carry on education to 16, if not to 18.
  We have made a start in the Army, and I am grateful for that start, but let us improve on it and give as great facilities for education as we can. This education in the Army will help to prepare the men and women for the post-war period. We are looking forward to that time and they are looking forward to it even more than we are. When they come back to peace-

  425
  time and ordinary civil life, it will be all to the good if they have had a little more preparation through the Army educational classes, for he who is not prepared today will be less prepared to-morrow. I believe that the whole House and the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the education of these young people is a vital factor in helping them not only to fight well now but to fight the problems of the future.
  My last words are for a section of the Army who have not, I think, been mentioned in the Debate and whose welfare we must really take to our hearts. I refer to the men who are prisoners of war. It may be said that we cannot do very much for them, but let us do what we can right up to the limit. They deserve all and more than we can do. These men may have a long time on their hands and their minds may be directed towards the period after the war when they may consider taking up different occupations or professions. Some are studying for professions and I am proud to say are passing university examinations from their prison camps. They are to be praised for that, and we must go on helping them through the Red Cross and other agencies by sending them all the material in the way of books that they want so that when the war is over their training will carry them into whatever vocation or profession they have chosen. These men will be trebly trained when the war is over—trained in war, trained in the value of the humiliation of prison, and trained on the broad plains of freedom, which we expect they will travel when this war has been won.
  Major Neven-Spence: The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, but I want to go back to an earlier speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Norfolk (Colonel Medlicott). He made an admirable speech on the subject of welfare, more particularly the welfare of soldiers' families. His speech touched a chord in my memory as well as in my heart, because it is a subject with which I had a great deal to do in a practical way a good many years ago. Welfare in the Army is very easily run in peacetime, when there is the regimental organisation behind it, but it is a different matter now. The Amendment refers to the contentment of the troops. There
  426
  is an enormous number of married men in the Army, and if a married soldier is not a contented soldier, he is not a good soldier. That goes without saying. I am not at all happy about the present state of welfare among soldiers' families. It badly needs looking into. I have picked out three practical points which have come to my notice, and I should like my right hon. Friend to look into them to see whether he can do anything. Anybody doing welfare work among soldiers' families will know that there are three things which are causing a good deal of worry. One has reference to the funeral expenses when a soldier dies, another is the question of the medical care of a soldier's dependants, and the third one is the burning question of prams.
  I understand that if a soldier who dies is buried locally, no charge falls upon his widow or family, but it is another matter if the body is sent home. Then the expenses have to be borne by the family, except, I think, that a grant of £7 10s. is made. That is not enough, because it may not anything like cover even the rail expenses of taking the body home. Why not deal with the thing in a practical way? Where the family cannot be induced to allow burial to take place locally, the authorities should bear the expense of sending the body home. What actually happens is that the £7 10s. is "nobbled" by the undertaker. That is a ramp and a racket, and it ought to be looked into. I do not think they ought to be allowed to charge more than £7 10s. for the whole business, but actually they take all that money, and very often a good deal more, because the dependants have to pay other expenses as well. A quick remedy is wanted here, and I hope we shall find one.
  As to the medical care of dependants, I think the chief worry of the serving soldier is the doctor's bill. The man may perhaps have been earning £5 or £6 a week in civil life, but in the Army his cash earnings may not amount to more than £2 or £2 10s. I know that he gets a lot of other benefits, but he has not enough money to meet the charges which arise when there is sickness in the home, and when soldiers cannot pay these bills it causes them tremendous worry. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might steal a march upon Sir William

  427
  Beveridge and arrange forthwith to have free treatment for all dependants. It would be a tremendously popular thing with young married soldiers. All his dependants should be "on the panel" from the day a man is called up.
  On the question of prams, there are thousands of soldiers' wives with babies, but they have no prams. It reminds me of a notice in the window of a shop which I pass every day: "We have goods, but no paper." Here we have babies, but no prams. We want more babies. Babies are like ash trays—you cannot have too many of them about the house. It is no part of my right hon. Friend's duty to get prams, but I think he has some responsibility to see that when there are babies there are prams to put them in. Are these women supposed to be Red Indian squaws and to carry their babies about, like papooses, on their backs? The position is intolerable, and it ought to be put right very quickly. The cheapest pram costs £8 10s. What soldier's wife can afford to pay £8 10s.? If she gets the pram on the instalment system, it probably costs £12. The type of utility pram which is sold to-day should not cost £2 to produce, and I should not be a bit surprised if it cost less. It should be possible to sell those prams for £5.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): This is not a matter within the control of the War Office.
  Major Neven-Spence: I was going to suggest that my right hon. Friend should make some arrangement by which the serving soldier could go to his C.O. and get some sort of coupon to enable him to get a pram at something like a price he could afford to pay. There are many other things in connection with welfare. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk said there was a vast field here to be worked, and he was right.
  I do not want to say anything against the welfare organisation of the Army. It has done magnificent work for the troops, but the family side has been left out. I ask the Minister to scrutinise the people he has at the head of the welfare organisation to see whether they are qualified to tackle this work in the way it ought to be tackled. I recommend him to take a leaf out of the airborne division, which is running an absolutely first-class show for
  428
  soldiers' dependants through the welfare division. It is all done by voluntary subscriptions. It is most unfair that the expense should fall upon these people; the State should bear a proportion of it. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into the matter and see whether some of these grievances can be put right.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I will not attempt to follow in the wake of the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, either in chasing perambulators or trying to persuade the Secretary of State for War to look after the babies. I rather think that that is somebody else's responsibility. I want to raise a very important subject upon which I have addressed a few Questions to the Secretary of State during the last month or two, concerning N.A.A.F.I., not so much about the profits it has been alleged to make, but what it is, actually able to do with the profits for the men in the Services.
  I do not think my right hon. Friend quite appreciates what some of the N.A.A.F.I. canteens are like. One or two of the modern N.A.A.F.I. canteens are very good, but others are thoroughly miserable holes. In fact, some of them are almost like dungeons. I remember the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and the Tenth Report, and I am inclined to the view that my right hon. Friend believed that some of us who have been criticising N.A.A.F.I. and its operations wish to bring down the prices of commodities there, and so create a black market of one kind or another. It is not true. My right hon. Friend has not got down to the fundamentals of what the soldier needs most at the end of his day's duty. He likes to spend an hour in some quiet corner, some retreat or somewhere where there is a little comfort provided for him in his leisure. He likes a little bit of something different from what is provided through the ordinary rations out of the quartermaster's stores. In visiting many of the welfare centres, I find that the soldier expects some kind of supper at a low price, because he has not a lot of money to spend. I found one a few weeks ago where there were seven different sorts of suppers-available, but not one of the prices was over 6d. The maximum price for each of these suppers was 6d. It is a voluntary organisation, it is true, but when I consider the same kind of thing pro-

  429
  vided by N.A.A.F.I. I find that Spam and other commodities are being retailed to soldiers, if you actually measure it out in terms of value, at 5s. a lb. It is not fair. N.A.A.F.I. has no right to expect that a soldier, when he is simply asking for two or three slices of Spam on a plate, two or three slices of bread and butter and a pot of tea, should pay 10d., 1s. or 1s. 2d.
  Mr. MacLaren: It would cost you 1s. 6d. in the kitchen here.
  Mr. Walkden: I am concerned with the men who have 2s. a day and who have to measure out their halfpennies and pennies. When you have spent your 1s. 6d. in the kitchen you probably give a 2s. tip, which is as much as these men get for a day's pay. I do not think the welfare officers, I do not think those who advise the right hon. Gentleman, quite appreciate the effect it has on the soldier. If the Secretary of State will really get down to the prices charged by N.A.A.F.I. he will do much during the next few months if he will cheapen the prices of the tasty bits to be found on he menus available for the soldiers at the end of the day.
  There is another issue which has loomed very largely in the picture which I put yesterday. The Financial Secretary said there were various difficulties concerning shipping problems and other issues concerning the granting of leave to men from the Middle East. It may be that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing issues like this with the right hon. Gentleman for many months, and I suggest to him that he will have to be making preparations for some of our men being given a measure of leave as in the last war. This is an entirely different war from that of 1914–1918. He may disagree with me. He may dissent from my point of view. I was one of those rankers in the last war who spent practically three years in the Middle East. The Bishop of London and other distinguished people came out to see us. It was a very anxious period. We did not get a chance of getting home. When the Government decided in 1918 that some of our men were to be given leave, only four per company, or at least as transport or shipping space would allow, all the visits by the bishop and other distinguished people to the men in the Middle East were as nothing in relation to that cheerful message which came
  430
  through regimental orders. My right hon. Friend may say that we shall need every man at his post during the next few months. That is perfectly true. But has he considered what is happening in regard to shipping space? It is not his responsibility, I know, but soldiers' wives and relatives of soldiers do not feel at all happy when they learn that ships are being used to transport oranges from South Africa which could possibly accommodate soldiers, if only two or three men per company. I do not wish to enter into an argument as to whether the Food Ministry should have the balance of shipping space or whether it should be the War Office, but I do say to him that if he wants to comfort and cheer, and stimulate the feelings of the troops, especially men who have been out there for three years, some a little longer than that, he will do a very fine thing if he draws up plans, within the exigencies of the Service, and makes some pronouncement which will at least comfort the womenfolk with the belief that, as far as is humanly possible, leave will be arranged for these men. I do not think that the Financial Secretary did justice to my Question yesterday. Even though nothing can be done during, say, the next month, I am convinced that preparations can be made which will satisfy this very urgent demand among the womenfolk, who want to know what can be done and who are writing to Members of Parliament.
  Will the Secretary of State consider also the question of free legal aid to the Services, under the Welfare Department? He has refused to give any help to those above the rank of sergeant. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Colonel Medlicott) said there were something like 3,000,000 cases. I would point out to him that he is talking about cases in this country. Has he considered the difficulties of men in the Middle East and other theatres of war? There are many officers and others above the rank of sergeant who have not the least opportunity of seeing anybody on legal matters, and who have no free legal aid under the welfare organisation. It has been laid down by the War Office, with, I believe, the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, that nobody above the rank of sergeant shall have legal advice unless he pays for it, and as many of such people cannot buy advice they simply do not get it. Many of the young officers have never

  431
  had an opportunity to earn a single penny. They have all the problems of the average citizen. They are entitled to the same kind of assistance as is given freely to men up to the rank of sergeant. I feel that if the right hon. Gentleman examines this question, these officers will express their gratitude. There are other matters that I would have liked to mention I there had been time, but I will merely express the hope that the Secretary of State will deal with those I have mentioned.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: At this late hour I do not intend to trespass for more than a few minutes upon the time of the House. I would like to take up a point which was raised in the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden). He was talking about N.A.A.F.I. prices and the quality of the food. I would like to reinforce what he said. I have heard on a number of occasions that the quality of the food in the N.A.A.F.I. establishments is not all that could be desired. Yesterday an officer came to see me in the precincts of this House, and he brought with him a specimen cake, as an example of the kind of thing which was sold in N.A.A.F.I. canteens. He mentioned that the only other article of food in the particular N.A.A.F.I. with which he was concerned was an ordinary sausage roll He suggested that I should bring that cake into the House to show to hon. Members as an exhibit. I would have done so had it not borne so close a resemblance to an infernal machine. It was solid, small and heavy and it was not at all the kind of thing that the troops would find tasty or satisfying even at the end of a heavy day. I hope that the War Office will look into the question of the quality of food sold in N.A.A.F.I. canteens.
  The other point I would raise is the question of films. The Secretary of State in his admirable speech to-day, which I thought commanded the general approval and sympathy of the House, referred to films for training. I should be out of Order if I talked about training on the Amendment. I would like to say something briefly about film apparatus for recreation and education. I understand that there is a shortage of film apparatus. Whereas the administrative arrangements are good in the way of distributing such films as there are—and the films, I believe,
  432
  are of first-class quality—very often units cannot demonstrate these excellent films because there is not the apparatus available. I am referring to the 16 mm. film and also the larger size of film, I believe the 35 mm. In both cases the apparatus is in short supply and anything that can be done to stimulate the production of this apparatus and its distribution to Commands would, I know, be appreciated.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I am sure that the House will agree that we have had a short but most interesting Debate, together with two very striking speeches, which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Norfolk (Colonel Medlicott). A number of questions have been asked as to the work which has been done by the Army Welfare and Educational Department, and a number of suggestions have been made with which I do not propose to deal, but I assure the hon. Members who made them that they will be given the careful consideration of the War Office.
  My hon. Friend who opened the Debate, in his very thoughtful speech, stressed the importance of dealing with the problem of the welfare and education of the soldier, not only from the present point of view, but with regard to the situation that will exist after this conflict has ceased. I can assure the House that, in building up from the ground the great armies that are at our disposal today, we have been concerned, not only to organise and train our officers and men and to inspire them with the offensive spirit that alone can make victory certain, but also we have sought to cater for their human needs, physical, mental and moral. We have sought to make welfare concerned with their well-being in the truest sense of the word. Our Army to-day is composed of millions of young men and women drawn fromall ranks of society, and we seek to make them, not only good soldiers, but also good citizens. We not only seek to develop their qualities as soldiers, but also their qualities as citizens. We must realise that when our troops have carried out their task of defeating the enemy they will return home with the intention of playing a vitally important part in our national life. If that be so, it would be folly to under-estimate the importance of the welfare and educational activities that the War Office is seeking to carry out throughout our Armed Forces.

