Sitting of 20 January 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the County of Kent (Ashford Division), in the room of William Patrick Spens, Esquire, O.B.E., K.C. (Manor of Northstead)—[Mr. James Stuart.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST-WAR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

    United Nations (Common Programme)
    Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has yet been taken in consultation with the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to prepare a common programme of post-war economic co-operation, so as to carry into effect the objects of the Atlantic Charter, the Lease-Lend Agreement and the Anglo-Russian Agreement?
    Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether conversations have yet been opened with the other Governments of the United Nations, particularly the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on the question of economic reconstruction after the war; and, if so, what progress has been made?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to prepare a common programme of post-war economic co-operation in consultation with the Governments named and other Governments of the United Nations, and considerable progress has been made by the Government in the preparatory work required for their part in the formulation of such a programme.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Then there is no truth in the rumour that the British and Soviet
    182
    Governments are practically at loggerheads?
    Mr. Eden: I think I can reassure the hon. Member completely on that point.

  NAZI LEADERS (PUNISHMENT)
  Sir Percy Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Goering and other Nazi leaders have bought estates in Sweden and other neutral countries; and whether His Majesty's Government will refuse to agree to their crimes being regarded as political and therefore non-extraditable, so that they cannot follow the example of Kaiser Wilhelm and escape to a neutral country?
  Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Question, I have seen reports to this effect. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).
  Sir P. Hurd: Then the matter is receiving further attention?
  Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend explained that we are in communication with other Governments about this very difficult question.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the International Labour Office has suffered a loss of income arising from war-time causes, it is the intention of the Government to approve a financial plan to make the effective working of the International Labour Office possible?
  Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the budget drawn up by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office and approved by the Supervisory Commission of the League of Nations makes adequate provision for the effective working of the International Labour Office in present circumstances.
  Mr. White: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that curtailment of finance will not restrict important post-war plans?
  Mr. Eden: I do not know that financial expenditure is an absolute criterion of good work being done, but, if it is, there has been an increase this year.

  ROME (BOMBING)
  Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to whether there is still a military camp on the outskirts of Rome; whether there are still armament factories within the city or close proximity; and whether Rome has now become the railway centre for Italian military purposes?
  Mr. Eden: The answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part of the Question, Rome lies on the main railway line from Northern to Southern Italy.
  Mr. Ammon: Can Rome be considered an open city?
  Mr. Eden: I think my right hon. Friend made it plain in September that we have as much right to bomb Rome as the Italians had to bomb London, and we should not hesitate to do so to the best of our ability, and as heavily as possible, if the course of the war should render such action convenient and helpful.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. Friend press on his colleagues in the Cabinet the necessity of seeing that we prosecute the war with vigour by bombing Rome?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend must surely be aware that this is a completely united Cabinet on all points.
  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only two years ago Mussolini wrote to Hitler asking to be allowed the honour of sharing in the bombing of London?
  Mr. Eden: I have several memories of Mussolini.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Is it more difficult to get to Rome than to Berlin?

  JEWS

    German Barbarities (Vatican Attitude)
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any expression of sympathy has been sought or obtained from the Vatican in support of the declaration, condemning the atrocities committed on the Jewish people by the German authorities, made by the British
    184
    and other European Governments and the Government of the United States of America?
    Mr. Eden: The Vatican were officially informed of the joint declaration on this subject made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and other Governments of the United Nations on 17th December last. The attitude of the Vatican towards all such acts at variance with Christianity and humanity has been frequently stated and most recently by the Pope in his last Christmas Eve broadcast.
    Mr. Ammon: Has any statement been made with reference to the recent announcement regarding Jewish atrocities?
    Mr. Eden: Since we made that announcement the Pope in his broadcast condemned the persecution of hundreds of thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, sometimes only owing to their nationality or descent, are condemned to death or to slow decline.
    Miss Rathbone: Might not something more specific than that very mild reference be elicited from his Holiness?

    Refugees (Relief)
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will report on any action taken since December, 1942, by His Majesty's Government, separately or in co-operation with the other United Nations, for the rescue of political refugees and of persons threatened by the Nazi policy of exterminating European Jewry?
    Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the urgent necessity to do everything possible to assist the Jewish victims of the fresh phase of German persecution, he will now define clearly the policy of His Majesty's Government towards any Jewish refugee who may succeed in escaping from German-controlled territory?
    Professor A. V. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps are being taken, either by His Majesty's Government or in consultation with the United Nations, to offer asylum to refugees from enemy, or enemy-occupied, countries, who avoid extermination by escape to neighbouring territories?
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what practical steps have been taken, or are contemplated in the near future, to rescue Jews threatened by the Nazi policy of extermination?
    Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on this subject yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister's answer referred to those who make their way to countries not under German control, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first step towards getting into a neutral country from an enemy country is obviously to get a visa from Great Britain, and, even if that Visa is never executed, it is of very great assistance in escaping from an enemy country to a neutral? Will that point be very much borne in mind?
    Mr. Eden: I am afraid the hon. lady is misinformed. That situation does not arise now. That was the situation before the occupation of Unoccupied France.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the excellent sentiment expressed by the Government on this very important matter, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we refused visas for 2,000 French Jewish children, who, we understand, have since been deported to Germany?
    Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that question. My right hon. Friend explained that we are engaged on two sets of proposals to meet the situation. One is to do what we can in certain areas for which we are responsible, and the other is to try to get an international arrangement so that everyone may help. This is a matter in which everyone should help.
    Mr. Lipson: Has the stage been nearly reached when concrete proposals could be put to the German Government?
    Mr. Eden: I do not know about concrete proposals to the German Government, but I hope there will be concrete results.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that any facilities given to Jewish refugees are given to all refugees?
    Mr. Eden: That is a definite principle in all these proposals.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that expressions of moral indignation will lose a great part of their force unless they are accompanied by the actual initiation of steps for practical help?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Member heard the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. That is exactly what we are doing in two directions, one within our own limitations and one by trying to get international agreement; and, if we can, we are ready to make our contribution to that arrangement. I do not think the hon. Member's strictures are deserved.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the Jewish refugee children in Iran who were hoping to reach Palestine via Iraq?
    Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to a similar Question on the same subject which was put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams).

  FRENCH FORCES (UNIFICATION)
  Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps are being taken to unify the Fighting French forces behind a Government pledged to surrender its powers to a democratically-elected national assembly at the end of the war?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I have nothing at present to add.
  Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great disquiet is felt in the country at the announcement of the appointment of M. Peyrouton?
  Mr. Eden: I should like to see that Question on the Paper.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said there was bad weather in North Africa? Are there not bad and dirty politics too?
  Mr. Astor: Did the Government consult M. Peyrouton?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the Paper.

  FRENCH NORTH AFRICA

    Comte de Paris
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrival of the Comte de Paris in North Africa has taken place with the approval of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Eden: The Comte de Paris has resided continuously in Morocco since 1940. His recent visit to Algiers was undertaken without the knowledge of His Majesty's Government, or, so far as I am aware, of the United States Government either.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the presence of this Pretender can only complicate an already difficult situation?
    Mr. Eden: I do not believe him to be of sufficient importance to complicate anything.

    Political Prisoners (Release)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the release of political prisoners in North Africa?
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement regarding the position of persons of anti-Nazi sympathies interned, imprisoned or engaged on forced labour in French North Africa; whether the request for the liberation of such persons and for the abrogation of all regulations reflecting Nazi ideology has been complied with; and whether those liberated include Spanish Republicans, members of the International Brigade which fought in Spain and persons of Jewish race confined on racial grounds?
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement about the release of anti-Fascist prisoners of war in North Africa, including members of the International Brigade?
    Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as also the United States Government, have lost no opportunity of impressing upon the French authorities in North Africa the importance which they attach to the early release of all persons of whatever nationality who have been detained there on account of their sympathies with the Allied cause. It is known that many of these political
    188
    prisoners have already been released. There must, however, inevitably be a number of doubtful cases. In order to investigate these, a Mixed Commission has now been set up under the joint chairmanship of the British and United States Consuls-General at Algiers. I hope that the Commission's reports will make it possible for me to give the House fuller information about the prisoners still under detention. In the meantime, the following details have become available.
    So far as can be ascertained, no British subjects are now improperly detained in Algeria or Morocco. As regards French nationals, the United States authorities were informed at the end of December that orders had been given to prison camp commanders and provincial authorities in North Africa to release all French nationals who were still detained for having helped the Allied cause. It is hoped that the Mixed Commission will be able to verify that these orders have been carried out. As regards Allied nationals, many of whom were, I understand, members of the former International Brigade, the position at the end of December was that some 200 Poles, over 100 Soviet nationals and a few Czechs and Belgians remained under detention in Algeria. Full details are not available of those detained in Morocco. Arrangements are being made however for the early release of the Poles, Czechs and Belgians. The Soviet citizens will return to their own country as soon as transport can be arranged for them, and His Majesty's Government are in touch with the Soviet Government on this question.
    As regards other members of the former International Brigade and other Spanish Republican refugees, I regret that I am still without detailed information. The Mixed Commission is well aware of the necessity for finding a satisfactory solution of this particular problem at the earliest possible moment and one of its first tasks will be to investigate the situation of these people. In the meantime, it should be noted that one of its terms of reference is to obtain for them before their release as good living conditions as possible. I am not aware that any persons have been detained in North Africa solely on account of their Jewish faith.
    As regards the question of anti-Jewish laws and other measures introduced by the Vichy régime since 1940, the French authorities are aware of our views and

    189
    although, as the Minister Resident recently stated, the position is not satisfactory, I trust that the necessary steps will be taken as soon as circumstances permit.
    Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider two reports which I will send him from refugees quite recently arrived in this country from North Africa, describing the really cruel conditions which existed until a very short time ago, including forced work in labour battalions?
    Mr. Eden: I will certainly be glad to consider any reports which the hon. Lady sends me.
    Mr. Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the fact that many of the Free French sympathisers have been locked up not nominally on political charges but on various trumped-up charges, such as desertion or stealing rifles and other things, and will he ask the Commission to take great care to see whether people arrested on supposedly criminal charges were not in fact locked-up for trying to join the Allies?
    Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand from the very long answer which I have given that the authorities have been very active in this matter. I think that the appointment of this Commission is the right way to handle an extremely complicated question, affecting a very wide area, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.
    Captain Peter Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Poles, the Czechs and other Allied prisoners of war who are being released will be returned to this country or to the United States of America and not sent to their own countries?
    Mr. Eden: Certainly. Of course they would not be sent back to enemy-occupied territory.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the prisoners who are going to be released include those 27 French Communist deputies?
    Mr. Eden: I rather think that they were released some time ago. But I cannot give a definite answer off-hand.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Do I understand that the subjects of Axis Powers who have been put into prison because of
    190
    their opposition to the Governments of those countries come within the province of this Commission?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, certainly they do. This Commission is to cover the whole problem of all prisoners, of whom there are many.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Can we have the names of the Commission?
    Mr. Eden: Perhaps I shall be able to give them, but the chairman will be alternately our own Consul-General in Algiers and the United States Consul-General in Algiers.
    Mr. Bevan: Shall we include on the Commission representatives of some of the smaller Allied nations?
    Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might be allowed to consider that point. It is not for me to set up the Commission from here, but I did look at the arrangement, and I thought it seemed a very good one.
    Mr. Leach: Will this Commission have the right to see that its decisions are carried out?
    Mr. Eden: Oh, yes, this Commission was appointed under the Supreme Allied Command in North Africa, and I must make it plain that the American authorities have been most anxious and active in promoting the work of this Commission.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Compassionate Allowance Claim
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the great hardship suffered by Mr. S. H. Jones, of 122, Oldbury Road, West Bromwich, by reason of the fact that he has contracted the rare disease of myasthenia gravis while serving in the Royal Air Force, he will consider granting him a compassionate allowance?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): As the hon. Member is aware, the disability from which this ex-airman is suffering is not regarded as attributable to his service in the Royal Air Force, and I regret that there is no authority under which any form of allowance could be granted to him from Air Force Funds.
    Mr. Dugdale: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that one of the

    191
    reasons given for not granting any allowance was the fact that this man was patriotic enough to join up before the war and that this disease was contracted before the war, because I understand that if it had been contracted later, he would have been eligible for an allowance?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The only reason is that the disease is not attributable to his service.

    Royal Observer Corps
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the results of substituting young girls for men over 50 years of age in the Royal Observer Corps?
    Sir A. Sinclair: It is too early yet to pronounce upon this matter, but there is no reason to suppose that the results will be less satisfactory than in the case of similar employment in the operations rooms of Fighter Command.
    Mr. Hannah: May I ask whether an adequate number of really competent girls have been found for this work?
    Sir A. Sinclair: They are being found.

    Volunteer Reserve (Air Rank)
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the experience of many officers of the Volunteer Reserve of the Royal Air Force in positions in civil life in which they achieved high reputations for organising, administrative and executive ability, more of them will be promoted to air rank where it would be possible for their abilities to be made more use of?
    Sir A. Sinclair: It is the policy to promote to air rank the best officers available, irrespective of whether they are regular or non-regular.
    Mr. Purbrick: In view of the well known fact that there are some thousands of these very highly qualified men from civil walks of life now serving in the Volunteer Reserve, surely there must be more than three of them who would qualify for air rank, and would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have a comb-out to see whether he could not find more men with excellent brains who might be made use of than are being used at the present time?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am not sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the great majority of the posts which are of air rank have to be filled by officers with flying experience, whereas the great majority of the officers to whom he refers are without flying experience. Subject to that consideration, I can assure him that our object is to choose the best men for the posts, irrespective of whether they are regular officers or not.

    Fighter-Bombers (Dive-bombing)
    Mr. Purbrickasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any of our fighter-bombers are equipped so that they can also dive bomb?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir.
    Mr. Purbrick: Would it not be advisable to have some of those fighter-bombers so equipped that they could also serve as dive-bombers under suitable conditions?
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; because the effect of that would be to impair their performance as fighters, and it would be very unfair to the pilots who have to fly those aircraft.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have we abandoned the policy of producing dive-bombers?
    Sir A. Sinclair: We have never produced dive-bombers, but they are coming to us from the United States of America.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we using dive-bombers?
    Sir A. Sinclair: There are dive-bombers in squadrons now in active theatres of war.
    Mr. Purbrick: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister stated in the House last July that the majority of Air Marshals and others of high rank opposed dive-bombers, how is it that dive-bombers were ordered two years previously, and—
    Mr. Speaker rose—

    Allied Bombers (Losses over Germany and Western Europe)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Air, how many Allied bombers were destroyed over Germany and Western Europe up to 31st December, 1941, and how many during the year ended 31st December, 1942?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The number of Allied bomber aircraft operating from this country which were reported lost over Germany and Western Europe up to 31st December, 1941, was 1,242. The number in 1942 was 1,337.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

    Napier Company and English Electrical Company
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Aircraft Production on what grounds he has approved the transaction between the Napier Company and the English Electrical Company; how much Government money is employed in each concern; whether he is aware that compensation on a basis of salaries, involving large sums of money, is being awarded to directors of the Napier Company who have failed to produce adequate results; and whether he will vary this agreement?
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): This matter concerns my Department only to the extent of a change in management control and the acquisition of certain fixed assets by the Department from the Napier Company. I am satisfied that this change will be for the benefit of production. It is undesirable on security grounds to divulge the total of Government assets operated by the company, but I am prepared to let my hon. Friend have the figures privately if he so wishes. The compensation paid to the retiring directors of the company was entirely a matter for the shareholders, and I have no power to vary the arrangement arrived at.
    Mr. Edwards: Inasmuch as the money was provided by the Government in order to carry this transaction through, does the Minister think it right that men who have drawn substantial salaries for a good many years, and have failed in their job, should be compensated? Is he aware that the compensation, if it is free of tax, as I understand it is, amounts to something like £300,000?
    Sir S. Cripps: The money for compensation was not provided by the Government, and it is not a question for the Government but one for the shareholders only.
    Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that the Government did provide £750,000 in
    194
    order that this transaction should be carried through?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not the reason why the money was provided, nor was it paid for that purpose.
    Mr. Edwards: It came from the Government.

    Factory Directors (Fees and Salaries)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether the board of directors of the aircraft factory to which Mr. Marden has recently been appointed controller continue to draw their fees and salaries as before?
    Sir S. Cripps: Mr. Marden was not appointed Controller of the factory in question, but was elected by the Board as deputy chairman and managing director. The question of the fees and salaries paid to the directors is one for the company. I understand a reorganisation is proceeding, and no doubt payments will be continued in those cases where there are continuing agreements and where services continue to be rendered.