  433
  I hope that I shall be forgiven if I have to give a certain number of details and statistics, because I want to take this opportunity of presenting as complete a picture in the shortest possible space of time of the work that the Army Welfare and Educational Department has carried out in recent months. As the House will know, the welfare organisation of the Army is controlled by a directorate, working under the Adjutant-General. At each Command there is an honorary command welfare officer who is assisted throughout the Command by county and local welfare officers. In the unit there is also a unit welfare officer, who is, of course, only working on a part-time basis. All these welfare officers, county and local, constitute a kind of network of contact both with the civilian population and the various units in their area. It may interest the House to know that there are 1,310 of these honorary county and local welfare officers, including 120 women welfare officers who have been appointed in recent months to help in the welfare work for the A.T.S. I can say in all confidence that these honorary welfare officers deserve great praise for the work they are doing.
  The welfare officers themselves are also a link between the soldier and civilian and are performing a very useful service in keeping in touch with soldiers' wives and families and helping in domestic difficulties. They are also responsible for the private sports equipment supplied from civilian sources, in addition to the sports equipment that is supplied from regimental funds. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gower that much has been done, and is being done to-day, to encourage sport among our troops. In fact, I do not think they require much encouragement, because one of the characteristics of our nation is a love of, and interest in, various types of sport. A similar organisation has been established overseas but obviously the same opportunities for welfare activities in theatres of war are much more restricted than at home. I would also like to point out to the House that the welfare amenities that exist are available for Allied and Dominion troops and that welfare officers have done much to organise hospitality for the large numbers of troops who have come to this country from Canada and the United States.
  434
  I would like to say something of what has been done during the past year to cater for the physical well-being of our troops, especially those who have to travel from time to time. Attention has been called in this House to the need for hostels. I find that hostels run by voluntary organisations are now available for men and women in the majority of the large towns. There are 433 hostels in the provinces, with 17,200 beds, and 55 in London, with 6,500 beds, the average charge being 1s. per night. For the A.T.S. there are in London 12 hostels, with 505 beds, and in the provinces 87 hostels, with 2,330 beds. We heard a good deal about lack of amenities at railways stations, and it was quite true that in the early days of the war those amenities were not there. But today we have canteens and rest rooms open at most of the main railway stations. Dormitories are available at 70 railway stations, and special arrangements have been made for members of the Women's Services who are stranded at stations. Arrangements have been made to earmark accommodation in the neighbourhood of the great stations.
  With regard to canteens and institutions, in addition to the N.A.A.F.I. canteens, to which every unit over a certain strength is entitled, there are about 4,000 canteens in this country and 123 in the Middle East. All these canteens are run under the auspices of the Council of Voluntary War Work, but in addition, there are approximately 1,500 canteens run by independent organisations. There are also 1,486 mobile canteens in this country and 36 in the Middle East. These mobile canteens, as I know full well, do extremely good work at isolated stations. I think the House will agree with me when I say that we owe a real debt of gratitude to the voluntary organisations which are doing such splendid work in catering for the needs of the men and women of our Services.
  May I pass to another aspect of physical welfare which I would call rehabilitation? This work is carried out both at the hospitals and at military convalescent depots. The treatment is in two stages. In the first, special remedial treatment is given in the physiotherapy department of the hospital, consisting of massage, exercises, radiant heat, and ultra-violet ray. When hospital treatment is no longer necessary and the patient is capa-

  435
  ble of tending to his bodily needs, he is sent to a military convalescent depot. Here he is subject again to military discipline, but his physical fitness is restored by means of graduated exercises and training, and it is not the orthodox physical training instructor who is employed, but a physical training instructor who receives special training in remedial exercises and medical gymnastics. There are 13 military convalescent depots in the United Kingdom with a total accommodation of 11,078 beds for soldiers. For the rehabilitation of cases of neurosis, a military unit consisting of 200 hospital beds and 600 convalescent beds has been established outside Birmingham, but in addition, we have been experimenting with what we call physical development centres, and great success has attended the establishment of two of these centres for dealing with men with remedial defects such as curved spine, flat feet, etc., and with men who were physically underdeveloped when they joined the Army and who, even though in medical category A.I., are not really fit to undergo the rigours of primary training.
  May I give the House some figures? At one centre, out of 3,040 capable of being upgraded, 2,375 were upgraded after treatment. Of this number, 1,917 were upgraded to A.I—that is to say, about 80 per cent. At the other centre, out of 1,137,962 were upgraded, of whom 881 were upgraded to A.I. As a result of this success it has now been decided to establish four other centres each capable of handling 1,500 trainees every two months. I know the special interest that many of my hon. Friends have in this subject of rehabilitation and I for one believe that the work we are carrying on along the line I have just indicated will have a long-term value in dealing with the problem of disability after the war. Incidentally, I hope it will be possible for hon. Members who are interested in the problem of rehabilitation to pay a visit, if they desire, to one of the centres to which I have just referred.
  May I now pass for a moment to what I may call mental well-being—education? The real test of education is always the desire to learn more. The system that we operate is controlled at the War Office by a Director of Army Education. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich
  436
  (Mr. Dugdale) referred to the Army Education Corps. It would, perhaps, be foolish for me to deny his suggestion that we have not as many education officers as we should like to have, although of course we have instructors who are not commissioned. We have, for example, Army Education Corps Warrant Officers and sergeants who are in sole control of educational activity, for example, in the Antiaircraft Regiment, in training units, detachment barracks, hospitals and convalescent depots. But, even so, I agree that there is a case for saying we ought to have more instructors. Although quite a number are being passed through the Army Education School at Wakefield—several hundred each year—we are confronted with the problem of man-power in respect of educational activities, as in respect of other sides of our Army life, and that to some extent has limited our freedom of action.
  The Army Education Corps is recruited mainly by the transfer of suitable officers and other ranks from other arms of the Service. They have to undergo a short course at the Army School of Education before they are posted. In the unit, just as there is a part-time unit welfare officer, there is a part-time unit educational officer, and it may be that there are cases where the best type of officer has not been chosen for this very important work. As time goes on, we may be able to improve that situation. In most units there is a small unit education committee composed of officers and other ranks interested in education. As far as the A.T.S. are concerned, all Army educational facilities are available to members and, in order to-foster education in that corps, there are two A.T.S. staff officers and an A.T.S. staff education officer at each of the Commands.
  May I say a word about the assistance that we are receiving from civilian sources. The Central Advisory Council was created at the end of 1939 to bring together the civilian educational resources of the country and place them at the disposal of the War Office. This Council co-ordinates the activities of 23 regional committees covering Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Each committee serves the force stationed within the normal extra-mural area of the university or university college in which it is centred. On the regional committee are representatives of the universities, local education authorities and

  437
  other organisations interested in adult education, such as the Workers' Educational Association and the Y.M.C.A. It is this body which has supplied the Forces with the civilian lecturers and teachers who are helping us in many ways. I should like to express our appreciation of the valuable assistance which the Central Advisory Council and its regional committees have given in the educational work of the Army.
  One or two of the practical things we have been able to do may interest the House. In November, 1942, in spite of the changed strategic situation necessitating an intensification of the training of our forces at home, the Army Council decided that the educational side of Army life should be given high priority. It was consequently decided that there should be three hours compulsory education a week in home commands to be given in training hours. The scheme rested on three objectives. The first was the teaching of military subjects to educate the man as a soldier. The second was to educate him as a citizen. For this purpose the instruction has been based on an interesting series of pamphlets called "The British Way and Purpose," four of which have been issued. No. 1 deals with "What is at Stake, Parliamentary Government, Local Government, Law and Justice"; No. 2 with "Britain at Work, Special Services, Education, the Information Services"; No. 3 with "Growth of the Empire, the Dominions, India, the Colonial Empire"; and No. 4 with "Britain and the United States of America, Russia, China and the United Nations."
  Mr. Dugdale: Can copies be placed in the Library?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, I think that that will be done.
  Mr. Grenfell: Have they been issued?
  Mr. Henderson: They have been issued to the troops. The third' objective will be to take in a wide range of cultural subjects to educate the man as an individual.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There seems to be some anxiety as to what is to happen to these pamphlets, whether they will conflict in any way with the A.B.C.A. publications.
  Mr. Henderson: The pamphlets are specially selected for instruction during the three hours' compulsory educational framing that is to take place each week. The A.B.C.A. discussion period is quite apart from the three hours' educational training and there should be no question of conflict between the two or of withdrawal from one in favour of the other. This scheme, as far as I can see, has been extremely successful, although it has not yet been possible to carry it out in full. It is interesting to note that "The British Way and Purpose" is universally adhered to. It is interesting to note, too, that it was decided not to depend on officers as instructors but to find suitable personnel from other ranks. The success which has attended this search for other ranks instructors with the greatly increased interest which has resulted throughout the Army at home in adult education in citizenship, is one of the most encouraging features of the scheme. The one compulsory A.B.C.A. period per week during training hours has continued and is continuing to-day. The discussions are based on the fundamental principles of free discussion of the subject under review. My hon. Friend talked about teaching people to speak. There are two methods by which we shall hope to do that. One is the A.B.C.A. method and the other is the discussion group to which I will refer.
  A.B.C.A. discussions are free discussions. A man can say within limits anything he likes—he can express his views. Two publications, "War" and "Current Affairs," are issued week by week as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich knows. "War" and "Current Affairs" are issued in alternate weeks, and they form the brief for the officer or other rank who leads the discussions. Discussion groups have been very popular, and more recently they have received additional impetus as a result of "British Way and Purpose" pamphlets. The number of groups has increased considerably. I cannot give definite figures, but one Command reports a total of 4,313 informal talks and discussions for the period November, 1942, to February, 1943. I will give a sample from a list of the subjects: post-war reconstruction; capitalism, town planning, the second front, "Have we any use for poetry?" "Is there equality in sex?" I think the House will agree that there is

  439
  a fairly wide choice of subjects, showing no attempt to restrict soldiers in discussing controversial subjects.
  Mr. Driberg: Was capitalism dealt with objectively?
  Mr. Henderson: That would be a matter for the men themselves. They could express their view both for and against, which is the real object in these discussions. This has been a great success on a voluntary basis. Brains trusts, dramatic and play-reading societies and music, all play their part in the soldier's life. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower said he was not very satisfied with the provision of books for the troops. There is no doubt that reading is very popular with all three Services. The main source of supplies is the post office scheme. Gifts of books can be made through any local post office. Any hon. Member who has books to spare can take them to his local post office and they will find their way to troops either in this country or abroad. Since it came into operation two years ago great numbers of books and magazines have been supplied, enabling the Services Central Book Depot to despatch during 1942 to all three Services at home and overseas no less than 975,000 books and 5,100,000 magazines. I should like to express our grateful thanks to all those who have contributed books through post offices. I am sure their generosity is appreciated by all ranks of the three Services. In addition, more than 1,000,000 books have been purchased by units through the Services Central Book Depot.
  A word as to the Forces Book Club, which was formed in almost the last year. This seeks to provide a regular supply of good intensive reading. In fact 10 books a month are chosen by a board composed of officers of all Services, and these parcels are sent every month to any part of the world for a yearly subscription of £3. From August to the end of 1942, 6,000 subscriptions from units have been received. This means that during the 12 months 720,000 books will be supplied. I think the hon. Member will agree that in toto that is a very fair picture as regards the supply of books.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say how the books that
  440
  are given through post offices by the public are selected and distributed? What is the method?
  Mr. Henderson: I think the officials in charge of the Services Book Club do the necessary selecting and, if necessary, the throwing out of books that ought not to be passed on.
  Mr. Driberg: On what basis is that censorship exercised?
  Mr. Henderson: I had better have notice of that Question. That is rather a fast one. As to vocational training, a wide range of classes is provided by way of evening schools and correspondence courses. Soldiers attending evening classes and courses numbered 6,900 in September and 13,600 in November. The subjects taught included welding, economics, languages, such as French, Spanish, and Russian, building construction, bookkeeping, carpentry, engineering and engineering drawing. As regards correspondence courses, there is payable on enrolment a fee of 10s., for which the student may take any of the approximately 140 courses in such subjects as accountancy, engineering, law, secretarial work and stage management. In addition there is a postal study course which has been very popular, provided in such subjects as chemistry, mathematics, music, shorthand and economics. Between September, 1941, and August, 1942, there were 11,500 enrolments for the War Office vocational correspondence courses and 7,000 for the postal study course.
  We have also had 5,299 classes during the last quarter of 1942 for handicrafts. One Command reports widespread enthusiasm for handicrafts because of the genuine opportunity it gives for self-expression, apart from its utilitarian value. Our difficulty there is the limited supply of controlled materials, although the Commands generally report little difficulty in obtaining the tools for handicraft subjects, which include basketry, boot repairing, carpentry, general leather work, plumbing, and wood and metal work and, for the A.T.S., dressmaking, plastics and cookery.
  Mr. Dugdale: Can the Minister say anything about the question of illiteracy?
  Mr. Henderson: I am afraid I am not in a position to say anything, but I will certainly undertake to look into the matter