  FLYING BOAT "GOLDEN HORN" (LOSS)
  Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information with regard to the recent loss of a British flying boat in the River Tagus?
  Sir A. Sinclair: The flying boat "Golden Horn" operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation crashed at Lisbon on 9th January. Of the fifteen persons on board, thirteen were killed—six British employees of the Corporation and seven Portuguese subjects. The cause of this unfortunate accident is now under investigation. When the report is received I will consider whether a further statement can be made. I am sure the House will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives.
  Mr. Simmonds: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that some of these overage transport aircraft which British Overseas Airways Corporation are using should be withdrawn from service; and in view of the fact that we have an understanding with the United States Government that while we make military types they should make transport types,

  195
  will he approach the United States Government with a view to their allotting to the British Overseas Airways Corporation a number of new boats which will enable my right hon. Friend to do his best to remedy the present situation?
  Sir A. Sinclair: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the second part of his supplementary question wanders some way from the original Question on the Paper. As regards the first part, I would prefer to receive the report of the inquiry which is now being held before deciding what is the right lesson to be drawn from the circumstances.

  POST OFFICE

    Stamping Machines
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will consider setting up stamping machines so as to avoid the process by which letters to be sent require, perhaps, three separate stamps to be bought, licked and stuck on?
    (2) whether he will introduce into the House of Commons a stamping machine to avoid postage stamps and the attendant expense in labour and material?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware of any coin-operated stamping or franking machine which is not open to serious disadvantages. Even if a satisfactory machine of this kind were available, it would be necessary to produce it in quantity in order to replace the very large numbers of automatic stamp-selling machines in Post Office use; and this would entail a considerable expenditure of skilled labour and material which could not be contemplated at the present time. Considerations of labour and material also preclude any question of adapting automatic stamp-selling machines to sell 2½d. stamps.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Have not Neo-Post perfected a stamping machine which operates under Government licence and is in use by the Post Office, and could not one be installed by way of experiment in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Morrison: That is another question. I will consider it.

    Secondary School Pupils (Employment)
    Sir P. Hurdasked the Postmaster-General whether in order to avoid the disorganisation of secondary school classes in Wiltshire, he will issue an instruction that secondary scholars are not to be taken into permanent Post Office employment before the end of the secondary school course upon which the parents have agreed with the education authorities?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Post Office has no desire to encourage secondary school pupils to leave school prematurely against the wishes of the local education authorities, and in 1941 instructions were issued to head postmasters in Wiltshire not to recruit such pupils unless the education authorities were willing to release them. If in any special case a head postmaster still desired to recruit a pupil despite the objections of the education authorities, he was to consult his headquarters before taking any action. I regret to find that these instructions were overlooked in one recent instance and two girls were irregularly recruited locally without reference to headquarters.
    Sir P. Hurd: May I take it that my right hon. Friend realises the extreme objection to any action of his countervailing the action and policy of the Government with regard to secondary education?
    Mr. Morrison: I have no desire at all to interfere with the education of secondary school pupils. The only point I keep in mind is that sometimes the fortunes of a family change, and it becomes advisable for the boy to get good employment. Then, if everybody is agreed, I am unwilling to refuse him entry to the Post Office where he can get a good career, not a blind-alley occupation, and can rise to any position which his talents justify.
    Mr. Leach: Although the right hon. Gentleman desires not to interfere with the course of secondary education, that is precisely what he is doing all along.
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, that is not the case.

    Parcels for Ships (Postage Rates)
    Mr. Manderasked the Postmaster-General why, in the case of parcels sent to His Majesty's ships, including merchant vessels, there is a varying charge

    197
    dependent upon whether the ship is in home waters or not, in view of the fact that the senders cannot and ought not to have or pass on this information; and whether he will consider the advisability of charging, in ail cases, the ordinary inland postage rates?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The postage rates for parcels addressed to His Majesty's ships in foreign waters, including merchant vessels taken up for naval or military service, are higher than those applicable to parcels for such ships in home waters because of the higher costs of transmission. Although senders should not, and probably do not, know the precise location of a ship, they are frequently in a position to judge whether a ship is at home or abroad. However, since the hon. Member raised this Question on 9th December, I have given further consideration to the subject and have decided that inland rates should be charged on parcels for His Majesty's ships whenever the sender of a parecl does not know whether the ship is abroad or not. Instructions to this effect are being issued to Post Office counter staffs and will come into force on 1st February.
    Mr. Mander: Thank you.

    Airgraph Mails
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Postmaster-General the average time anticipatorily allotted to the transmission of a Services airgraph when the scheme was introduced; and what is the actual average time now taken with such messages?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: It was expected that the average time of transmission of airgraph mails to the base in the Middle East would be about two weeks and to India and South Africa about three weeks. In practice, the transmission times vary considerably, but the present average times are eight days and 15 days respectively. These times do not include the intervals between posting and the despatch af the airgraph film from this country, the time required for the photographic processes at the distant end, or the time, depending on the location of the addressee, required to effect delivery, all of which are subject to considerable variation.
    Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: When does the right hon. Gentleman
    198
    expect a service to open up for North Africa?
    Mr. Morrison: That matter is now under consideration. I cannot give a date yet.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Postmaster-General whether the system of recordak photography, and the later stages of developing and processing for the airgraph service are under the complete control of the Post Office; and what arrangements are made with Messrs. Kodak, Limited, in this connection?
    Mr. Morrison: The whole of the photographic work in connection with the airgraph service is performed on behalf of my Department, and of the other postal administrations concerned, by Kodak, Ltd., under arrangements to be embodied in a formal agreement, the precise terms of which are at present the subject of negotiation with the Company.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the fact that this service will be more widely used after the war, particularly by commercial firms, will he not agree that it should come entirely under Post Office control?
    Mr. Morrison: The question of post-war policy on this is rather hypothetical at the moment, but at the time the airgraph service was introduced there was great delay to Service mails due to their diversion round the Cape of Good Hope, and it was necessary to take advantage of this firm which possessed the equipment and trained personnel who could operate it in all parts where it was being used.
    Mr. Bellenger: Considering that the right hon. Gentleman is now negotiating some sort of agreement with Kodak, will he bear in mind the possibility of this process being acquired by the Post Office, and therefore belong to the State, and not be utilised to make profits for a private firm?
    Mr. Morrison: Certainly, that possibility will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will this agreement terminate at the end of the war, or is the agreement contemplated a permanent one?
    Mr. Morrison: I am sure that the agreement will make some provision for its termination.
    Hon. Members: At the end of the war?

  SEASIDE HOTELS AND BOARDING-HOUSES (REHABILITATION)
  Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he has under consideration any scheme for assisting the rehabilitation and development of hotel and boarding-house accommodation in English seaside resorts in the immediate post-war period?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): Every endeavour will be made to hand back to their owners any requisitioned hotel and boarding-house accommodation in English seaside resorts at the earliest practicable date after the cessation of hostilities. Where only chattels, but not the premises, have been requisitioned, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 18th November last to the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam).
  Captain Macdonald: My Question referred to the rehabilitation of the industry after the war; who is responsible and who is dealing with it at the present time?
  Mr. Hicks: My Ministry is dealing with it, and every step will be taken to restore hotels after the war.
  Captain Macdonald: The Question does not deal solely with the requisitioning of the industry, but with its rehabilitation after the war.
  Mr. Hicks: After we have requisitioned we shall rehabilitate.
  Mr. Thorne: Will they be put back into the old conditions suitable for accommodation?
  Mr. Hicks: I cannot guarantee the form in which they will be returned after the war, but I can say on the general question that any hotels requisitioned will be made habitable.
  Mr. Kirkwood: What is the Minister doing to make dwellings habitable for the working class?
  Mr. Hicks: We hope to do it simultaneously.

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS, LONDON (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION)
  Sir Irving Alberyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
  200
  Works and Planning, in view of the many large houses in the London area, at present unoccupied owing to shortage of domestic help and other reasons, whether he will consider, where possible, transferring Government offices from blocks of flats to accommodation which cannot at present be used for housing purposes?
  Mr. Hicks: The blocks of flats acquired by my Department for office purposes are mainly of the larger type commanding substantial rents before the war. The release of these flats it is considered would not be of material assistance, as I am advised that the present demand is for the smaller and therefore less expensive flats. Moreover, the suggested transfer would involve a serious loss of efficiency and disturbance, which could not be contemplated by the Departments concerned. My Department has not overlooked the possibilities of utilising large houses for office purposes, and has recently acquired a substantial number of vacant houses in London. A single house provides too small a unit of office space and those acquired have, therefore, been in blocks.
  Sir I. Albery: Is the Minister aware that some of the flats which he has commandeered are flats which let at medium rents and that the high rents being asked for flats are largely due to the number of flats he has commandeered?

  ROYAL NAVY

    Anti-U-Boat Warfare
    Sir I. Alberyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement on the recent operations against the U-boat menace?
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I regret that it is impossible to give full information about recent operations against U-boats without assisting the enemy. I can say, however, that we have been heavily attacked by U-boats in recent months and have taken heavy toll of the attackers. Details of operations against U-boats will be published whenever this can be done without assisting the enemy.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Admiralty in a position to give us this information in Secret Session? I would like an answer.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend should put that Question to the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Mr. Speaker, if I am in Order, I will now put it to the Leader of the House. I want to know whether, in Secret Session, the Government will be in a position to tell us what means they are taking to get control of the U-boats other than simply building ships to be sunk?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should put that Question on the Paper; he cannot expect the Minister to answer without notice.

    Lieutenants (Temporary Higher Rank)
    Sir A. Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many lieutenants, Royal Navy, now hold, or have held, temporary higher rank?
    Mr. George Hall: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the war period only. The number of lieutenants, Royal Navy, who have been promoted to temporary higher rank since 3rd September, 1939, is 99.
    Sir A. Southby: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, where it was held before the war that command of destroyers and small craft should be held by lieut.-commanders and commanders, it is only fair that those temporary ranks should be given to lieutenants now holding commands owing to the shortage of officers of higher rank?
    Mr. Hall: The number which I have given to my hon. and gallant Friend does not include R.N.R. or R.N.V.R., where there is a very large number of those officers holding the ranks to which he refers.
    Sir A. Southby: My Question refers to lieutenants of the Royal Navy and not the R.N.V.R.; and is there any reason why the principle of the Army that the rank goes with the job should not be applied to the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Hall: This is the naval practice, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, which has been carried out.
    Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Fast Merchant Vessels (Construction)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the intentions of his Department as regards the construction of fast merchant vessels?
    Mr. George Hall: The policy of the Admiralty has been and will be to build, in consultation with the Ministry of War Transport, the ships which with the labour and resources available will give the best results, having regard to the need of providing within those resources for the requisite numbers of escort ships.
    Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend knows that that is not a reply to my Question. I asked what are the intentions of the Government in respect of the construction of fast merchant ships. Is our shipbuilding policy vis-a-vis the United States unified, and has he seen the statement made by Admiral Lang, head of the American Marine Commission, that they are now re-adjusting their shipbuilding policy and intend in future to build fast ships?
    Mr. Hall: The policy of the Admiralty, as I have given it, has been consistent from the commencement of the war; and, with regard to the statement to which my hon. Friend referred, I can say that there is close consultation between the Admiralty and those responsible for American shipbuilding. They have been in constant consultation since the commencement of the war.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a fact that the policy of the Admiralty in respect of the construction of merchant ships has proved futile as one of the means of dealing with U-boats, and will the Government now reconsider their shipbuilding policy?
    Mr. Hall: Certainly we cannot accept the statement put by my hon. Friend. We cannot admit it, and I would like to say that this matter has been dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the First Lord on many occasions, when, I may say, my hon. Friend did not take advantage of the opportunity of hearing what was said.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible as a matter of practice to increase the average speed of convoys quicker than the enemy can increase the average speed of the U-boats?
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the reply, I want to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider at a very early date allowing the House to discuss this question, which is fundamental in relation to the war effort?
    Mr. Eden: I would like a moment to think over that proposition. My recollection is that it has recently been discussed in secret.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can I get an explanation, as I am anxious to understand the proceedings of the House, why an answer was refused the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) by the Leader of the House and an answer has been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)?
    Mr. Speaker: They were two quite different questions.

  COLONIAL POLICY (PUBLICITY)
  Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present approximate annual expenditure in publicising the Colonial Empire at home and overseas; and whether he has any plans for the early development and expansion of this work?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Expenditure on information services in respect of the Colonial Empire is spread amongst various agencies, including the Colonial Office, Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. The amount could not be computed without an undue expenditure of labour, and no figure which could be given would reflect an accurate measure of the work being done. I fully recognise the urgent necessity for informing the public in this country and elsewhere about Colonial policy. I have given a good deal of personal thought to the matter, and have also had the advantage of consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information. I have further plans under consideration which I hope to put into operation as soon as possible.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Before any public money is spent on a subject of this sort, should not an appropriate Committee of the House of Commons have an opportunity of considering it, because money spent in this way can easily be used for propaganda for a political party as well as for the Empire?
  Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman need not be so suspicious. Most of the money is expended by the Ministry of Information, whose Vote comes up in the
  204
  ordinary course before the House. Similarly, any money spent by the Colonial Office will be subject to the hon. Gentleman's scrutiny at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Bevan: After you have spent it.
  Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman try to expedite this matter because of the increased interest in it in the public mind?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I fully realise the increased interest, and that that calls for increased publicity.

  AFRICAN COLONIES (MEDICAL SERVICES)
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the urgent need for an increase in the medical services in the African Colonies, he will consider creating scholarships to enable students from these Colonies to acquire professional training in medicine in this country; and whether the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund is available for this purpose?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. I agree that some action of this kind will be necessary in order to strengthen the medical services in the African Colonies, and my hon. Friend may be assured that his suggestion will receive every consideration. I should certainly be prepared to consider making a scheme under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to finance any practicable measures which may be devised.
  Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the United Africa Company has already provided two scholarships of £300 a year for four years in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, and could not that example be followed by the Government?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, that is so, but I think the matter requires great consideration.
  Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not see also that any Africans trained in medicine in this country have the same status when practising in their own country, as any appointments have to be British?
  Colonel Stanley: That is another question.