  441
  myself and will communicate my discoveries, if any, to my hon. Friend. Some reference was made to E.N.S.A. entertainments. In addition to E.N.S.A., we have Service concert parties, of which 1,189 have been organised by units and formations. We have a central pool of entertainers with a war establishment of 100 artists. E.N.S.A. has sent 211 concert parties on tour. It is only right to pay tribute to the splendid work which E.N.S.A. has carried out in seeking to bring entertainment to the troops in this and other countries. In addition we have a large number of voluntary parties, nearly 600. The question of cinema projectors was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). Approximately 22,000 live and cinema shows were given to troops in home Commands last year. By December, 1942, Army cinema sections in home Commands were giving nearly 7,000 shows a month, which reveals a rather satisfactory situation in relation to cinema entertainment. As to wireless sets, there are approximately 25,000 sets in use with the troops, both at home and overseas. It is hoped to supply a further 17,000 sets to cover requirements to the end of 1944, and of these 5,000 will be distributed to troops at home, and the other 12,000 will be for the troops overseas.
  I wanted to say something about the personal assistance we give to the soldier in his private affairs, but time will not permit. Something has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk about the legal aid bureaux. I think he will agree that allowing for the limitations that exist, these legal aid bureaux have done extremely good work. Although it is not possible to give the figures of all the cases dealt with, over 1,000 legal aid bureaux are at present in existence. Some 8,000 cases have been passed by them to the legal aid bureaux at Command. There is a full-time legal aid staff at Command, and in each unit there is voluntary work done by officers with legal qualifications, and there are 1,000 such separate legal aid bureaux. I think our thanks are due to the legal profession for their co-operation in the scheme, because where we have not been able to secure an officer with legal qualifications we have had to call on local
  442
  civilian lawyers to give their assistance. I think that thanks are due to them for that assistance.
  A large number of cases have arisen where we have attempted, through our welfare officers, reconciliation between husband and wife. In about 20 per cent. of those cases so far investigated, reconciliation has been effected. To that extent I think it is very useful social work. As regards the air-raid inquiries scheme, we found that soldiers were getting worried because they heard there had been an air raid on their home town, and they did not know what was happening. The principle of the scheme is that an officer and regular staff, working in close collaboration with a welfare officer, are always available at bombed centres, and I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for East Norfolk, because he was one of the pioneers in this work in the Command in which he is responsible. I think he will agree that it has served a very useful purpose. The Command officers of soldiers whose relatives have been killed or injured or evacuated as a result of bombing are informed by telegram. In appropriate cases the Command officer then sends the soldier home on compassionate leave. We have had 14,000 inquiries in the past year from soldiers who had lost contact with relatives at home through not getting letters. We have been able to give them information about their relatives, and to that extent have helped to make their minds less disturbed.
  One more point on this problem. As I know from my post-bag—we are making no complaint about it—in response to appeals on the ground of domestic hardship, most of which have come from Members of Parliament either to my right hon. Friend or myself, releases for a short period have been granted in 10,300 cases, posting nearer home has been granted in 3,800 cases, and men have been retained in the United Kingdom in 1,892 cases. The whole idea that the War Office had no heart may have been true in the past. Certainly it is not true in the present. One more point relating to moral welfare. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) and another hon. Member raised the question of young soldiers' training units. I think my hon. Friend has had actual experience of the unit that was at Pontefract, and that has now been moved to another part.
  Mr. Grenfell: Is the unit at Pontefract still there, and is that kind of work still carried on?
  Mr. Henderson: These units were started because we found that a number of youths from 19 to 21 when they came into the Army were not amenable to ordinary military discipline, and were prone to commit offences for which, although they were trivial in themselves, the only punishment in the Army was detention. It was thought that sending these young soldiers to detention barracks, where they would associate with the more hardened offenders, was not the best way of tackling the problem. An experimental unit was started near Pontefract where soldiers up to 20 years of age could be sent for training if the commanding officers of their units thought that more suitable than detention. These units are not punishment camps, and soldiers are not sent there under sentence, except in certain cases where sentence has been suspended. While soldiers are undergoing the course full privileges are allowed, and leave is granted in the ordinary manner. The course consists of strict discipline, with attention to each individual case, and especially to each individual character. No soldier is ever given up as a bad job—or very rarely. The experiment has been a great success, and the results have been so valuable that two similar units have been started in the Eastern and South-Eastern Commands. The number of successful cases is 953, and the number of failures only 83.
  Reference was made to detention barracks, and whether we are seeking to bring in any reforms for segregating the various categories in detention barracks. Some reforms have been put into operation. Detention barracks are divided into two groups, A and C. In group A there are two categories: the young soldier serving a first sentence or a sentence of less than 28 days in one category, and, in the other, the trained soldier or a soldier serving a sentence of 28 days or more. Group C barracks are for all soldiers serving sentences of imprisonment, as opposed to detention, and also for habitual offenders. The idea is to separate the more hardened offenders and those serving longer sentences from first offenders and those serving light sentences. A policy of training in the detention barracks has been carried out
  444
  under the Director of Military Training, and the syllabus includes training instead of more penitential tasks. Very valuable work is being done, and I feel sure that it will be approved by the House. I have tried in my survey to give as complete a picture as possible of the education and welfare activities of the Army. Much more could have been said if there had been time, but I hope I have said sufficient to convince the House that there are solid grounds for satisfaction with this vital branch of Army work, and that it is being done in a proper spirit of understanding and sympathy on the part of all concerned. Splendid work is being done, which all ranks, I feel, regard with real appreciation, and which merits the approval of this House. The War Office recognise their special responsibility for the uniformed citizens under their control, and it is the constant endeavour of my right hon. Friend and of all associated with him at the War Office to discharge this responsibility to the satisfaction of the Army and of this House.
  Mr. Grenfell: In view of the minute and reassuring reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Mr. William Brown: I feel that I ought to apologise for rising at this hour, when the House is tired, and when, indeed, I am so weary that I find it difficult to be controversial. That is almost unprecedented. However, the House will bear witness that, if I have not spoken until now, it has not been for want of effort. I really tried to get in earlier today and I apologise for talking now. I want to help the Secretary of State for War to do three things—to save £2,000,000 per annum of public money; to set free a whole Army division of wasted men; and to put the out-stations of his Department into order. The Secretary of State for War, like myself, is an ex-civil servant. If he does well in his Department, it reflects glory on the institutions with which he and I are associated, and if he fails, it does discredit to us, and therefore I want to help. In the area Pay Offices of the Army, the Ordnance Departments, the Record Offices

  445
  and the Royal Engineers Services there are at the moment something like 40,000 officers and men of active military age who are engaged upon work that could just as easily be done by women, or by men over military age. There are also 5,000 officers ranging in rank from lieutenant to brigadier occupied in work which, again, could just as well be done by women, or by men over military age. I am told that there is no less than a whole division of men of fighting military age who could be spared from that work and set free for the purposes of the Army and thereby help in the solution of the manpower problem to which the Financial Secretary recently referred.
  It is not only that we have a very large number of men and officers in jobs that could just as well be done by women or by men over military age, but this type of labour is less efficient in certain respects than civilian labour. Where this work is done by civil servants, they receive a maximum of 16 days' leave per annum, and where it is done by officers, the amount of annual leave involved is 36 days of a year, plus occasional week-ends. Far fewer working days are put in by the military officer than is the case with the civilian personnel, and the result is that the officer is less effective from the point of view of labour than civilian personnel would be. But it is not only that the military officer attends on fewer days of the year. He does not attend as much during the days when he is there, because the officer and the ranker are subject to certain drillings, guard duties and so on which have the effect of taking them away from these clerical operations for a certain period each day. My staff have made the estimate that something like 4,000 posts in two out-stations alone, the Ordnance Depots and the Army Pay Office offices, could be abolished if the staff employed consisted of civilians, and were fully effective, instead of consisting of officers of military rank who are withdrawn for all sorts of military duties and whose rate of annual leave is much greater than that of the ordinary civil servant.
  It is estimated that something like £2,000,000 could be saved by the substitution of civilian for military personnel in these areas. If you take the various grades of civil servants and compare their rates of pay with the rates of pay of those of military rank, it will emerge that, rank for rank, the soldier costs very much more
  446
  than the civilian when account is taken, not merely of pay, but of allowances, food, uniform, and military passes on the railways and so forth. Every soldier that the War Office employ where they could employ a civilian represents an added charge to the State.
  I would have liked to have spoken on this subject at much greater length. It is becoming a standard joke among the 70,000 or 80,000 civilians in War Office establishments that the best way to avoid military service in Britain is to become a uniformed officer in one of these establishments. It is a case of joining the Army and not seeing the war. These officers doing civilian work in the War Office are now in the only firmly reserved occupation. We have been told by the Minister of Labour that all other occupations have been de-reserved, although periods of deferment may be granted. This is the one safe civilian duty—although it is done by the military—which is still reserved and in which a man is safe from real military service. I hope the War Minister, with his respect for the Civil Service which I know he will never forget, and his responsibility to the taxpayer—after all, he was once secretary to the harshest Chancellor of the Exchequer of our day, the late Philip Snowden—will take in hand without delay this question of the chronic waste of manpower within the establishments in the War Office. It would save the money of the Exchequer and provide another division for the Army, if he would see that the work was done by men over military age or by women. I beg him to do so, and I warn him that if he does not, he will not only incur my severe displeasure, but I shall return to this matter again and again as opportunity occurs until this shocking waste of man-power is brought to an end.
  Mr. Driberg: I will detain the House for only a few minutes. I want to ask one question, and make one point. I want to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say, either now or at some convenient future date, one or two sentences to illuminate a little further this vexed minor problem of the post-war functions of the Home Guard. When this question was last raised in the House he said that the recent speech of the G.O.C. London District had been misrepresented. If he says that that speech

  447
  was misrepresented, he must know what was in the mind of the G.O.C. London District, and I should be most grateful if he would explain a little further, because if words have any meaning at all, what the G.O.C. London District was reported to have said meant that the Home Guard were to be used in some way after the war to discipline civilians. I do not want to suggest anything sinister like strike-breaking or anything like that—which has been suggested—but I should be grateful if he would clear up the point, because there is widespread interest in it, and feeling about it, in the Home Guard throughout the country.
  This is the point I would like to make. I want to traverse one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in his able and interesting speech earlier to-day. The right hon. Gentleman is, as we know, the doting parent of A.B.C.A.—
  Sir J. Grigg: Not doting.
  Mr. Driberg: Then the heavy father. I hope he will never be tempted to infanticide by the occasional ebullitions of adolescence. But it did seem to me that in one passage of his speech he was a little less than fair to education, welfare, and kindred subjects. He fell into the growing Ministerial habit of what I can only call juggling with unreal priorities. There was a good deal of that last week. The right hon. Gentleman said that the first and main job of the soldier is to fight and that the first and main job of the Army is to train the soldier to fight, which is quite correct, of course; but he thereby relegated to a secondary and subsidiary position such questions as welfare, education, and so on. It seems to me you cannot really draw up priorities in such matters any more than you can say that the soldier's first business is to fight and, therefore, his food, his health, his boots, are subsidiary and secondary. The whole thing is integrally associated and you cannot separate one thing from the other without decreasing the efficiency of the Army. I am not, of course, suggesting anything absurd and extreme, such as lectures in the front line all the time, or
  448
  anything like that, but I do want to resist any tendency to push education or welfare into the background in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, or in the mind of anybody else in the War Office, because I am convinced that both ancient and modern history have shown that the soldier fights best when he knows what he is fighting for and when he is convinced of the justice of his cause.
  Question, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

  NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
  Resolved,
  "That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

  PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1942
  Resolved,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

  Schedule

  Sums not exceeding.

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  1. Pay, etc., of the Army

  10

  90,000,000

  Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved,
  "That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to—

  (1) the Urban District of Bletchley, and

  (2) the Urban District of Ventnor,

  copies of which were presented to this House on the 23rd February, be approved."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Appointments Offices
  Appointments Offices
  Insurance Companies (Agents and Collectors)
  Insurance Companies (Agents and Collectors)
  Hardship Appeal, Shipston-on-Stour
  Hardship Appeal, Shipston-on-Stour
  Prosecution, Aberdeen
  Prosecution, Aberdeen
  Aircraft Factory (Management)
  Aircraft Factory (Management)
  MEDICAL RESEARCH
  MEDICAL RESEARCH
  FLOODING, LOWER TRENT VALLEY
  FLOODING, LOWER TRENT VALLEY
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  GERMAN NAVAL VESSELS (SWEDISH CONSTRUCTION)
  GERMAN NAVAL VESSELS (SWEDISH CONSTRUCTION)
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS (REVENUE)
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS (REVENUE)
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, NORTHLEACH
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, NORTHLEACH
HOUSING
  Downham Rural District Council
  Downham Rural District Council
  Bombed Houses, London (Repair)
  Bombed Houses, London (Repair)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (ESCAPE FROM TRAIN)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (ESCAPE FROM TRAIN)
BRITISH ARMY
  Embarkation Leave
  Embarkation Leave
  Medically Unfit Men (Rejections and Discharges)
  Medically Unfit Men (Rejections and Discharges)
  Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Specifica tions and Design)
  Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Specifica tions and Design)
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Aliens (Naturalisation Applications)
  Aliens (Naturalisation Applications)
  Periodical, Scotland
  Periodical, Scotland
  COURSING (WATERLOO CUP)
  COURSING (WATERLOO CUP)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS)
POST OFFICE
  Middle East (Telegraph Facilities)
  Middle East (Telegraph Facilities)
  Air Mails, India
  Air Mails, India
TRADE AND COMERCE
  Enemy Aliens (Debts)
  Enemy Aliens (Debts)
  Post-War Organisation
  Post-War Organisation
  Export Trade (Advances to Traders)
  Export Trade (Advances to Traders)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Enemy Air Attack ("Raiders Passed" Signal)
  Enemy Air Attack ("Raiders Passed" Signal)
  Airgraph Films (Carriage)
  Airgraph Films (Carriage)
  RETAIL DELIVERIES (ECONOMIES)
  RETAIL DELIVERIES (ECONOMIES)
  INCOME TAX (FOREIGN WORKERS)
  INCOME TAX (FOREIGN WORKERS)
  RED ARMY ANNIVERSARY (PAGEANT)
  RED ARMY ANNIVERSARY (PAGEANT)
  SCILLY ISLANDS (FLOWER GROWERS, ASSISTANCE)
  SCILLY ISLANDS (FLOWER GROWERS, ASSISTANCE)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POLICE (APPEALS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TRUSTS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

THE BEVERIDGE REPORT.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved by Lord Nathan yesterday—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the Beveridge Report.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, the list of speakers in your Lordships' House today is evidence enough of the great interest which this subject provokes. It is also a hint to me not to allow my remarks to go to excessive length, and I shall bear that in mind. Never before in our time, I think, has there been a Report with regard to projects affecting the wellbeing of the community which has received so wide a publication as this. I believe, indeed, that abstracts of the Report were transmitted over the wireless in a considerable number of foreign languages, and have, in fact, been published throughout the world. There is no doubt that the widespread publicity which attached to it inevitably gave the impression that it was not only the recommendation of an eminent individual
308
to the Government but that, at all events by inference, it had the blessing and support of the British Government, and was indeed more or less a British project. It is a proposal whose widespread implications we have had before us. At least some of the proposals represent an immense consolidation of all the insurance services against the vicissitudes of life, which we have had in lesser degree in this country for many years past, as well as an extension of many other Social Services—the health services, child allowances, and others. I think it is fair to say that in its broad outline it was well understood by people that it did mean a substantial contribution each week by every wage-earner. The fact that it was anticipated that a working man would have to pay 4s. 3d. a week out of his earnings towards this consolidated insurance premium was understood. It is remarkable that, with that understood, it still received an immense volume of popular support.
The scheme is a vast one. It does in fact affect many State Departments—that came out in our debates yesterday. It is quite evident that much time would necessarily be required in fashioning the proposals of a scheme of this kind to give effect to its different recommendations, even if they were only adhered to in a modified form. For that reason I think the Motion that was originally put down in another place in the name of Mr. Greenwood was on the right lines. The intention at that time was that on a Resolution in general terms there should be a discussion without prejudice in Parliament of the Report, so as to give an opportunity for views to be freely expressed and for the general sense of Parliament to be ascertained by the Government. That was the original intention, and it was because of that intention, as I know, that the Resolution was framed as it was. There was, as we all know, a change of method. I am not going to spend your Lordships' time in animadverting on that, but there was a change of method and, on the first day of the discussion, the Lord President of the Council announced certain Government findings in regard to the Report. That was quite contrary, as I understood it, to the original intention of the discussions, but it inevitably had the immediate effect of concentrating the debate upon the statements of the Lord President of the Council