  PENSIONS (ROYAL WARRANT)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the Royal Warrant that forms the basis for the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, and that the Committee be authorised to send for papers or persons and to report?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not aware of any reasons which would justify the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Royal Warrant. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has recently conferred with his statutory Advisory Committee in regard to certain minor changes which experience has shown to be necessary, and copies of the amended Warrant will be made available to hon. Members on the next Sitting Day.
  Mr. Smith: Before the Royal Warrant is finally approved, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the House to consider it?
  Mr. Attlee: I will consider that suggestion.
  Later—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, a question on Business and the procedure to be adopted. I understood from the Deputy Prime Minister that the revised Royal Warrant was to be published on the next Sitting Day. If that is so, is the procedure that the Royal Warrant will be submitted to His Majesty? In view of our past experience and the complaints in the country against the administration of previous Royal Warrants, should not the House be given an opportunity to consider this revised Royal Warrant before it is finally endorsed by His Majesty? If my understanding of the matter is correct, would the Leader of the House give an assurance that what I am asking should be adopted and that the revised Royal Warrant proposed to be published on the next Sitting Day will be withheld until the House has considered it?
  Mr. Eden: I am sorry that I have not had notice of this. I am not familiar with the position, but I will try to familiarise myself with it as rapidly as I can and give the information to the House. As I have said, I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise this matter.
  Mr. Smith: I also had no idea that I intended to raise it. I am relying on an answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister, of which I had no knowledge. In view of the importance of this matter and before the House parts with the opportunity, may I request the Leader of the House to give this assurance? We ought to have the assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Mr. Eden: I have my right hon. Friend's answer here, and I have been hurriedly looking at it. As I understand the position, I do not think it can be as urgent as the hon. Gentleman thinks, because, from the terms of my right hon. Friend's answer, it is clear that copies of the amended Warrant will be made available to hon. Members on our next Sitting Day. Therefore, I think that between now and then I can give a considered answer.
  Mr. Smith: In view of that, is it the procedure that the revised Royal Warrant will be submitted to His Majesty before it is published, and, if so, should not the House have an opportunity of considering these revisions before the Warrant is finally endorsed by His Majesty?
  Mr. Eden: I find it difficult to give an assurance owing to the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and without knowledge of the terms of this Warrant, but I think I can give the assurance; anyhow, I will attempt to implement it.
  Mr. Smith: This is important, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that publication of this Royal Warrant will be withheld until the question of what should be the procedure has been considered?
  Mr. Eden: I am in a considerable difficulty. If the hon. Gentleman had given me only five minutes' notice, I could have sent for the Minister of Pensions and obtained the details of the Royal Warrant. As it is, I am quite ignorant of the terms of this Warrant, but what the hon. Gentleman suggests can, I think, be done. Anyway, I will try to meet him.
  Mr. Stephen: Is not this the position? Since the amended Warrant will be made available to Members on our next Sitting Day, does that not show that it has already received Royal approval?
  Mr. Eden: That is just the reservation I have in mind.
  Mr. A. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be perplexed about the wrong thing. What is being put is not what are the amendments in the Warrant but the whole matter of procedure and that before the Royal Warrant is amended the whole procedure should be revised, as this affects the welfare, of so many of our people, and we ought to have an opportunity of considering the proposed amendments before His Majesty appends his signature.
  Mr. Eden: My difficulty is that the terms of the Royal Warrant are not familiar to me—if I could have had five minutes' notice, I could have looked up the terms—and I do not know what the position is at the moment. I will try to devise some means of giving the House information on this.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is still pursuing the wrong point. The issue before us is not what amendments there are or are not in the Royal Warrant. The issue before us is that a new Royal Warrant is about to be issued and that that Royal Warrant has already been approved by His Majesty before the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the amendments.
  Mr. Eden: What I wish to find out are the exact circumstances and the exact position in relation to the Royal Warrant, with which I am not familiar, I cannot be expected to carry that in my head, and that is why I wish I could have had notice. I will try to find some means of meeting the difficulty.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the seriousness of this matter, there are other steps which we can take under the Standing Orders if we choose to do so, but in view of the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is, we do not want to take those steps. However, the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is not our responsibility. It is the Government's. I also have the right to complain, because I had no knowledge of the reply which was to be given. In view of the seriousness of this matter, may I again ask whether we can have an assurance from the Leader of the House that publication of the Royal Warrant will be withheld until the right
  208
  hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of giving consideration to the point?
  Mr. Eden: I will look into this matter and try to meet my hon. Friend's point. He says that he could not have given me notice, but if he had even told me after my right hon. Friend gave his answer, I should have had a moment in which to look into the matter. But I was given no notice. I ask my hon. Friend to accept the assurance that I will do all that lies within my power to meet the point which he has raised.
  Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If, as I assume, the Royal Warrant has been approved by His Majesty and will be published on the next Sitting Day, is there any step that any hon. Member can take to record his protest against the Royal Warrant and to secure a revision of it?
  Mr. Eden: That is exactly the point I have to inquire into.
  Mr. Bellenger: I was asking you, Mr. Speaker,
  Mr. Speaker: I can only give the same answer that has been given by the Minister.
  Mr. Smith: This question is so serious that I had intended to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to it as a matter of urgent public importance. I do not want to be forced into that position. In regard to the accusation made by the Leader of the House about my not giving him notice, I am the last person who would wish to be discourteous, but I was not able to give him notice because of the fact that the answer was given only a few minutes ago. I had to consult authorities on procedure before I felt competent to take the stand I am now taking. May I again ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance to the House that publication of this Royal Warrant will be withheld until he and the Government have had an opportunity of considering the point I have raised?
  Mr. Eden: I do not know whether or not the Royal Warrant has already been published. The only assurance I can give the hon. Member, which I think is a perfectly fair one, is that if there is any step which it is within my power to take constitutionally, I shall take it. Beyond that I cannot go.
  Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid we have spent a long time on this question. I am as ignorant of the practice as the right hon. Gentleman is. If it be the case that the Royal Warrant is not yet published and is to be published on the next Sitting Day, would it be possible to withhold publication of it until my right hon. Friend can make a statement, say, at the end of Questions then? This might solve the problem.
  Mr. Eden: That is the kind of thing I had in mind. If that is the position, that is what I will do.

  ARMED FORCES (OPERATIONAL CONTROL)
  Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a Royal Air Force officer as Air Marshal-in-Chief, Home Forces, to act in a similar capacity as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned as the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces for the Army, so that one man shall be responsible for the operational control and co-ordination of the various Royal Air Force commands operating in this theatre of the war?
  Mr. Attlee: The present organisation of the Metropolitan Air Force has stood the test of over three years of war, and in the present circumstances I think it would be unwise to alter it.
  Captain Taylor: Would it not be much better if the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, had only one R.A.F. officer to deal with, instead of having to communicate with several R.A.F. commanders?
  Mr. Attlee: I said the present arrangements have stood a pretty severe test. The commanders of the various R.A.F. commands are co-ordinated by the Chief of the Air Staff.
  Captain Taylor: Is not every arrangement capable of improvement?
  Captain Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Commander-in-Chief having operational control of all fighting services in each theatre of the war in which British Forces are engaged?
  Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to previous replies on this subject.
  Captain Taylor: As this matter is one of serious concern, can I have an answer if I put a Question down again at an early date?
  Mr. Attlee: It depends on the Question.
  Captain Taylor: The same Question.

  MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION (SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS)
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Production whether the scientific advisers on his staff now report to him instead of through the Lord Privy Seal?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production was appointed to his new Department it was arranged that in future the three scientific advisers should report direct to me. I may add that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has agreed that the scientific advisers should also have direct access to the Scientific Advisory Committee, of which my right hon. Friend has recently become the President.

  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION

    Departmental Committees
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give a list of the Departmental Committees on post-war problems which he has set up, with the membership and terms of reference of each?
    The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): Under the arrangements which I described generally to the House in the Debate on the Address, Committees of this kind are constantly being appointed, some completing their work in one or two meetings, others taking longer. I do not think there would be any advantage—indeed, I think there would be definite disadvantage—in giving detailed publicity to these informal proceedings.
    Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that where these Committees exist it would be more convenient for the public if they knew to whom they should refer a suggestion or a problem? At present they do not know which of these Committees is the relevant one.
    Sir W. Jowitt: Such matters can always be referred to the Minister concerned.
    Sir A. Southby: Would it not be well for the public' to know by whom their future is being mortgaged?

    Employment
    Captain Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister without Portfolio whether, in view of the fact that discussions about post-war social security must necessarily be influenced by the post-war employment situation, and having regard to the great interest amongst members of the Armed Forces in the post-war policy as it will affect them when they are ex-Service men, he can state the Government's plans to secure or promote employment generally; and whether ex-Servicemen as a whole, and ex-fighting men in particular, will be assured of a preference for employment?
    Sir W. Jowitt: As I have stated in reply to previous Questions, inquiries are actively proceeding into the many aspects of the problem of providing full employment after the war. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the detailed policy to be adopted must largely depend upon the nature of any international settlement which may be arrived at. All the Departmental Ministers concerned have this problem constantly before them. I cannot go into greater detail, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government attach the highest importance to the solution of this problem.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the ordinary serving soldier, being a wise man, is very sceptical about international arrangements for trade, and about a "better Britain"? He may want it, but he is sceptical about its realisation. What he would understand is a promise that he will have a preference for employment when he comes back from a distant theatre of war. Could the Government promise that?
    Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir; I am not in a position to make any further statement.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that as long as the Pre-War Practices Act is in operation it is impossible to promise these men employment after the war, and that while this Act holds any Government promises are nonsense and humbug?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Imports from North Africa
    Captain P. Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any arrangements have yet been made to import lemons, oil and wine from North Africa?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 8th December to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).
    Captain Macdonald: Is it not about time that something more useful should come out of that country than the spate of bad French politics which we are receiving to-day?
    Mr. Mabane: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the answer he will see the reason.

    Milk Pasteurisation
    Dr. RussellThomas asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in view of the fact that more than 90 per cent. of the milk consumed in the London area is subjected to a process known as pasteurisation and that the number of deaths in London from tuberculosis in children under 15 years of age was 12 per cent. more in 1941 than in 1938, in spite of the reduction in child population in 1941 due to evacuation, will he say what sum was expended by his Department in advertising this prepared milk in 1941?
    Mr. Mabane: Nothing was expended by my Department in advertising pasteurised milk in 1941.
    Dr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statistics of the Medical Officer of the London County Council show that, in spite of wholesale pasteurisation, the actual death rate from non-pulmonary tuberculosis has increased by 67 per cent. during the war, and that it is much greater than in the country as a whole?
    Mr. Mabane: The Question relates to advertising.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the hon. Member aware that the highest medical authorities in the country refute the suggestion which has been made?
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, with a view to destroying pathogenic organisms in non-pasteurised milk consumed by the population and resulting in widespread disease and deaths, it is now intended that all milk for human consumption will be scientifically pasteurised;
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps his Department has taken regarding the subject of the general pasteurisation of milk?
    Mr. Mabane: The question of the appropriate and practical steps which can be taken to secure the elimination of active tubercle organisms from liquid milk is at present under consideration with the Agricultural and Health Departments and other interests.
    Mr. Adams: In view of that evasive answer, which is a repetition of previous answers, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.
    Major Petherick: In view of the controversy about the pasteurisation of milk, will the Parliamentary Secretary arrange for half-a-dozen doctors to be fed on pasteurised milk and a further half-dozen to be fed on non-pasteurised milk, so that we can see what happens?

    British Restaurants
    Sir John Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the revised interpretation now placed by his Department upon agreements made with local authorities for the establishment of British Restaurants, he will in any future agreements require local authorities to accept liability for amortisation of capital expenditure out of their own revenues when profits are insufficient?
    Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend regrets that he does not see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does my hon. Friend now admit that there is a contingent Exchequer liability which he previously disputed? Ought not that to make a difference?
    Mr. Mabane: This is a very complicated matter, and I would rather see that Question on the Paper.

    Fish Friers
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that fish friers, whose shops are situated at a considerable distance from the nearest fish market, are often themselves unable to go there to buy fish; and whether he will consider inaugurating a system of Government distribution of fish from market to fish frier to replace the service previously provided by wholesalers?
    Mr. Mabane: I am aware of this difficulty, and it has been found possible in the case already brought to notice to make arrangements for retailers who have facilities for bringing fish from the wholesale markets to collect and convey the supplies for neighbouring fish traders. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any other cases he has in mind I shall be glad to make investigations, to secure that any difficulties of distribution may be effectively overcome.

    Creameries, Lancashire
    Mr. Hewlettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the number of creameries in Lancashire which have been-hitherto making Lancashire cheese; the number of such firms which are to be regarded as redundant and suppressed; the basis for the issue of notices of closure; whether regard has been had to next summer's manufacturing programme; the nature of the permitted programme; and what guarantee will be given that after the war all concentrated firms will be allowed to resume on present lines?
    Mr. Mabane: Thirty-seven creameries in Lancashire were originally licensed by my Department to manufacture cheese, of which nine were last summer provided with milk for cheese manufacture. No final decision has yet been taken on the manufacturing programme for 1943, so that it is not yet possible to state how many creameries in Lancashire will be required. The notices of closure which have been issued relate to the function of the creameries as redistributors of milk. The actual number which will be kept open as cheese manufacturers will depend on the cheese-manufacturing programme, which has not yet been finally settled. Those creameries which are not required for cheese-making will be regarded as redundant in order to secure the maximum

    215
    economies in the transport and manpower used in the movement of milk. The manner in which the concentrated firms will resume their activities after the war will depend on general Government policy at the time.
    Mr. Hewlett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Milk Movements Branch of the Ministry of Food has issued notices of redundancy to 15 out of 19 cheese-making creameries in Lancashire?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. It is indicated in my answer that those notices relate to their function as redistributors of milk.

    Fish (Distribution)
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that some important war factories are unable to get fish for their workers' canteens; and how much tonnage of fish has been sold for manure during the past three months?
    Mr. Mabane: I am not aware that factory canteens have experienced greater difficulty in obtaining fish than members of the general public. I have no particulars of the weight of fish sold for manure. Fish offal and fish unfit for human consumption is used for the manufacture of animal feeding stuffs as well as for fertilisers. The quantity of fish condemned at the principal ports during October, November and December, represented 0·37 of 1 per cent. of the landings.
    Mr. Logan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that one requires a microscope now to be able to look at herrings?
    Captain Sir William Brass: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what has happened to whitebait, because we never get any now?
    Mr. G. Griffiths: You get plenty of cod from the Front Bench.

    Green Vegetables (Prices)
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the protest from the Metropolitan Borough Council of Deptford against prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for greenstuffs being greatly in excess of present current prices; and, in view of the possibility of the recently fixed maximum prices becoming the current price, what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Mabane: The resolution of the Deptford Borough Council to which my hon. Friend refers was passed on 2nd January. The Order did not become effective until nth January. The resolution, which refers to "fixed prices," appears to have been passed under a misapprehension. A reply has been sent repeating the explanation issued when the Order was announced on 30th December to the effect that the prices set out in the Order are maximum prices, and that the prices of perishable products such as green vegetables are likely to fluctuate considerably within these maxima. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the statement to which I have referred. He may also have seen a statement issued by the Retail Fruit Trade Federation on 12th January. In that statement the Federation pledged themselves not to charge the maximum price for green vegetables where there is no justification for it. They added that the public should help by refusing to patronise shops where unreasonable prices are charged; and that to assist housewives to identify shops where green vegetables are being sold at less than the maximum prices, window bills are being issued by the Federation for display by the retailers concerned. I should like to express my Noble Friend's appreciation of the most helpful co-operation of the Retail Fruit Trade Federation and retailers of green vegetables generally in this matter.
    Mr. Green: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the very widespread apprehension among housewives and that the fixing of these maximum prices in advance has been tantamount to an invitation to certain sections of the trade to raise prices to the maximum? In view of the fact that this has already been reported in some districts, can he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. Mabane: I am aware of exactly the opposite. Before the Order came into effect it was confidently predicted that the maximum would become the fixed price, but that has not been the case. The vegetable trade have co-operated extremely well, and so far as I know in no cases have maximum prices been charged without justification.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that because of the favourable weather we have had there has been a plentiful supply for the market, so that top prices have not been charged?

    217
    Can he tell the House who were the people inside his Ministry on the advisory committee which advised these prices, because they relate to famine prices and not to prices when there is a plentiful supply?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly, prices are low when supplies are plentiful. As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Supplementary Question, I would like to see that on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give guidance to the public as to what should be reasonable prices?
    Mr. Mabane: The Retail Fruit Trade Federation are co-operating extremely well, and they have asked retailers to display the window bills which I have mentioned in my reply.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (MINISTER'S CORRECTION)
Mr. Simmonds: I desire to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from a Question that I addressed yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, to whom I have given such notice as in the circumstances has been possible. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would
"confirm the assurance that he gave the House in previous circumstances, before Christmas, that the Minister of National Service will not remove from essential war work men and women for transfer unless the Supply Department interested in the production of the undertaking concerned has been consulted and has confirmed the view that the change is in the national interest."
I believe it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that my right hon. Friend replied:
"Certainly, I can give that assurance."
It was an assurance which the House welcomed from all sides, as it naturally would do. The correspondent of "The Times" also correctly heard the answer which my right hon. Friend gave. My attention has been drawn by a number of my hon. Friends to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT my right hon. Friend is reported as saying, not:
"Certainly, I can give that assurance,"
but:
"Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; Vol. 386, cols. 40–41.]
218
But I asked two things: first, that the Supply Department would be consulted, and, secondly, that no men and women would be removed from vital industry until the Supply Department had confirmed the view that the change was in the national interest. I have consulted the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have in my hand the typewritten transcript of the reporter's notes, and there are in the typescript the words:
"Mr. LYTTELTON: Certainly, I can give that assurance."
There are also additionally in the manuscript these words:
"Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted."
I understand from the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a representative of the Minister visited the office of the Editors and asked that that alteration should be made. Let me at this stage say that I think I must completely exonerate the Official Reporters when any hon. Member states that he has been misheard or misconstrued, and I understand that it is a well understood custom of the House that where an hon. Member desires slightly to modify the weight or the grammar of any of his questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not the weight."]—that it is permissible; but, certainly, it is news to me that any hon. Member or right hon. Member may withdraw an assurance or modify the substance of an answer that he has given. Indeed, this was a vital question to war industry and not one which could be trifled with lightly. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I feel it is my duty to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will be good enough to instruct the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a suitable alteration should be made in an approved way so that the assurance that the Minister gave should be reported in his own words. I think I ought also to ask whether you will give your powerful support in preventing any recurrence of this type of alteration, which I would respectfully submit is neither in the public interest nor in accordance with the best traditions of the House.
Mr. Speaker: As the House is aware, there is a Rule that Ministers and other Members cannot alter substantially the meaning of anything which they have said in this House. They can merely make verbal alterations, perhaps to improve the