309
rather than initiating a wide unprejudiced discussion of the Report itself.
That has led, as we all know, to much political turmoil, and I confess, as an old Parliamentarian, that I cannot recall a Parliamentary issue that was worse bungled. It would have been of great advantage if we could have had an unprejudiced discussion of this matter in both Houses without having our discussions—shall we say jaundiced in advance by partial statements? And I am quite sure the Government would have received the support of all sensible people. They would have said: "Well, we are going to listen to what you have to say, and later on we will come along and say what we think about it"—which, in view of the magnitude of the proposals, would Lave been a perfectly reasonable course. However, I do not propose to do anything now but address myself to the case itself for a few minutes.
It is quite evident that the questions uppermost in the mind of every man and women at the end of the war will be: "Am I going to get a job of work?" and "Am I going to be able to get back my home or have a home that is worth calling a home and be able to live in reasonable security and comfort?" There is, I am quite sure, great anxiety in the minds of all men in the Forces now, wherever they are. If you were to ask them what they would be anxious about when the war ends it would be that kind of thing—going back to a job of work and having a home to go to. And this scheme, we know, deals not with those issues but more with the vicissitudes of life—sickness and unemployment, and that to which we all inevitably come, old age, and other circumstances which cripple our earning capacity.
But in addition to the general consolidation of insurance, there are other proposals and the Lord Chancellor reminded us yesterday that the scheme rests upon three assumptions. One was that there would be child allowances made—which he accepted, I think, in sufficiently definite terms. Another proposal of the scheme, which is described as an assumption, is that there will be general health services; and on that, too, the Lord Chancellor gave a fairly definite pledge. The third assumption was that employment would be sufficiently maintained to enable the scheme to be financed. And on that
310
basis the Lord Chancellor, quoting words used in another place, accepted that assumption:
"…it has seemed to the Government that the acceptance or rejection of this basic assumption must depend, not on the prior demonstration of its validity, but on whether it is considered, not merely by the Government but by all concerned, to be something to achieve which we all intend to strain every nerve."
That is, unemployment. On that basis the Government proceeded. It is generally surmised in the Report that a good average level of employment will still be accompanied by the calamitous total of more than a million people out of work.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in an exceedingly interesting and useful speech yesterday, asked the very important question whether we could afford it, without giving the question any particular order of priority. I was glad that he came to the conclusion, without any dubiety, that we could. I say that, speaking generally, without tying myself to particular details of the scheme, we cannot afford not to afford it. If we are fighting to give effect to a better world, to give more security to people, we cannot afford to do substantially less than this. It is true, too, as the noble Viscount said, that although this scheme, in total, will cost a considerable number of millions—hundreds of millions—practically the whole of that amount will come back in the purchase of consumer goods. The maintenance of employment is dependent on the spending power of the people, and practically the whole of this amount will be spent in consumer goods which provide the most employment.
How are we to approach the consideration of this vast scheme? We all know that there is a plenitude of skill in the Departments and an immense body of experience has gradually been built up. It is proposed in this scheme that there should be a body of persons, designated a Ministry of Social Security, who should be set up to give effect to, or to begin to frame, the necessary schemes which are in contemplation. I remind myself of my own—not singular—painful experience. For eighteen months I was what was called Minister of Reconstruction. I was in an independent position. There was an Act of Parliament which established me, so to speak, and conferred very wide powers upon me which I did not hesitate

311
to exercise. It took me eighteen months of hard work to get agreement upon the proposals to establish a Ministry of Health. I say without a moment's hesitation that, although we had said in general terms that we wanted a Ministry of Health, unless there had been a body of persons set apart to try and arrange for the establishment of such an organization, if it had simply been left to the officers of the old Local Government Board or of the Home Office, or the other offices concerned, to frame a scheme in the middle of the war, we should never have had it. I say that without any egotism; I am only stating a sober fact. The Cabinet arrangements for dealing with these matters were rather different in those days from what they seem to be now. We had a member of the War Cabinet—in this particular case it was Lord Milner—who had charge of the group of subjects affecting social matters, and he had very great authority. In fact, I cannot remember any of Lord Milner's recommendations being turned down by the War Cabinet. Under him the different Departments considering these matters functioned, and we reported to him. If it had not been for Lord Milner's vigorous support on more than one occasion, I should never have succeeded in getting agreement to the establishment of a Ministry of Health at all.
I try to apply this recollection to one or two of the tasks which this Report contemplates, because it is very material. First, there is the consolidation of insurance contributions and the levelling up of benefits. That concerns, as the Lord Chancellor said yesterday with great clarity and correctness, the very experienced body of men in the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Health. Apart from other Departments, these three are very much involved. We have only to cast our minds back to what we had to go through in 1911 and 1912 to realize something of what will have to be undertaken by whomsoever has this job. I well remember, and so does the Lord Chancellor, that on more than one occasion we foregathered. It was a tough and bitter fight. If I may change the metaphor, the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Samuel, and some others, of whom I was one, were batting men with the intention of making
312
runs. I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor yesterday was batting on a sticky wicket, trying to keep his end up.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I hope I succeeded.
LORD ADDISON: You always do. I could not help recalling, and I am sure he had in his mind all the time, the struggle we had in 1911 and 1912 to establish the National Insurance Act. It is true that that was established against a measure of hostility which is seldom, I am glad to say, reached in this country. This scheme, however, would start off with a great common measure of agreement. The position would be quite different and happier. But for all that, if anybody looks at the Beveridge Report and sees what has got to be consolidated and brought into harmonious relation with respect to different types of pensions, sickness and disability benefits, different scales for different classes of persons, and so on, he will see that it is a gigantic task. It will never be accomplished—the accomplishment of it will not even be approached—unless we set up a body of persons whose job it is to do it. Everyone who has had any experience of the immense administrative difficulties involved in much smaller problems than this will realize that it is not reasonable to expect the officers of these great Departments to undertake it. Take the Ministry of Labour. How can we expect men with their immense tasks and responsibilities to have the time to get down to this? It cannot be done. The same observation applies to other Departments.
Quite frankly, if you want a reason for the setting up of the special body of persons which is called a Ministry of Social Security you have it in the very nature of the case. I will give one simple illustration. I think Mr. Greenwood was right when he said that in any case this scheme will have to be approached by instalments. I think it cannot be done otherwise. Take the question of child allowances, which the Lord Chancellor accepted, though it is true not accepting the figures of the Beveridge Report. I am not at present, however, concerned with figures. If we get 5s. we think it ought to be 8s., and in any case we shall ask for another shilling or two as we go along. That is how we do things in this country. Well, here we have the Report

313
on family allowances by the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in May of last year, and a very impressive and interesting Report it is. I commend it to your Lordships' attention. It shows the portion of child allowances that are already made in one form or another to different groups of persons. To bring all that into one harmonious scheme so that it can be given effect to on the lines of the Government's acceptance, would be, apart altogether from the Beveridge Report, a very big task. I would like to ask the Government, seeing they have accepted this assumption, whether they will not be prepared to get on with this instalment straight away. It will require a considerable amount of work, but here is a very useful job for a Minister of Social Security to begin on the day after his appointment. This is something that is accepted by the Government, and I mention it only because it is a task accepted and agreed, ready for the Minister to undertake.
There is another group of services. I am not quite sure whether I understood the Lord Chancellor aright yesterday, but so tar as I did understand him he was speaking as though the Report contemplated that the health services would be the function of the Minister of Social Security. As he knows, it is laid down in the Report that it would be the Health Department which would deal with that part of the scheme.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene to say this? My noble friend is being entirely fair in what he has said. I only referred to the very big task of organizing the health services. Nobody knows how big a task that is better than my noble friend. I merely mentioned it as an illustration of how important it was to use to the full all the technical and achieved skill and knowledge of the Department concerned. That was the reason I mentioned it.
LORD ADDISON: I most heartily agree with what the learned Lord Chancellor has said. I was only going to refer to it because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, said yesterday, it was a subject on which he reported to me when I was Minister of Health twenty-three years ago. It is rather a sad recollection in one respect. I remember that he, with others, was appointed to devise a scheme of clinics, centres for
314
early diagnosis, minor aids in the treatment of ears and eyes, and various other services, and that he and the other medical men reported to me in the words which the noble Viscount repeated yesterday upon an agreed scheme for the establishment of clinics. That was twenty-three years ago. It shows how slowly we move in this country. We have got a little done in that respect thanks to the energy and hard work of the medical profession itself, but if ever there was a subject that was ripe for action, and urgently required action, it is this one. Therefore I hope that, although it will not be the function of the Ministry of Social Security, the Government will instruct the Minister of Health, and his colleague in Scotland, to make progress with this part of the scheme. The ground has been well prepared in this matter, if ever it was for any scheme.
I mention the two cases of the consolidation of insurance services and the formulation of a good scheme of child allowances as two immediate tasks awaiting somebody, both of which have been accepted in principle by the Government. Therefore I am driven to ask, why does the Lord Chancellor object to the creation of this Ministry of Social Security? I read with great care all he had to say yesterday, but may I remind him, using the expression of my noble friend Lord Nathan, that the reasons given were insufficient? The fact that it is a new Ministry is neither here nor there. We always have plenty of new Ministries in war-time, and at the end of the last war they dropped out freely. I hope that will not be the case at the end of this war. I am quite sure that if any Ministry or body of persons with a special task was ever required, it is this one. The Government have set up one or two Ministries during the past year and a half. A good many or us have asked, without getting an answer, what their powers are and what they are going to do. That does not apply to the Ministry I am now advocating. We have been anxious to know about the Minister of Town and Country Planning and what plans are to be given to him. But there is no question here as to what has to be done. Here is a task ready waiting, and it is a big one. I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider this matter.
As we learnt from our debates last week, and as this debate has shown, there is an immense measure of agreement as to how

315
we should make progress and as to the necessity of making progress, whether it is in regard to agriculture or Social Services. I would not say a word to diminish that incentive to agreement. I hope the Government will not fail, owing to the handicap arising out of our rather unfortunate Parliamentary experience, to mobilize all the good will they can and make progress in this urgent matter without delay.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel that I ought to offer some apology to the House for intervening in the debate when it has been impossible for me to hear the earlier stage of it that took place yesterday owing to other engagements, and the further necessity of leaving the House before I can hear any comments on my own observations owing to another engagement, made long ago, later this afternoon. I should like especially to express my thanks to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who has consented to let me take the place in which he would have spoken to-day in order that I might, as I was most eager to do, offer a few observations on this Report, not in its detail nor with regard to ways and means, but with regard to the grounds for the expectations that have been formed concerning it over so wide an area of our population. There can be no doubt that it has excited a degree of hope with regard to the future such as has not been raised by any set of proposals laid before the country for something like a generation, at any rate.
I am quite certain that those who are in close touch, for example, with the troops in our camps, would say that nothing could be better for the morale of the Army at this time than the clearest possible declaration from the Government with regard to what they take to be possible in the implementation of the Report. Many of them no doubt live from day to day without very much thought about the future, but those who are thinking about the future are thinking, as the noble Lord just said, mainly about the question whether there is going to be after this war such a time of distress as followed the other war. Some of them experienced it as children and some of them heard about it from their parents. It does occasion profound anxiety, and that anxiety does, to some extent, damage
316
their own zeal in the cause they serve, because anxiety is always rather a weakening element in any man's make-up.
What I am concerned with is to show some of the principles in the Report which gives it, I think, a unique character, a character which, as the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, said in the House yesterday, renders it both epoch-making and epoch-marking. First, there is its universality, the fact that it applies to everybody. It is a greater form of national fellowship and unity than we have ever had before us. If we let our minds go back to the dissection of English society which is given, for example, in Sybil, Disraeli's novel of the two nations, we shall recognize that very much has changed since he wrote that. Though the influence of the division between the two nations has been modified, it remains true in certain respects that there is a most marked division between one section of society and the other, and it is mainly at this point of security. The so-called upper classes in society have a relative security. They do not feel that there is any possibility that the bottom may fall out of their lives. No man, of course, has absolute security, and I suppose it would be very bad for us to get it, but relatively we do count upon the future. There is, however, a large class of society who know that their tenure of the things they value most in life is precarious, and though this has been much modified and helped by what has been done in the way of unemployment benefit and through the Unemployment Assistance Board, for the administration of which we ought to be so grateful, yet it remains true that there is this great division. If we can take a big step forward towards healing that we shall have done more to weld this nation into a single fellowship, united not only as now in time of war but consciously and permanently whether in war or in peace, than we can probably do in any other way.
That has a very important bearing upon two admirable qualities of thrift and enterprise. As regards thrift there is the argument that those whose earnings are comparatively small do not find themselves able to save enough to be worth the sacrifice made to save it. If they are given real basic security it becomes immediately far more worth while to save for the bad time that may be coming, to save for additional

317
comforts and amenities in old age, and you positively increase the tendency to thrift by providing a foundation upon which they can build something. No doubt there would be some people on whom it would act the other way, but I am perfectly certain, and think all social workers would agree with me, that the main result as regards thrift would be in that direction. Here perhaps it is worth While to mention an important fact in our economic life which appears to have become actualized during the last year. I am told by economists that during that year we began to turn the corner from the stage where the incidence of the National Debt is mainly owed to large investors to the point where the bulk of it is owed to the small investors. If that is true, and if that fact enters into the consciousness of the people generally, it will have itself a very great effect upon the whole attitude of mind among the people of small means towards saving and the means of effecting saving. Of course that only remains true so long as Income Tax and Surtax remain at their present level or something like it, but while they do so remain the working of the National Debt, far from taking money from the poor to give to the rich, as it was mainly after the last war, is working out at present, if anything, rather the other way and is equalizing and redistributing income in favour of the poorer classes of society.
If that is true, as I am assured it is, it is a fact of really great importance with regard to the whole attitude to the practice of saving that may be anticipated in the people generally. That makes it a fortunate moment to supply the foundation in life which the Beveridge Report promises upon which savings may take their effect. On the other side, I think all who have been trying to observe the workings of the mind of the people in poorer circumstances will agree that nothing is so deadening to enterprise as the sense of insecurity, especially for the man with a family. If you can secure for a man a real foundation for his life so that he knows that not himself so much but his wife and children are really cared for, and that they will not be reduced to great straits even if he himself suffers some misfortune, you instil into him indeed a new source of energy, and the result will be, on the whole, not a diminution but an increase of initiative and enterprise. There
318
again there will be cases where the reaction is the opposite of that, but that will be the main result. To quote the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, once more, there is nothing so deadening as absence of hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has already alluded to the fact that almost the whole of the money expended through these channels will return by being itself spent upon consumer goods, upon the goods which, as he truly said, gives most employment. Therefore, while these steps are being taken to avoid mass unemployment in the future, they will make a very considerable contribution to the avoidance of mass unemployment by what they do to steady the home market. I am told the home market is not sufficient if we are to have full employment and prosperity generally—we must develop our export trade—but it is true that the home market is inevitably for any country the main basis of its commercial prosperity and does make a very great contribution towards the avoidance of unemployment.
It is a fact, of course, that we have passed in comparatively recent stages of history from a time when the State was mainly administered by people who largely contributed to it, in control of a multitude who did not themselves directly receive very much from it, to a time when, as now, the great majority of the population are becoming beneficiaries of the State in one way or another through the great institution of Social Services. If that is to be wholesome, there is need to encourage in a greater measure than we have yet succeeded in getting a sense of responsibility to the State and the welfare of the State in all sections of the population. There is a tendency in some quarters to regard the State as a much cow from whom nourishment may be indefinitely drawn without any contribution being made. And it is quite necessary to counteract that, and to get a sense of responsibility towards the State and for its welfare throughout our country, and a fresh realization that if there is to be a new distribution of wealth among all portions of the community, that wealth must first be produced.
I would like to add one further point to these rather general observations concerning the Report. They are the kind of observations which it seems to me to be most appropriate that I should offer