219
grammar of what has been said or to make clearer what they have intended. In this particular case the Minister was wrong in authorising any alterations in or additions to what he had said, if he did do so. I think, however, it was quite innocent. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Obviously he intended to say, "I can give an assurance that this should be so," and he thought the answer as revised put it more clearly than the answer which he gave. I think he intended to clarify what he had said. I may be wrong, but that is the impression which it gives to me. As I say, however, I think he was wrong in doing so and in making this alteration, simply because it might have been open to misinterpretation, as it has been.
The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I apologise for this mistake, which I acknowledge has been made. I am afraid that my answer was inaudible, and therefore I asked that the reply which I had given should be looked at, and I say quite definitely, that, as it appears now, it is not what I said. I am very sorry that this mistake, for which I am responsible, should have occurred. On the other hand, the reply which I did give was not that which my hon. Friend meant. I said I could give a general assurance. I think hon. Members will remember that. If I may take this opportunity of clearing up the mistake, I would say that the reason I said "general assurance" is that, of course, it is the duty of the Supply Departments to represent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether a large general withdrawal of skilled labour from a particular industry or section of industry is going to affect production, but it is not possible in particular cases for those representations to be made. That is only to try to clear up what I meant. What I said was "general assurance." I apologise for this mistake, and I completely acknowledge that the answer as given does not represent what I said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House inform us about the Business for to-day and the next Sitting Day?
Mr. Eden: The Government have given some consideration to the representations
220
made yesterday, and particularly to the suggestion that, possibly, the Debate on man-power should be divided into two parts, the first part to be in Secret Session and the second part in public. After careful examination I am sure that the latter proposal is quite impracticable. I think hon. Members would find themselves in a most embarrassing position in taking part, as it were, in the second stage of a Debate the first stage of which had already been held in Secret Session. Besides that, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give what-might be called a human budget in this Secret Session, involving a lot of figures. Hon. Members will no doubt want to ask a number of questions to which they will require replies, and, therefore, I suggest that our present arrangement suits them. If, after this Debate, we find that there is any demand for some other form of discussion on this topic or something kindred to it, then we had better consider that through the usual channels, but I must warn the House that we are beginning to pile up these Debates rather heavily.
Mr. Greenwood: Yesterday we had a kind of preliminary canter to the discussion which formally opens to-day. I think we got ourselves into rather a muddle over that, which was unfortunate. The result of the statement made by the Minister of Production at the end of Questions was really to strengthen the opinion held in all quarters of the House on the need for a public discussion of these problems. Hon. Members, a number of whom are here now, spoke to me about it in the course of yesterday's discussion. I can see the difficulty about splitting a Debate into two parts, one open and one closed, so to speak, but if there are to be two days of secret Debate, then I think the House will really wish, at an early date, for an open discussion in Parliament on the broader issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman's statement yesterday and, no doubt, other matters which will be raised in the course of the Debate now about to begin.
Mr. A. Bevan: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I say that the House as a whole will agree that in this matter of the mobilisation of labour we are discussing one of the questions which bear most closely on the domestic lives of our people? The Minister of Production yesterday said that there are to be

221
considerable transfers of men and women in the country. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but mine is that nothing causes more trouble than sending men and women hither and thither, and nothing causes more resentment than the fact that their grievances are hidden in Secret Sessions and that we have no opportunity at all of ventilating their difficulties in public and asking redress of their wrongs. Why is it necessary to have a two days' Debate? I am sure the secret Debate will disclose no reason for giving two whole days on this matter in secret, but if the Government insist on having two days in Secret Session, of course they must have it. I respectfully submit, however, that in that case we must insist on having a public Debate upon the implications of these transfers before the transfers are made, otherwise we shall not be able to hold the resentment of our people within reasonable bounds.
Earl Winterton: It is obviously impossible to discuss now, in open House, the Government's reasons for holding a Secret Session, but I would ask them to take cognisance of one fact. I think it is only courteous to warn the right hon. Gentleman and the supporters of the Government above the Gangway, that some of us, when we come to the appropriate Motion, will feel bound to raise the question of the reasons why it is necessary for the House to go into Secret Session.
Mr. Eden: Of course, hon. Members are fully entitled to do that. On the question of whether we are to have one day or two days' Debate, it was in order to meet the wishes of the House that the Government gave facilities for these two days. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has a statement of very great importance to make, and it is my belief that the House will wish to Debate the matter for two days. If it appears that they do not wish to do so, that will be another situation. My only difference with the right hon. Gentleman opposite is on his description of yesterday's discussion as a "preliminary canter". I do not think so. I think a "parallel canter" might be a more correct definition. It may be that it will be necessary to have a further Debate, and, if so, the Minister of Production might speak in it at an early stage, but I think we should stand by the
222
programme to which we have already agreed.
Sir Percy Harris: There are two separate problems: one, the transfer of people from one job to another, and the second, the moving of people, wholesale, from one part of the country to another. It is that second part that the House will possibly want to discuss.
Mr. Eden: That is exactly what I had in mind in my answer.
Mr. Bevan: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too much, but I think we are entitled to say in this matter that before any scheme of transfers is put into operation—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Services? They have to move all round the country."]—we should have an assurance that we are to have an opportunity of discussing it in Public Session.
Mr. Eden: I could not give a categorical assurance of that kind. What I can say is that if there is a demand for an early public discussion of the matter through the ordinary channels, we shall naturally do our best to meet it.
Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind before finally deciding that unless we get a satisfactory reply some of us will be tempted to divide the House?

BILLS PRESENTED
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TRUSTS) BILL,
  "to make provision as to trust property held by or on behalf of certain universities and colleges or for purposes connected with those universities and colleges"; presented by Mr. R. S. Hudson, supported by the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

  MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL,
  "to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Town and Country Planning; to provide for the transfer to that Minister of certain statutory functions; and to provide for the establishment of statutory Commissions for the purpose of exercising such functions in relation to the use and development of land in England and Wales as

  223
  hereafter may be determined"; presented by Sir William Jowitt, supported by Sir John Anderson and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

  HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to provide for the establishment of a Board for the development of supplies of electricity in the North of Scotland; to authorise the Board to generate and supply electricity and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by Sir John Anderson, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir William Jowitt, Major Lloyd George and the Lord Advocate; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

  NEW APPOINTMENTS
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown be the Chairman of Ways and Means and that Major James Milner be the Deputy-Chairman."
  Both these hon. and gallant Members have had experience in the Chair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) has now served as Deputy-Chairman for five years, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) has been invited by Mr. Speaker every year since 1935 to serve on the Chairmen's Panel and has served as Temporary Chairman of Committees throughout that period.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I beg to move the Previous Question, "That that Question be not now put."
  That is a somewhat old Motion, which is not, I believe, generally used in the House, but I understand, subject to your Ruling, Sir, that it is perfectly in Order on this occasion. I move it because, being an independent Member of the House, for many years unattached in any way to any party [Interruption]. May I ask for your protection, Sir? I have made a definite statement, which I can support by the fact that candidates from every party are regularly run against me at elections. Hon. Members might at any rate have the decency to withdraw lies of that sort.—[Interruption]. Being an independent Member of Parliament of many years' standing and not connected in any way with any party—I have to fight all parties in my constituency—and not connected with any outside interest paying my expenses, it is incumbent upon me in a case of this sort to speak what appears to be the opinion of a very large section of the House, not of one party, but of all parties. The procedure in these appointments has always been as at present, but in the present instance a new factor comes in, and that is the composition of the Government, which is now a Coalition. It is an extraordinary thing that the majority party has no proper means of making its will felt vis-à-vis the Government. That is an unfortunate state of things and gives rise to a great