319
in this connexion rather than indulge in any discussion of the precise ways and means by which it may be carried out. I believe that this epoch-making and epoch-marking Report takes a very definite place in our historical development. Most of us when being instructed in political philosophy were taught that it was a great sign of progress when we passed from a society based on status to a society based on free contract, because a society based on status, the feudal order of the Middle Ages, was so lacking in liberty for the individual, particularly at its foundation. The basis of that society was the serf. He was attached to the soil and he could not move from it. There was no doubt about his position and because he had no doubt regarding what it was himself other people also knew it. He had no liberty but he had security. We have constructed a society which is to a large extent free, in the legal sense entirely free, and employment of the people is regulated, no doubt, by freedom of contract.
Morally that is a very superior situation to one which is fixed by the status given to each member of society at birth. But along with that freedom we have had the full measure of its risks and there has been the possibility that for whole sections of the population the bottom would fall out. The serf had security without freedom. To some extent it is true that the wage-earning classes in our country have had freedom without security, though not entirely without it at any time, and during the last twenty years the foundation has been built piecemeal. What is now proposed is, so to speak, a sort of underpinning of our social structure beneath the life of freedom which we have inherited and in which we glory, the insertion of a foundation of real security compatible with the freedom that is embedded in the superstructure. That I believe is where this scheme fits into our social development. I believe it marks a big advance. It takes all the piecemeal legislation of recent years on this subject and fits it together in a complete, coherent scheme. It is only if this is done that there can be a really secure foundation in this way provided, so that there can be for all sections of society basic security of foundations upon which they may build their own free lives.
320
That leads me back to the point that the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, spoke of yesterday—the symbolical as well as the practical value of the institution of a Ministry of Social Security. If that Ministry is established it will be a pledge that we are in earnest in going through with this great unifying scheme, even though it is to be put through by instalments and the stages may come comparatively slowly. If it is left to the labours of the several Departments we shall still be in a stage of piecemeal tinkering and shall not be holding out to the country the great hope which, after all, has been the inspiration that this Report has given—the hope of a universal scheme expressing our national fellowship and unity and supplying the foundation of security to the free structure of our life.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need keep your Lordships for a few minutes only. Indeed, I had hardly thought of taking part in this debate, not having been present yesterday, but I did not want to abstain altogether from the sense which I share, I am sure, with most of your Lordships of its extreme importance. The Beveridge Report, we all agree, is a monument of profound research and also of disciplined imagination. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, described how it came about that, instead of having a general discussion not based on any argumentative propositions, it was decided by the action of His Majesty's Government to examine the propositions of the Report in some detail and to a certain extent in a critical spirit. The effect of that was to produce a strong reaction in the opposite direction, and I do not know that Sir William Beveridge would welcome the somewhat exaggerated statements that were made with reference to the Report. It seemed to be assumed by some writers in the Press and by some speakers that all His Majesty's Government had to do was to wave a magic wand, or in more modern parlance to touch a button, and then all the valuable propositions of the Report could be put into form by a skilled draftsman, and everybody would live happily ever afterwards. That of course is entirely foreign to the substance and meaning of the Report itself.
The Report lays down a series of propositions in the belief that they can be worked out in a practical form, but

321
certainly Sir William never pretended to lay down beforehand the necessary action of the different Ministers—the Home Secretary, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture—whose Departments might be concerned, and certainly not to propose beforehand the Budgets which future Chancellors of the Exchequer will have to draw up in order to implement these proposals. Therefore I think that the Government cannot be blamed for stating that they must proceed with caution. Unfortunately, however, they did not merely give that impression; they undoubtedly gave to some people the impression that they were proceeding with distrust; and that, I think, is the explanation of what the noble Lord, Lord Addison, described as the really unfortunate political results of the Parliamentary debate which has taken place elsewhere. I trust that the debate in this House yesterday will have done something to reduce that inflammatory condition so far as it still exists in the country.
I shall make no attempt to deal with all the various proposals contained in the Report, for, as my noble friend Lord Samuel observed yesterday, this is not a discussion of details but an examination of the Report in the most general form. I listened with great interest, however, as I am sure all your Lordships did, to what has just fallen from the most reverend Primate on the subject of family life, and the perpetual anxiety which has weighed on a very large portion of the population with regard to the future of their families. I feel that the proposal for family allowances is one of the most useful and valuable proposals in the Report, and I only wish that His Majesty's Government had been able to announce a more wholehearted acceptance of the suggestions made by Sir William Beveridge in that regard; although it is only fair to admit that the principle has, I understand, the full approbation of His Majesy's Government.
The only other point on which I wish to say a word is that of the appointment of a special Ministry to deal with these subjects. I do not feel that the title "Ministry of Social Security" is altogether a happy one It seems to me to describe the aspirations of the country regarding the achievements of the Ministry rather than the work which the Ministry will have to do. It is as though Mr. Eden were to be described as Secretary of State for Peace
322
rather than as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That, however, is a small matter, and perhaps some of your Lordships might be prepared to do what I confess that I myself am not prepared to do—namely, to suggest an alternative title, rather on the lines of some of those competitions for a special definition which we sometimes see in the newspapers.
So far as the creation of the Ministry is concerned, however, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, made a very full and complete answer to the case set out by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack yesterday. Naturally the noble and learned Viscount put his points with the greatest possible acumen and force, but I do feel that the argument that it would be dangerous to take away picked men from existing Ministries in order to form a new Ministry—and that, I understand, was one of the arguments used by my noble and learned friend—does not really carry very great weight. There will surely be, as Lord Addison pointed out in some detail, very definite work for such men to do; and, although I have no doubt that their chiefs would greatly resent their being taken away and formed into a new corporation, yet I think it is a process which should be faced, and I hope that it will be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want the debate to proceed on any false assumption, and I know that that would not be the wish of the noble Marquess. I was meeting the suggestion that there should be a new organization now, and I said that there is a vast amount of work which has to be done in different sections in connexion with this vast scheme which, as it seems to the Government, can best be done in the Departments which are specially concerned—medical matters in the Ministry of Health, labour matters in the Ministry of Labour, and so on. I was careful to add that it might well be that a new organization would be needed later on. I do not want to be misunderstood.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend, but I do not think that I have misunderstood his point of view, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Addison, will agree, it seems to some of us that this particular work which these men are doing in their separate Departments, and no doubt doing extremely

323
well, would be more efficiently and also more promptly done if they were combined into a single organization. I have nothing further with which to trouble your Lordships, and I merely express the belief that although the carrying out of these proposals cannot, strictly speaking, be described as democratic—because I fancy that some of them might be carried out quite as easily, and perhaps more speedily, by some of the dictatorial or oligarchic Governments which we see in Europe—yet they can be interwoven into our democratic fabric, and I trust the Government will use every effort to do so.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, this debate arises on a Motion put clown by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in which we are invited to discuss the Beveridge Report. Might I remind your Lordships what the terms of reference of the Beveridge Committee were. They were these:
"To undertake, with special reference to the inter-relation of the schemes, a survey of the existing national schemes of social insurance and allied services, including workmen's compensation, and to make recommendations."
That was an immense reference, and it is not surprising that it produced an immense Report, a Report not in one volume but two volumes. I yield to no one in my admiration both of the Report and of Sir William Beveridge himself. He is the greatest living authority on the questions with which he had to deal. I myself have been under personal obligations to him on more than one occasion for the help that he has given me in the work which at that time I had to do; while his writings on this subject are, of course, classics in English literature. But it is clearly impossible—in fact nobody has yet tried it—in the course of a single speech, or indeed almost in a series of speeches, to deal adequately and fully with this Report and, if I may say so, the noble Lord who initiated this debate got over that difficulty by the simple process of not referring to the Report at all. What he did was to make a series of charges, which have already been referred to by the Lord Chancellor, which seemed to me wholly unsubstantial, completely ill-founded and without the smallest justification.
What he did was in effect to charge the Government with cowardice in refusing
324
to face up to the position. He charged them with evasion—I do not think I am doing him an injustice in saying that he charged the Government with evasion—he charged them really with deception and with trying to throw dust in the eyes of the public. I believe all these charges are completely unfounded and without the smallest justification. He made in one passage of his speech a reference to the effect abroad. Is this country to be pilloried in the eyes of the countries of the world for what it has done in the matter of Social Services? This country is decades ahead of any other country in the world in what it has done in the matter of Social Services. It is a thing which we can regard with pride and with the knowledge that it should not be the subject of reproach.
There is one passage in the noble Lord's speech to which I want to refer. It is a passage in which he says—and this has been repeated a good deal outside—
"But the people want a sign, and the Government have it in their power to give a Sign and an assurance—acceptance of the plan now, beginning with the programme now, which means a Ministry of Social Security now and the start of legislation this Session."
I have no hesitation at all in saying that if this Report were put as it is into the hands of a Government draftsman, and he was told to draft a Bill carrying it into effect, it would be utterly outside his power to do so. Those who, like Lord Nathan—he assures us he has read the Report—make these assertions, seem to have no conception of the complexities which are involved and of which Sir William Beveridge himself is very conscious—complexities which bristle, not in every paragraph, but in a great many paragraphs and in a great many of the recommendations. Therefore I say that to charge the Government with laches because they are not prepared now to present a Bill to your Lordships' House to carry out the recommendations of this Report, is fantastic. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, made an observation in which I was much interested, as I am indeed in all his speeches. He said he thought it was a pity that this Report had been received with such universal pæans of acclamation within a few hours of its appearance, because they must, to some extent, have proceeded from people who had neither read the Report nor at that time had the opportunity of reading it

325
and understanding what it meant and what it involved. And I think it really was a great disservice to this Report that it should have been so received by people who had not had the time to read it and to understand it. I think that was Lord Crewe's view, too.
I do not at all want to cover the ground which was so admirably covered by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday. He pointed out, as other speakers have pointed out, all the different claims which will be made after this war by various interests for help in one form or another—agriculture, education and so on. I do not at all know whether it is the view of some of those who take the line they do with regard to this Report—Lord Nathan, for instance—that the help that we can give should be entirely confined to this country. We shall, after this war, see a ravaged and a starving Europe, which will certainly be appealing for help from somebody. We have accustomed ourselves to the phrase "freedom from want," but to many countries in Europe it will not be merely a question of freedom from want, it will be a question of freedom from starvation. Whether or not we are to take a hand in that I do not for the moment say, but I think that in considering this scheme and the demands and requests that will be made upon us after the war, that is a point which should not altogether be lost sight of.
May I go back to the point to which I referred a moment ago—namely, that one of the charges which have been made against the Government is that it is not prepared here and now to produce a scheme and a Bill and to proceed on the lines of this Report? Again I say that that shows a complete disregard of the difficulties, and appears to me to show an ignorance of the immense amount of preparatory work which must be done before any legislation can be produced and before you can really proceed further in the matter. I think it would be true to say that that is the view of Sir William Beveridge himself. As I will show in a moment, over and ever again he gives—and does not pretend it is anything more—the outline of the scheme, which is merely a frame into which the picture has to be fitted; again and again he says in the Report that questions are raised, and he notes them as proper for further
326
consideration, on which only a tentative and qualified answer is given.
And if I might here interpose something, I think the analogy which Lord Addison drew, and which has been drawn before, about the position now and the position as it was, for instance, before the Ministry of Health was set up, is an entirely false one. The Ministry of Health was set up, as he told us, after two years' preparation and consideration, but what was in view then was the setting up of an important permanent Department. In the present case the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack explained that what is intended and desired is to clear up certain very difficult questions of administration entirely without prejudice to the question whether ultimately a separate Department should be set up. Therefore I say that the analogy of the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Labour, or the Ministry of Health is a false analogy when we are applying ourselves to the question of what the Government should do now.
LORD ADDISON: I was not saying that they were analogous enterprises. What I was saying was that they required, in order to bring them into being at all, the concentrated attention of a body of persons, and that this great task similarly requires the concentrated attention of a body of persons. I did not say it was the same kind of task.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: That further point I shall deal with in a moment. What I was pointing out was that it is an entirely different thing making inquiries, going into points of detail, with a view to setting up ultimately a permanent Ministry, from clearing the ground before you can produce legislation to deal with a Report like this. I shall give two or three examples of what I mean. The first is the matter dealt with on page 76 and following pages of the Report. It is the very important question of rent and how far you can take rent into account in deciding what benefits you shall pay. As nobody knows better than the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, the question of rent is extremely important when dealing with payment of money, whether in the form of allowances or benefits. In the case of allowances, we devised a flexible scheme under which we were able to ensure that the person receiving the allowance should not be unduly penalized by

327
high rent. In this Report—and I make no criticism of it at all—Sir William Beveridge points out that there is, what everybody knows, a very wide variation of rents between London and the country. He estimates, and I have no doubt he is right—I have no means of checking it, but I accept it—that if you compare rents in London with rents in the average industrial centre, rents in London are about 6s. a week higher. He further points out that rents in agricultural districts are in their turn about 6s. a week lower than in the industrial centres. Therefore you have a very wide discrepancy and divergence in the matter of rent. Clearly that is a most important factor when you are considering either allowances or benefits.
In the Beveridge Report—I do not criticize it in the least, I just state the fact—the two principles which are laid down as fundamental are that the rate of benefit shall be on a subsistence level and that equal contributions shall ensure equal benefits. It seems to me that these two principles are to some extent in mutual conflict and that it is a little difficult to reconcile them. I am quite certain you cannot blame the Government for not accepting, here and now, principles which certainly, on the face of them, bear the stamp of being to some extent in conflict. Sir William Beveridge himself goes into the matter most clearly and fully, and on page 84 reaches this practical conclusion:
"For the purpose of determining standard rates of unemployment and disability benefit, household rent at pre-war levels is taken as 10s. a week for a household and 6s. 6d. a week for a solitary individual."
Then he goes on to say:
"The practicability and desirability of differentiation of both benefits and contributions, regionally or occupationally, in the way suggested in the last paragraph should be examined further in consultation with the persons and bodies affected. If some such body as the Social Insurance Statutory Committee proposed in Change 22 of Part II is established, this question might conveniently be referred statutorily to that Committee.…"
Then in the next paragraph he adds:
"The proposal to adjust benefit according to the rent actually paid by individuals should, provisionally, be rejected."
What does that mean? It means that he makes these recommendations, which I do not criticize for a moment, and that he is at least very doubtful whether the conclusion he has arrived at—namely, that
328
there should be a flat rate of benefit irrespective of rent—is on the right lines. Then he goes on to say that the matter should be further examined, and actually suggests the form in which that examination should be carried out. Are the Government to be blamed because, in the face of such recommendations, they do not produce at once legislation dealing with this most complex of all questions?
May I raise another matter? This appears on page 101 of the Report, in Section 3, under the rather forbidding title, "The Problem of Alternative Remedies." This really is not quite so formidable as it appears. What Sir William Beveridge is dealing with here is the question of workmen's compensation and how it will be fitted into the scheme. He says:
"Some of the needs for which maintenance of income under a plan for social security is required, may arise through causes which give to the person in need a legal claim against another person. These cases are of three main types:
(i) Industrial accidents, in respect of which an injured employee, apart from the Workmen's Compensation Acts, may have a claim against the employer at common law.…"
If I may for a moment give my personal experience, I was very much attracted some years ago by the proposal for a scheme of all-in insurance. Some of my colleagues who were then with me in another place—Lord Addison was one, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack another—will remember that there was a good deal of literature published at the time. A pretty good case was, I thought, made out for a system of all-in insurance. I remember very well pamphlets which were published on the subject by Mr. Broad and Mr. Lessor. With the help of my advisers, I went into the matter as fully as I could. I was brought up against, and baffled by, exactly the same question as Sir William Beveridge has been brought up against and baffled by—namely, the question how you can bring into a system of all-in insurance this matter of workmen's compensation, involving all these questions of alternative remedies and legal claims against other people.
Sir William Beveridge says with regard to this matter in paragraph 264:
"It is not possible in this Report to do more than to raise these questions. Considered answers can be given only after inquiry by some committee with technical and practical qualifications and with time to examine all the detailed issues involved."

329
This question of workmen's compensation was, as I reminded your Lordships a moment ago, part of the terms of reference to the Beveridge Committee. Therefore the question of workmen's compensation, how you shall bring workmen's compensation into an all-embracing scheme of insurance, is a very important one indeed. To proceed, as Lord Nathan would wish us to do, with legislation now, this Session, before this question has been considered for a moment, seems to me would be doing the greatest possible disservice to the efficiency and efficacy of the scheme as a whole.
I will mention just one other matter. This is on page 148 of the Report. It is a technical question, but it is a very important one, and it arises in paragraph 395, entitled "Appeals on Contributions," which reads:
"Determination by or on behalf of the Minister, as to liability to contribution, including the class in which contribution shall be made, will similarly be subject to appeals to local tribunals consisting of Chairmen of the Courts of Referees with further appeal to the Umpire. The problem of the relation between decisions of the Umpire and the ordinary Courts of Law is a matter for further examination."
That is a question which, before you start to legislate on this most important matter, Sir William Beveridge himself says should be further examined, and to proceed now, as is asked, without a further examination of these things is flying in the face of Sir William Beveridge's own recommendation. He recommends you to examine these things further before you do anything about them. Therefore again I say this claim that you should legislate now, either this Session or before these things are cleared up, is quite absurd.
There is one other matter to which I would refer, and I will refer to it in a few sentences. It is this immense question of health. Health, I think, comes under Assumption B of the Report, Assumption A being children's allowances and Assumption C the maintenance of employment. Whatever else may be said about various other aspects of the Report one thing is perfectly certain: a universal health service is indissolubly bound up with the kind of health service referred to by Sir William Beveridge, and health insurance is really the heart and core of the whole scheme. Therefore, until you have ascertained exactly what you are going to do with regard to health, and until you know how
330
the health service can be fitted into the insurance proposals, you really cannot proceed any further. I do not for a moment intend to follow, or indeed to comment on, what Lord Addison has said. He and Lord Dawson of Penn are, I suppose, two of the greatest authorities on this matter. All I would say as a pure layman in this connexion is that before you can begin to legislate, before indeed you can begin to frame your proposals, tremendously important, difficult and far-reaching questions between nurses, doctors, hospitals and so on must be settled. That must be done before you can begin to consider how to frame your legislation.
One further thing I want to say in conclusion is on the question which has been raised so often in this debate—namely, whether von should set up this new Ministry of Social Security now. I confess that I gave such thought as I could to this matter, and I endeavoured to come to a quite impartial conclusion. The way it strikes me is this. It has been said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that these questions which have to be considered and on which conclusions must be reached—some of them I have mentioned to-day—must be the subject of the most careful consideration and examination by experts whose business it is and has been to know about these things. Therefore if you are to set up this Ministry now the first question I ask myself, having been a Minister, is, with whom are you going to start the Ministry? It has been said this afternoon that you should take away officials of the highest rank from other Ministries and put them in this Ministry of Social Security to do this work. My Lords, there is a war on, and civil servants are asked, just as other people are asked, to work to their utmost capacity. What would be the condition of the separate Ministries if you deprived them of all those whose business it is to know, and indeed do know and can help in forming conclusions on these very difficult and technical questions? I think the result upon the Ministries would be disastrous.
What is the alternative? What is the dilemma? The alternative is not to take them away but to appoint other people; not to take these important officials away from existing Ministries but to appoint someone else. The dilemma then is that

331
you either take these officials away from their different Departments, in which case the Departments suffer, or you appoint innocent and ignorant people who know nothing about these matters, and whose help therefore in any case would not be of anything like the same value or indeed of any value at all to those Ministers who ultimately would have to decide on these important matters. I cannot see that at this time it would be anything but harmful to set up at this great cost—I mean the cost of personnel—a separate Ministry to deal with these matters. I hope I have not taken up too much of your Lordships' time, but I have endeavoured at any rate to put some of the points which have occurred to me. There are many others that might have been mentioned had I had time to go into them. I have cited some of the things that have occurred to me as reasons why I think the attacks and criticisms that have been made on the Government at the present time for their actions are ill-founded and unsubstantiated, and should not, I think, be accepted in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, we have listened to an extremely interesting and informative speech, and I doubt whether there is any member of either Horse of Parliament who is better qualified to guide us in regard to the right attitude on this Beveridge Report than the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, who has just sat down. For my part I find myself in agreement with almost everything he has said, but I cannot agree with what he said about a special ad hoc Ministry. I do feel very strongly that we want something of the sort to supply the driving power and provide at any rate an indication of an obvious determination to carry out the greater part, if not the whole, of the plan so ably devised by Sir William Beveridge. The other point upon which I join issue with my noble friend, and he will forgive me for doing it, is his statement that the Social Services of this country are ahead of those of every other country in the world. I agree if he will make one exception, and that is the Dominion of New Zealand which, in a relatively short national existence, has managed to set an example to the Old Land in many matters connected with social reform. Indeed, we have been somewhat belated in copying the example
332
of that loyal and patriotic territory of the British Empire which we could have done with great advantages eventually to our social structure.
I feel bound to endorse the well-deserved tribute which my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe paid to the author of this scheme. I have worked with Sir William Beveridge in several fields of public service and I can testify to his outstanding ability, his impeccable integrity, the thoroughness with which he carries out every task committed to him and, as my noble friend has said, his unparalleled knowledge of social problems in this country. What are we being asked to do? If I understand it aright we are being asked, not to legislate upon any of the matters which are dealt with in the Beveridge Report, but to approve the plan of social reconstruction which is adumbrated in that Report. If that is what we are asked to do, I want to say that I for my part whole-heartedly support the scheme of social insurance and social security embodied in the Report.
I feel quite confident that that great English statesman Disraeli, to whom reference was made just now by the most reverend Primate and whose humble disciple I am, would do that if he were alive to-day. Indeed, as I listened to the eloquent and convincing speech of my noble friend Viscount Samuel, with all of whose arguments I should like to identify myself, I said to myself and was tempted to proclaim aloud: "The spirit of Disraeli, in fresh corporeal embodiment, is present with us to-day in one of the same race as himself." I want to make it perfectly clear, in case there should be any question of Party differences upon this great problem, that there are thousands of Conservatives up and down the country to-day who, with full sincerity and a deep conviction, will re-echo all that the noble Viscount has said. I could have wished that he had not, towards the end of his speech, struck to a small extent a Party note, when he referred to the debate on the National Health Insurance Bill in another place in 1912. The veteran statesman who piloted that Bill through the House of Commons frankly admitted, as I think the noble Viscount will find if he refers to the Official Report of the Third Reading debate on that Bill, the constructive help which many of my colleagues and I myself endeavoured to give him in

333
putting the Bill into more workable shape, especially as it affected the great friendly societies of this country and the rural workers.
May I venture to state what, for a long time past, have appeared to me to be the outstanding social blots upon our national escutcheon? I put first the pre-war distressed areas which have been designated the Special Areas. Secondly, there are the slums of our cities with their baneful effect upon the character and the health of our people. Thirdly, there are the beggars in our streets, a prevalent eyesore which is forbidden in New Zealand and certain other civilized countries. This, although not the most serious, is the most obvious blot and a source of surprise and criticism on the part of our visitors from overseas. Fourthly, there is the restriction of food production when no small part of the population are underfed while, by a strange irony that has already been indicated to-day in the speech of the noble Lord opposite, others remain unemployed who might well be employed in supplying their needs. I make reference to this because I was delighted to see in to-day's newspapers that President Roosevelt made yesterday a welcome disclosure of a forthcoming exploratory conference for co-ordinating post-war food plans with a view to balancing supply and demand in the matter of food throughout the world. I most earnestly hope that our Government will lend all the support they can to that enterprise to which that great American statesman has put his hand.
May I add just one other blot—a wartime blot which has been very evident to those of us who live in the rural areas that are also reception areas for evacuees? That is, the condition and the outlook on He of a large number of those who have poured into those areas from professedly well-administered cities, not merely London, but Birmingham, Plymouth and other places that I could mention. The conscience of our country folk has been deeply shocked by what they have seen and heard of the condition and conduct of some of those unfortunate outpourings of the urban slums. Should such a state of things exist in what is relatively one of the richest countries in the world and in a country which is always boasting of its social legislation and the efficiency of its local government administration? I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord
334
who is to reply to this debate will have to say in reference to some of these conditions with which he must be personally familiar. For three years, 1935–1938, it became my duty, as I believe it became his duty as my successor as President of the National Council of Social Service, to visit periodically the abnormally distressed areas—the Special Areas—in counties like Durham, Cumberland, Staffordshire, South Wales and elsewhere. I cannot believe that anyone who during that period was conversant with the conditions obtaining in those areas could possibly do otherwise than welcome the Beveridge Report and deprecate any tendency to whittle down its scope or unduly to defer the inauguration of the compact and comprehensive scheme of security which it discloses.
I support the plan, the whole plan of the Beveridge Report, as a method of organization of social wellbeing and stability. I would earnestly appeal to the Government not to destroy the compact comprehensiveness of such a scheme or the inter-relation of its several parts, and I believe that nothing is more likely to retain that compactness and throw in the necessary drive than the early establishment of a Social Security Department in this country. The present methods of social insurance are unsystematic, incoherent and very wasteful in their administration. Surely nothing could secure more cohesion or effective and smooth working, and above all the avoidance of inter-departmental friction and, disagreement, than the establishment of an ad hoc Social Security Department. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, very appropriately said this is what we want as the keystone of the arch. Without it the whole fabric would display considerable inherent weakness.
Then it has been asked what is the good of a separate Department if a good many of the experts have to be drawn from other existing Departments of State? I see no necessity for drawing those experts from other Departments. What, surely, we want is someone who will represent a co-ordination of these various services that are now discharged efficiently under various existing Departments of State; some Minister at the head, if you like, of a skeleton Department which will act as a liaison in regard to all these different functions, which may be summarized

335
under the head of Social Service. And surely no more efficient Minister could possibly be recommended to the Crown for this headship than Sir William Beveridge himself. The noble Lord who has just spoken has indicated by his tribute that there is no one better equipped for such a task, and I may remind your Lordships that Sir William Beveridge has already acted as Permanent Secretary to a Department of State. That was in the time of the existence, during the last war, of the first Ministry of Food. There was no more efficient head of any Department at that time than Sir William Beveridge.
The noble Viscount opposite, very wisely I thought, asked the question: In the matter of social benefits is this Beveridge Scheme just as between man and man and between class and class? And he very wisely, in my judgment, answered "You must in these matters treat the community as a whole." If there were any doubt about that I would like to quote these relevant words from the best of all books: "We are all members one of the other: If one member suffers all the members suffer with it." I should like to see that motto written over the portals of the new Ministry of Social Security. When the noble Marquess opposite just now pressed his point in regard to the noble and learned Viscount's criticism—which was rather drastic—of the suggestion of a Ministry of Social Security, I was delighted to hear that the noble and learned Viscount said—I think I am right in so interpreting what he said—that he did not turn down definitely the proposal for establishing a Ministry of Social Security but he did not consider that it was necessary to put it in hand at once. I noticed that in his speech yesterday, which unfortunately I was not here to listen to, he emphasized very much the intrusion, as it were, of such a Department into the spheres of activity of various other existing Departments. But does not a similar measure of intrusion obtain to-day in regard to some of these Departments?
For instance, the Board of Education has to call in officials of the Ministry of Health in regard to medical service as applied to our schools. Agricultural education, as a matter of fact, is mainly in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, but always in consultation again with the Board of Education which, after
336
all supplies the basic foundation upon which the superstructure of agricultural technique is supposed to be based. Take the police administration of this country. It is in the hands of the local authorities; administered in loco by what are called the Standing Joint Committees of the Counties, a body operating under the ægis of the Local Government Board, or as we now call it the Ministry of Health, but exercising functions mainly the concern of the Home Office. Surely there are plenty of illustrations to show that it is only a matter of co-ordination that is needed—I think the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Lang, referred to that term with some contumely yesterday, but I know of no better term—of co-ordination between various Departments with separate liaisons and a driving force as represented by the new Department of Social Security.
The noble Viscount very properly pointed out how varying were the benefits which employees of various industrial companies derive from their companies' welfare schemes. It is common knowledge all over the country that these benefits vary with the affluence and prosperity of the companies that provide them. Of all the great industries the one which is the least able to provide such benefits is that of agriculture, and, as several noble Lords have pointed out with great truth, to enhance the purchasing capacity of the poor is to promote more employment for those whose goods they buy. I notice, and I think the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack quoted it yesterday, that Sir William Beveridge emphasized the importance of attacking five great evils—want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
He went on, in speaking of idleness, to describe it as a condition which destroyed wealth and which corrupted men, whether well-paid or not, and I would add whether Peer or peasant, rich or poor. All will have to work after this war, energetically, patriotically and contentedly. Public opinion should hold idleness in contempt; but neither public opinion nor Government administration can confidently check idleness if the bedrock causes of idleness are not tackled and eradicated. The science of ætiology—if I may use a term which the noble Lord opposite will understand—is needed as well as that of therapeutics. In New Zealand a social security scheme was inaugurated seven years ago.

337
I would ask noble Lords to observe this, because they sometimes regard New Zealand with some suspicion.
LORD ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I know that the noble Lord would not, but there are noble Lords who regard anything that is initiated in New Zealand with some suspicion, because they imagine that the people there are trying experiments the value of which has not been fully demonstrated. That may be so, but, in regard to idleness, it is worth noting that, from the moment that they instituted their scheme of social security, they made it perfectly clear that they were not going to tolerate idleness on the part of anyone, to whatever class of the community he might belong; and they put a stop, with greater courage than any former New Zealand Government had shown, to an immense amount of the malingering, "ca'canny," and idleness which existed prior to the social security scheme coming into operation.
When I was President of the National Council of Social Service, it was my interesting but rather melancholy experience to visit the Special Areas, and particularly the occupational centres which, if the Beveridge Report is carried out, I hope will be recognized as a valuable pattern for the training of those who are temporarily unemployed. The saddest experience which I had when doing this was when visiting a certain very depressed area—I shall not mention the name—in one of the North of England counties, and when, on entering the so-called occupational centre, I did not find, as I had found in other places, a large number of men and women doing very valuable constructive work of varied descriptions, but, instead, no fewer than thirty young men, between the ages of 16 and 22, in a crowded, stuffy atmosphere, full of stale smoke and with every sort of filth on the floor, playing at darts or with very dirty playing cards. I inquired why these young men were not taking up occupational activities such as I had found going on in other centres, and they frankly told me that none of these people had had any work since leaving school, that the Government were providing for their bare subsistence, and that that was all that they wanted. They were not in the least interested in learning any occupation with a view to a future avocation.
338
Can you imagine anything more pathetic or anything more depressing in a country such as this, where we boast of our thrift, of our manual dexterity and, above all, of the individual enterprise which has made both this country and the Empire what they are? Those are conditions which I want to see rendered absolutely impossible in days to come.
I welcome very particularly the Government's acceptance of the principle of family allowances, and especially for this reason. Not only is the birth-rate decreasing—a serious fact in a great Empire which is crying out for people of British extraction to enter its sparsely-populated oversea territories, which are the envy of our enemies and a source of criticism because we do not make better use of them—but it is the thrifty, the prudent and the mentally-best-equipped who, out of regard for their progeny, are limiting the number of their children, to the disadvantage and possible ultimate decay of our own race. On the other hand, you will find people without those qualities who have very little conscience about increasing their families, with no prospect of being able to support them.
I want to say a word about the Citizens' Advice Bureaux which are mentioned in the Beveridge Report, and which have been of incalculable value during this war period. I happen to be at the present time the Chairman of the Regional Advisory Committee of the National Council of Social Service, covering the five South-Western counties. We have in the country to-day several hundreds of these citizens' advice bureaux, to which people evacuated from their homes and people who have lost their homes owing to enemy action come in large numbers to obtain advice upon every imaginable subject. The existence of these bureaux has disclosed an extraordinary lack of knowledge on the part of the ordinary, impoverished, less-educated citizen about every manner of problem—problems with which your Lordships are perfectly familiar, and with which two-thirds of the educated people of the country must be familiar also. What has struck us so forcibly is the immense amount of discomfort, financial loss, and in some cases actual distress, which must have been caused owing to the lack of these advice bureaux in normal conditions in this country in many of our crowded towns.

339
Sir William Beveridge makes it perfectly clear in Part V of his Report, paragraph 397, that there is great scope for the perpetuation of these advice bureaux, in order to meet the requirements of many of these unfortunate people after the war.
I wish to say only one further word with regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Personally, I find it impossible to agree with him in placing social security, as adumbrated in the Beveridge Report, on the same footing as regards financial priority as national defence. The attainment of a complete measure of social security is impracticable without an adequate measure of national and Imperial security—the defence of our shores against enemy aggression. By too much concentration on our internal problems, we have twice within the last quarter of a century been lulled into a sense of false security, with resultant unspeakable loss of life and treasure. Let social security rank, if you like, next in order, but let the needs of our Navy, Army and Air Force come first.
May I with all deference say one word to those who, as the result of their enterprise and energy, are blessed in full measure with the good things of this life? This plan is a stability insurance not merely for the workers but for themselves. If adopted it will add to the efficiency of their employees, many of whom are under-nourished to-day and with no confidence in their future, and to a greater keenness on their part about the welfare of the industry that employs them. Moreover, by ironing out, or rather smoothing out, the irregularities in economic fortunes, and removing all pretext for the carking dread of penury, it will foster the spirit of contentment and inter-class harmony which is so essential not only to the avoidance of social upheaval but to that national solidarity without which this great high-souled nation can never effectively lead the world along the path of constructive progress.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, if on the occasion of my first speech here I ask your Lordships' indulgence, I do so with rather more reason than some of my colleagues who have recently come to this place from the other House. They have come here fresh from constantly taking part in debates, whereas, while in my first
340
years in the other House I spoke not infrequently, the House then—whether post hoc or propter hoc it is not for me to say—put me in a position where I was debarred thenceforth from taking any part in the debates of that House. I want to make one observation, if I may, about Lord Nathan's speech yesterday, in which he referred to the harm which the Government had done by their reception of this Beveridge Report. I refer to this because I come straight from watching closely the latest by-election in the country in the division which I formerly represented, and I certainly can say that the debates in the House of Commons did an immense amount of harm from the purely political point of view of influencing the constituencies. But my own view—I listened to Sir John Anderson's speech in another place—is that the Government put forward a well-considered, critical examination of the Report, and an examination which obviously was sympathetic, and in those circumstances, although I think that their treatment of the Report may have been unfortunate in the way I have just stated, their mistake, if any, was that they were too honest and too frank to have the effect which might have been sought for in the constituencies.
It has been made quite clear, at any rate here in this debate, that—indeed on Sir William Beveridge's own showing—the picture which he draws or the plan which he sets forward is by no means one ready for immediate legislation, and that there is an immense amount of work to be done by the Government before they can even get to the stage at which they are in a position to give instructions to the draftsmen. If that is the case, could any of your Lordships have had confidence or reasonable trust in a Government which would have done what apparently Lord Nathan would have had them do, by saying: "We accept this Report as a whole; we will now start to put it straight into law." I think the Government have been unfortunate in this matter, but I sincerely hope that the speeches which we heard yesterday and to-day may do much to remedy it.
There is one weakness perhaps in this Report, and in saying that I am not criticizing Sir William Beveridge, because I do not think he could have done otherwise, or he might have said that he was

341
going outside his terms of reference. It is that he has based his plan, perhaps was bound to base his plan, on calculations of money; that is to say, on calculations of pounds, or millions of pounds. It is easy, of course, to recognize at once that that does not get to the root of the matter. Money is merely a yardstick, a convenient measurement of wealth, and incidentally a means of exchange, but what we want for the purpose of this plan is not money—that would be no use—it is the means, the material, on which to base and implement the Report. If the plan could be and were put into law by immediate legislation, giving the beneficiaries in certain instances £4 a week, or whatever it might be, what would be the use of that if we had not got the materials behind it? Lord Bennett showed conclusively, I think, yesterday that at the present time and at the conclusion of the war it was perfectly certain that on a mere calculation of pounds, or millions of pounds, the country would not be able to afford the finance of this scheme. But if you ask me whether we can afford this scheme or not, I say unhesitatingly, "Of course we can, subject to one condition." That one condition is that we provide—here is a difficulty in getting the right word—that we provide the wealth, the materials, or the means which are necessary to carry it out. I say there is a difficulty in getting the exact word because, as I have said, the word "money" does not really apply. If we were to put this plan into law, into a form of legislation, immediately and had not got behind it these materials upon which to base it, what would be the result? The result would be disastrous to all those who are intended to be beneficiaries under the scheme. It would mean such an amount of inflation that the £4 a week would not be worth 4s. a week. And it is there that we have got to be so careful. It is therefore to this particular point of the means to enable us to implement this great plan that I want to call your Lordships' attention.
I say unhesitatingly that we can afford it on one condition—a condition which I think we can fulfil—namely, that as soon as possible after the war, we do produce the necessary wealth for the purpose. If we had been asked six months before the outbreak of war if we could afford the expenditure which we have incurred in the war, there is nobody but would have
342
answered the question in the negative. But the effect of war has been to increase our production of wealth of a particular kind far beyond what we ever dreamed of beforehand. I shall not go into how much is being paid out of taxation and how much out of borrowing. The fact is that, in actual production, we have produced an immense amount more than we ever produced in our history in peace-time or indeed in the last war. If we have been able to do that by the good will and unity of the people under the stress of war—and I may add the guidance of a determined and united Government—surely we can make the same effort to do what people talk about so glibly as equally important as winning the war—namely, win the peace.
We have got to turn, as soon as hostilities come to an end, as quickly as we can, not to a period of comparative rest, but to a period of equal effort and hard work in order, first of all, to produce what we need for our bare subsistence in the state in which we shall then be, and, more than that, produce what is necessary for a better and higher standard of life and greater social security. I believe we can do it, but to do it we must exert the same effort, and we must show equal determination to that which we have shown during the war. If I may venture a criticism of the Government's attitude on this matter, it is that they do not appear to me, at any rate, to have considered, or got other people to consider, how this switch-over from production for war purposes to production for peace purposes is to be carried out. Difficult as has been Sir William Beveridge's task, that is a task which will be even more difficult. I urge that the Government should seriously consider setting up some form of Committee, which will have to be very carefully chosen, of able and special persons, to try and work out a definite scheme for this change-over from war production to peace production.
Let me suggest one or two of the details which would have to be carried out. Take the question of aircraft and civil aviation after the war. Transport by air will be one of the most important things in our industry and trade after the war. We shall have in existence an immense number of very capable and excellent aircraft factories, but these will not be suitable for producing the new kind of aircraft without a certain amount of reconstruction

343
and alteration. That is one thing that will have to be done, and the amount of factory accommodation necessary for that purpose will be a mere negligible part of that which we have needed for purposes of war. Therefore the other aircraft factories will be redundant unless, and until, they have turned over to other useful work. Then take the motor trade. We have got to remember, in connexion with this particularly, that not only have we to produce for our own consumption, but to produce in order to obtain from other countries those things needed by us which we cannot produce ourselves. For all practical purposes, from a peace-time point of view, this war has put an end to the motor car industry, but that industry will be, and should be, one of our most hopeful industries in the future. As one example of the considerations which the Committee I have suggested would have to go into, I would point out that before the war we made mainly small cars of a kind useful in our own country, but after the war the value of our motor car manufactures should be very largely for export purposes. The Government will have to consider whether they cannot do something, by altering the method of taxation or otherwise, to make the manufacture of cars for export easier.
On that question of export, may I refer for a moment to the Export Credits Council, a body which even during this war has done an immense amount of very valuable work? It will have more to do, under more difficult and different circumstances, when the war is over. In considering this question of the turn-over from war to peace, I hope the Government will consult with the Export Credits Council and do their best to give that body such freedom as it may need. The Treasury has always treated the Council with sympathy, but I hope it will give it the revised powers which it will probably need after the war, and thus put it in a position to deal with the new situation. I would just refer to one part of the world in which it may be useful—Egypt. Egypt, like many other parts of the world, like British Dependencies, will want help from us. Help given to Egypt should result in our doing great things for ourselves as well. There are needed in Egypt many things that we can make. There is probably in Egypt at the present
344
time something which we want very much. I believe the matter is really in its infancy, and not fully investigated, but I understand there is a very large potential supply of iron ore which may be obtained from there. That will not be obtained unless the necessary arrangements are made for financing the exchange of that raw material from Egypt for, perhaps, coal from this country and things of that kind. Here is a matter in which the Export Credits Council will be of the greatest use. That leads me to the consideration of transport and shipping. There again we shall have, no doubt, an immense amount of shipping available at the end of the war, but it will be shipping which has been used for war purposes and which will require adaptation to peace purposes. That is a matter which will need very careful consideration.
I shall not detain your Lordships longer, but I do want with all the earnestness of which I am capable to impress upon the Government the necessity—I have no doubt the matter has not been overlooked—of getting people to do what members of the Government themselves cannot do; getting some Committee, as they got Sir William Beveridge to make this great Report, to investigate and to advise upon this question of the turn-over from war to peace; to advise as to what is necessary in order to preserve and turn over to the new situation the great possibilities which our production for war purposes has shown to exist in this country. Much of the Government control—may I call it unpleasant control?—which we have accepted willingly for the purposes of the war, will have to remain after the war. Just as we have spent years in labour and endeavour and the restriction of luxuries in order to save the life of the country, so we must go on and submit to a certain amount of the same control, to a considerable amount of rationing and restriction of luxuries, until we have not only replaced the great wastage of our wealth and reserves that has occurred during this war, but have also provided what is necessary both to put us back into the position in which we were and to enable us to realize that improved standard of living for all classes in this country which is envisaged in the magnificent Report that Sir William Beveridge has produced.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I feel that your Lordships would wish me first of

345
all to congratulate very warmly the noble Lord who has just sat down on the admirable first speech he has made in your Lordships' House. I hope we may often have the opportunity of listening to his advice, advice which must be all the more valuable on account of the great experience the noble Lord has gained in another place. I intend to be very brief in view of the lateness of the hour, and I shall not enter into the controversy, to my mind the very unhappy controversy, which has arisen about the Beveridge Report. That controversy has arisen between men who, I believe, are all inspired by social good will, and it seems to me to turn very largely upon the discussion of financial potentialities. I wish we could have had a little more light thrown on this aspect of the matter.
I assume that we are all in favour of a large measure of social betterment. We want to see provision made against unemployment, against sickness, and for old age. We desire equal opportunities for all, so far as that may be practicable. We wish certainly to see the abolition of extremes of poverty and of wealth, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his speech yesterday, and we desire that all parents shall be able to provide proper and adequate maintenance, housing and education for their children either by a system of sufficient family allowances or otherwise. I do not know whether many of your Lordships are aware that various Papal pronouncements have emphasized that these social conditions should prevail in a well-ordered Christian State. It seems to me that many of these ends can best be obtained by the methods outlined in the Beveridge Report; therefore I very gladly and willingly accept the principles of that Report. I feel, however, that any questions relating to priorities, to priorities for parts of the plan, and to the speed with which they can be given effect to, must really be left to the decision of the Government. I cannot believe that a National Government comprising the leaders of all the Parties will not wish to do their utmost to bring to fulfilment as quickly as possible the high hopes which have been raised in so many hearts by the Beveridge Report. I intended to bring another point to your Lordships' notice but in view of the fact that the speaker for the Government is anxious to address You now, I shall refrain from doing so.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the main charges which have been made against His Majesty's Government in the debate have been met on the whole by the speech of the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack yesterday. My task, therefore, is not to go over the same but and repeat the same arguments but to try and remove any feelings of disappointment that may still exist and to assure my noble and gallant friend Lord Nathan that things are not always as black as they seem. The debate has served one overwhelmingly important purpose. The Report after a searching debate emerges with the general approval of Parliament, the approval of the Government, and the approval of the nation as a whole. That general approval is a recognition of its special excellence and of the importance of the problems with which it deals. The criticisms made have been a demand for approval of everything that it contains and for undelayed action, and some resentment has been expressed because there has been no promise of immediate legislation. There has been another kind of criticism, too, which has asked: "Where is the money to come from? If we could give effect to the provisions of the Report without much inconvenience, how happy we should all be to agree to that being done.
It is said by some that the right policy would be to wait and see how we get on and to do nothing until the war is over. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on that aspect of the matter is that to do nothing would in reality be to do a good deal: it would leave post-war problems to be settled by uncontrolled economic forces with consequences that you cannot at present foresee and which we might not be able to control. Something must be done and the attitude of the Government is that they cannot agree to take refuge in mere postponement. On the other hand, the financial aspect of the case is overwhelmingly important, and was stressed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his speech yesterday. It would be folly on the part of any Government to ignore the financial outlook and consequences attached to action. The Government are the guardians of the national treasure, and it is their duty to watch with the utmost care not only present expenditure but expenditure that would be incurred through policies of

347
their own. At the same time, the Government are determined that the financial aspect shall not be the sole determining factor. To neglect on purely financial grounds to provide for future social security might be a mistaken policy in itself and would betray the aspirations of the most order-loving and worthy people in the world. The right way of approach to the consideration of financial difficulties would be to prepare in faith and hope and be ready for action whenever the moment for action comes.
The case for the utmost caution and delay was put with a good deal of force in the speech of my noble friend Viscount Bennett yesterday. He reviewed the future with anxiety. He wished, first of all, to win the war and then exploit the opportunities which peace will provide. But there is no need, in my judgment, to take a hopelessly pessimistic attitude in regard to post-war conditions. The figures of debt and all that is demanded of us are indeed startling, and yet I comfort myself with such odds and ends of my previous economic studies that I remember, with the feeling that, after all, a nation lives on its current production and expenditure. If we can so organize our economic life that we can secure full productivity for our people, then I think the balance between expenditure and income need not altogether frighten us. In any case we must face this matter with a sense of reality but not in a temper of despair. To paraphrase an old text, there is an expenditure which is profitable and there is a parsimony which is impoverishing.
There have been pessimists in other times than our own, men who were filled with anxiety about the economic and financial future of our country. Throughout the nineteenth century that note was constantly sounded. William Pitt, for instance, declared: "There is scarcely anything around us but ruin and despair." Wilberforce went so far as to say: "I dare not marry, the future is so dark and unsettled." Lord Grey said he "believed everything was tending to a convulsion," and the Duke of Wellington, in 1851, "thanked God that he would be spared from seeing the consummation of ruin that is gathering around." Disraeli, who has been referred to in this debate, said: "In industry, commerce and agriculture there is no hope"; and Lord
348
Shaftesbury said: "Nothing can save the British Empire from shipwreck." We have not heard anything worse than that even in this debate. All these eminent gentlemen were wrong. There were similar voices in America and the facts of history tell us that after these lamentations both countries entered upon a period of unexampled progress and prosperity.
LORD WINSTER: May I ask whether the noble Lord has any quotations from 1931 at the time of the formation of the National Government?
LORD SNELL: I could have quoted what might have been the position after the Reform Bill, but that would be rather controversial and I will side-track that if you will allow me to do so. My noble friend Viscount Samuel, in his most able speech, advised us that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not say that. I treated that maxim with scorn and derision.
LORD SNELL: It was at least approved of by Robert Louis Stevenson whom the noble Viscount quoted. In any case, it seems to me the right attitude is to travel with your eves on the future, to see, if you can, where you are going. There are too many people who just move without knowing where they are going, like travellers in a railway train who prefer to sit with their backs to the engine on the ground that while they do not mind which way they are going they do like to see where they have been.
The demands of the debate have, on the whole, as I say, been met by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I think it is a perfect summary of the attitude of the Government that the Report has their approval in principle and it has behind it their good will. To carry out all the proposals will not be a simple matter. The Government will decide what they can do and when they can do it and what shall have priority if priority is to be given. That is not a rebuff to the Beveridge Report but it is Beveridge unsweetened. It is Beveridge reduced, as it were, to reality, and Sir William Beveridge himself has always foreseen that. He said that it would be a mistake to assume that
"… we shall at once be able to afford almost anything …. There will be heavy

349
burdens which can only be met by the central Government in the immediate aftermath of war."
The Lord President of the Council said in another place a few days ago:
"The scheme will be worked out as rapidly as possible to the stage of draft legislation. … The Government and Parliament will have to take their decision in the light of the fullest information as to the financial situation that can be made available."
It might, as a matter of comfort to my noble friend Lord Nathan, be helpful to say that between 80 and 90 per cent.
the Beveridge Report has been approved by his Majesty's Government. There were six main principles in the Report: flat rate of subsistence benefit, flat rate of contributions, unification of administration, adequacy of benefit, comprehensiveness or universality, and the classification of beneficiaries. All these, except one—the principle of subsistence basis—have been accepted. There the Government have stated that they aim to fix an unemployment benefit which will mean practically the same thing. The Report suggested twenty-three separate changes. One of these changes has been rejected, that of insurance, as a public utility which is only an optional thing to begin with. Six have been left open for further consideration, and sixteen have been accepted.
Your Lordships would almost suppose horn some comments that have been made that the Report had been rejected or that it had been treated with an indolent complacency, but I do not think that that will be proved, on examination, to be correct. My noble friend Lord Nathan treated the Government, in his speech yesterday, as though they had actually murdered the Beveridge Report, and now appeared before Parliament with blood on their hands. He looked at me so sternly that I was almost afraid he was going to say: "Thou art the man." According to Lord Nathan's criticism, our situation is little better than that of Lady Macbeth. She too had blood on her hands after murdering Duncan, but the difference is that she called in vain for the perfumes of Arabia, whereas Lord Nathan, in his effort, as he said, to be quite fair, admitted that there was at any rate a "smell of progress" on the part of His Majesty's Government.
Well, there is only the charge of delay that I need to argue to-day. The world is full of people who, for a great part,
350
of their lives, are opposed to, or are indifferent to, changes that are proposed, and suddenly they see the light and come back with all the zeal of St. Paul after he had had the vision on the way to Damascus. Everything must be done at once, they say. Now let us see what has been done. This Report was published on the 2nd December—thirteen weeks ago. In principle, the Report has been already accepted. Specific proposals in it have been approved, future procedure is receiving considerable attention, and now Parliament is giving the Report its exhaustive consideration. My Lords, with some record of personal impatience about these matters, I venture to suggest to you that that is not bad going as things are. If what has been done had been done by a private competitive firm, what a proof of the speed and efficiency of individual enterprise that would have been called. I could carry the argument a little further by saying that work is going forward on this matter day by day To-day a White Paper, Command Paper Number 6248, has been issued dealing with training in the building industry. It shows the work which will have to be done before we can see our way through all the problems in this matter. I think the argument in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Social Security now has, on the whole, been understood. It is an immensely difficult thing to set up a new Ministry and to make it at once efficient. My noble friend Lord Addison, to-day, if I understood him aright, acknowledged that it took him eighteen months to get agreement as to the establishment of a Ministry of Health. Well, thirteen weeks is not eighteen months, and it must be remembered that Ministers of the Crown have certain preoccupations which are vital to the interests of the country.
I think that people expected a certain delay in the implementing of these matters. Mr. Arthur Greenwood, for example, on 1st December last, asked for no more than that early in the new year there should be a fairly reasonable opportunity, before the Government had made up their minds, for the House to express its considered opinion. The House has had that opportunity and has expressed its opinion. I think that while desiring action as quickly as possible, it is not unmindful of the work that has already been done. The question of children's allowances has been mentioned, and I regard that as an almost

351
revolutionary change in our outlook, which the Government have accepted in thirteen weeks. I remember that it took the T.U.C. far longer than that to make up its mind on that great problem. The proposal is that it shall be 5s., and the idea of Sir William Beveridge was that it should be 8s. But the desire of the Government is, by the development of child welfare, to bring up the total benefit to something like the level which he proposed. I regret that we cannot promise a Bill on any given date. Matters of great complexity are involved, and Parliament can, if it so desires, have the whole subject before it again at a later date if it thinks that there is undue delay.
This debate is now ending. I have tried to compress my own contribution to it into a very short time. If I may be allowed to say so, it has not only been a very useful debate but it has been conducted on a high level. My noble friend Lord Nathan was good enough to say yesterday that he wanted to give the Government a second chance. The Government do not like to be outdone in generosity, and therefore on their part they are willing to give the critics another chance, to consider quietly and with sincerity whether they, if they had the preoccupation of a war on their shoulders, would have done much better. The nation, at any rate, is not unaware that Ministers are concerned with matters vital to its very life, and it will not condemn them because in thirteen weeks their examination of the vast problems opened up by the Beveridge Report has not been completed. The decisions arrived at are not final, and Parliament can at any time it pleases call upon the Government to report progress in the carrying out of the Report.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, however much we may differ in other respects—and I know that some noble Lords do differ from the opinions which I have put forward—it will be common ground, I believe, that this debate has been useful and not unimportant. I do not propose to attempt to traverse the whole ground of this debate, or to occupy your Lordships for more than a few moments. I recognize, and have done from the first, what my noble friend said just now as to the views of the Government with regard to the assumptions made and the various changes proposed by Sir William Beveridge, but I have noted also
352
that Sir John Anderson in the House of Commons prefaced his statement by saying that the Government took no commitment in regard to those assumptions and ended it by saying that the Government had taken no commitment in respect of them. That was underlined and emphasized by Sir Kingsley Wood and not varied by Mr. Herbert Morrison.
The question which I have put to myself in listening to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor yesterday, and to my noble friend Lord Snell, is this: Is there any certainty that the Government will put into effect any of these proposals before the end of the war? I am confronted in particular with this formidable question. Large hopes and expectations have been aroused by the way in which this Report was publicized. It has become, as has been said on more than one occasion, a symbol and a test. I put this to the Lord Chancellor, and I put it to Lord Snell: Can I go with hand upon heart to the soldiers, sailors and airmen in the Forces, and to the men and women who are working in our factories, and say to them: "You can rely, when you come home again, on finding that the state of the nation is such that these three assumptions"—or perhaps only two of them, for perhaps only two can be given effect by legislation—" and these sixteen or seventeen changes are part of the law of the land and in operation, so that when you are demobilized you will find that you have these substantial advantages which are adumbrated in the Beveridge Report"? That is the crucial question. If the answer is "Yes, you can rely upon that when you come home," there is no more to be said; we are all at one; but is that the answer which any honest man can now give to those in the Forces and to those in industry? There is nothing in what has been said by the Lord Chancellor or by Lord Snell which I feel would justify me in making any such statement, unless now—and I give them the opportunity—they tell me that I am wrong in that. There is no answer; I must assume that the view which I have formed is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, taunted me with making the suggestion that all these measures should be passed into law at once. Of course I did no such thing. I asked that the plan—though not every detail of it—should be accepted now, and I asked that legislation

353
by continuous stages should be begun now. I am anxious, as I have indicated, that this scheme in its broad essentials shall be effective by the end of the war. I would refer the noble Lord to what Sir William Beveridge said on page 168 of the Report, paragraph 451. I shall quote only one sentence:
"If a plan for freedom from want, so far as social security can give it, is to be ready when the war ends, it must be prepared during the war."
That is what I am asking for, and, when he says "prepared" he means that all the steps must be taken to bring it into effect when the war ends. That, as I have said, is the crucial question.
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor made a speech of very great dexterity yesterday in defence of the Government, a speech which I much admired, although I did not find myself fully convinced by it. He was inclined to castigate me, I think, for criticizing the Government. Ever since this Government was formed, I have by both word and action, so far as lay in my power, been a warm supporter of the Government. I have supported them loyally; and if yesterday I felt it my duty, as I did, to speak warmly, it was because I feel warmly upon this subject. But I seek not points of difference but points of agreement.
There is a matter to which it is essential that Parliament should give its attention, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, did incidentally refer. There is growing up now a wide cleavage of opinion, not along Party lines but which cuts across Parties. It is on this question: Is reconstruction for after the war to be proceeded with now, with all possible force and speed, concurrently with the full prosecution of the war to a victorious conclusion, which, of course, must be our first aim, or are we to follow the line of thought which was the burden of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, yesterday, as I understood it, and are we to wait until the war is over and then start, in the chaotic situation with which we shall then be confronted, to put together plans for reconstruction? On that question a really formidable cleavage of opinion is growing up, a cleavage which, as I say, is not along Party lines. The differences with regard to the Government's attitude on the Beveridge scheme have been an indication and a symptom of that cleavage of opinion.
354
Are the Government, with all their qualifications and conditions, really playing for delay in order to appease the one school of thought, or are they, on the other hand, binding themselves with the utmost energy to bring in the necessary legislation as soon as it is reasonably possible with a view to its becoming the law of the land, ready to be carried into effect when demobilization occurs? That is the crucial question. It is only another way of putting that which I put earlier. I must confess I do not feel that either the Lord Chancellor or my noble friend opposite has given any satisfying reply to that question. They leave, at least in my mind, a feeling of disturbance as to what really is in the mind of the Government in this matter. Because we really must know now what we are going to tell those in the Forces and those in the factories as to the situation which they may expect to find when they come home. Is it to be Beveridge or is it to be No Beveridge? That is what they want to know.
My noble friend Lord Addison this afternoon spoke about the mobilization of unity, and I know that the Lord Chancellor and the other members of His Majesty's Government must be anxious to mobilize for the common purpose people of every school of thought. All of us have shown ourselves anxious hitherto, and I earnestly believe we are all of us anxious—I know I am—to pursue that same line now and until the war is brought to a conclusion. But it does involve the Government's taking into account all points of view. To-day we have come to the end of two days' debate following upon three days' debate in another place on this Report. Very strong views in certain directions have been expressed. It will have been observed that in the course of the debate in your Lordships' House scarcely a speaker—two perhaps—did not support the idea of the immediate creation of a Ministry of Social Security. I said yesterday that the Government had a second chance, and I expressed the hope that they would take advantage of it. They have had the opportunity, they have it still. They can still make this concession to the almost unanimous feeling of the House of Lords and the wide feeling that there is outside.
I really was not speaking vaguely, or without knowledge, or without a sense of responsibility, when I said yesterday that

355
the question of the creation or not of a Ministry of Social Security now has become the test of sincerity. It may be very foolish that it should have become so, but it has. Now, if the Government would make that concession to feeling, I believe that an entirely new atmosphere would be created, in regard not merely to this whole matter of the Beveridge proposals but also in regard to reconstruction as a whole. For the attitude that the Government adopt with regard to the Beveridge Report will indicate in the minds of the people the attitude which the Government will adopt with regard to reconstruction. I have no desire to detain your Lordships further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCOTTISH CROWN LANDS.
  SCOTTISH CROWN LANDS.
  SHOPPING FACILITIES FOR WOMEN WORKERS.
  SHOPPING FACILITIES FOR WOMEN WORKERS.