  253
  deal of trouble in the procedure of the House in such a case as we have before us.
  We see in "The Times" this morning that it is proposed that a certain Member of this House shall be the Deputy Chairman of Committees. No sort of official intimation of any kind has been given to the various sections of Members of the House. The only means by which the majority of the House, that is, the Conservative Members, can now be properly approached is through the 1922 Committee, and I have ascertained, though the chairman is absent owing to ill-health, from leading members of that Committee that this name has never been submitted to them for their consideration or approval. I have also ascertained that another party in the House has never had the name submitted to it. Therefore, those who are responsible for putting forward the name have not had the ordinary courtesy to ascertain whether it is the name of a gentleman who is persona grata to the bulk of the House. That is a very important thing, because, as you, Sir, are only too well aware, it is essential that the occupant of the Chair should carry with him the good will and respect and, as has happened many times in the past, the affection of the bulk of the Members. It is not a question whether the fact of that gentleman being persona grata or the opposite can be attributed to any particular reason. There was a certain Dr. Fell, of whom it was written—
  "I do not like you, Dr. Fell,
  The reason why, I cannot tell,
  But this I know, and know full well,
  I do not like you, Dr. Fell."
  Where a post of this sort has to be filled everyone, even those who do not agree with me on this point, will admit that the proceedings of this House, both in the House and in Committee, are very much conditioned by the personality of the occupant of the Chair, and it is very difficult for any man to occupy the Chair satisfactorily if there is a feeling in his own mind and in the minds of the House that he is not persona grata. I understand that the appointment of the Deputy Chairman is merely permissive. The House is under no obligation to appoint a Deputy Chairman at all, and it cannot be said that about three minutes' notice is enough. Therefore, I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to separate this Motion, or at any rate to withdraw it with a view to
  254
  separating it, and give the House some opportunity of understanding the position and privately expressing their opinion.
  There has been a tendency which you, Sir, must have marked, as other Members have, to override the Privileges of the House. This seems to me a case where the House would be well advised, to use a vulgarism, to dig its toes in and show the Government that it is not the autocrat of this country but that the House of Commons must be consulted in these matters. Hence I do not see any reason why the Deputy Prime Minister should not accept the previous Question. I have had considerable discussion with him for many weeks upon the point [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No official communication has been sent me or anyone else except to the Labour Party, and the other parties have not been consulted, but it is one of the duties of Members of the House to find out what is being done. When it came to my knowledge that this proposal was going to be made, I took appropriate steps, in private, to see if I could avoid this difficulty from coming before the House. I was disappointed. I did not effect my object, and the result is that I am obliged to bring forward this Motion, so that the question of these appointments shall be deferred until the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter and until there has been an opportunity of consulting the party which is in the majority.
  We know perfectly well what is happening and that this is part of what is called the "spoils system." There is public money going, and the system, as in all Coalitions, is that first one party has its hands in the till and then another. It is bringing Parliament into contempt and will bring it more and more into contempt if the country sees this bargaining between side and side as to who shall get the jobs. If this is allowed to go through, the whole status of Parliament will be irretrievably lowered, and the enemies of this Constitution, whether of the extreme right or the extreme left, would rejoice to see Parliament giving up its Privileges and being lowered in the estimation of the people of the country.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment needs a seconder. Is any Member prepared to second it?
  Captain Cobb: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Greenwood: We have listened to what I regard as the most mischievous speech which I have heard since I became a Member of this House. The hon. Member, speaking as an Independent, has taken on his shoulders the responsibility of putting a point of view which, if it were right, should have been put by the party which has the majority in this House. No other hon. Member except the hon. and gallant Member who has seconded it rose to support the Amendment. Why? Because I assume that those who lead the Conservative Party are satisfied with the qualities of my hon. and gallant Friend who is proposed as Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. It has been suggested or implied that my party has been consulted. Sir, that is untrue. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will take my word. I have personal friends in the Conservative Party who will take my word.
  Commander Agnew: I think my interjection was misunderstood. What I meant to say was, Was the right hon. Gentleman going to lie down under a system whereby his party, the second largest in the House, was not consulted on a matter of this kind? We think it ought to have been.
  Mr. Greenwood: The hon. and gallant Member is now raising a point which is an ancient constitutional point in this House. It is perfectly true that these offices in the House of Commons are held at the will and with the approval of the House, but it does fall to His Majesty's Government for the time being to initiate the discussion by bringing forward a proposed appointment, because such emoluments as there are fall upon public funds. But that is not the point. Had the hon. Member who has apparently been forcing his attentions upon the Deputy Prime Minister for some time been anxious about procedure in the method of appointment of the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, he might have raised that point; but he does not raise that point; he raises a personal point. He does not object, nor do I, to my right
  256
  hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown), who, I think, will fill the Chair with conspicuous success and with fairness to all quarters of the House.
  The hon. Member goes out of his way to single out one appointment. On what grounds? Is it on grounds of public service? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has a career of public service as good as the hon. Member's. He is a man with, I suppose, 13 or 14 years' service in the House, and for seven years, I think the Deputy Prime Minister said, he has been a Temporary Chairman and has also served on Committees. He has also had a long experience of local government. What is the argument against him? The argument is that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) does not like him. If all appointments were to be judged by personal likes and dislikes, many of us would never attain any eminence. There can be only one other reason for an Amendment of this kind—a deferment—which I say is a slur upon the honour of my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Member is not playing fair over this thing. Some years ago the hon. Member, rising in his place as an Independent, said he had looked into the faces of members of the Labour Party and added, with a bitterness that I could not possibly emulate, "and I do not like them." There we have the whole reason.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman justify that statement by telling us where it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Shinwell: You said it outside, and you know you said it.
  Mr. Greenwood: I am satisfied that the hon. Member said it. He does not like us.
  Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement saying that I said something in this House. I therefore ask him to prove it from the official records of the House, or to withdraw it.
  Mr. Greenwood: I may be wrong about the statement having been made inside the House, but there is no doubt that he made the statement outside the House. He has proved it by his action to-day. Suppose the suggested appointment had been that

  257
  of an Independent or a Conservative. The hon. Member would not have made this interjection, which, I think, is discrediting the fairmindedness of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious and false statement. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of at least 50 Members of the Conservative Party in this House whom I would sooner see dead than see in the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."]
  Mr. Greenwood: I do not know whom the hon. Member has in mind, but I am glad to know that it is not within his power to order this slaughter of the innocents. I really have only one word more to say. If there could be any proof that my hon. and gallant Friend were unfit to fill this post, I would be the first to say that he ought not to have it. If a man can serve in this House as my hon. and gallant Friend has served—and served his country also—for a period of years to the satisfaction of the House, however much independent individuals may dislike him, then I should have thought that the Government might be supported in the proposal which has been put forward, and I appeal to the House and its sense of honour, fairness and decency not to accept the previous Question.
  Sir Percy Harris: I beg to suggest that a certain amount of unnecessary heat has been generated on what is after all a House of Commons matter, concerning the smooth working of the machinery of the House. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) showed so much heat and personal antipathy in his speech. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this appointment has been rushed. The first intimation I had of the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir Dennis Herbert) from the position of Chairman of Ways and Means was at about quarter past 11 yesterday morning. It may be that the Government were not advised in the Recess that the right hon. Gentleman had decided to relinquish his appointment. At any rate, I do think that in this purely House of Commons matter, in which the House of Commons should have a say and has always had some say in the selection, the House should have had time to think who should occupy this very important post.
  258
  My view, for what it is worth, is that with the composition of this House of Commons it is a good idea to divide these posts between two parties; one should be in the hands of the Conservative Party and one should be in the hands of the Labour Party. So far as I am concerned, I have found both these gentlemen efficient and impartial in the Chair, and I would be quite willing to sit under their Chairmanship when we go into Committee, but I think it would have been advisable, and it might have terminated a good deal of this discussion, if we had had a few days to think over this matter, if the Government had advised my friends below the Gangway, my friends opposite, and even a few of the Independent Members, and so prevented a good deal of waste of time.
  Mr. Lipson: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Will you tell hon. Members of the House who have not been here sufficiently long to know the facts whether this is a Government or a House of Commons appointment?
  Mr. Speaker: It is a House of Commons appointment.
  Mr. Attlee: The Government have not departed from precedent in any way in this matter. These appointments are always made on the nomination of the Government. When new Governments are formed, one of the first things, when the House meets, when the Sessional Orders have been arranged, is the appointment of a Chairman of Ways and Means and a Deputy-Chairman.
  Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is done on the Motion of the Government. Quite right, but in normal circumstances the Government represent a majority of the House of Commons. In a Coalition the case is completely different.
  Mr. Attlee: There have been occasions when Governments have been in a minority in this House. I was in two of them myself. As a matter of fact, in 1924 I think the Chairman of Ways and Means was a member of the Labour Parry, and the Deputy-Chairman was taken from another party, I think the Liberal benches. I always thought it was a good plan myself that there should be variation. That does not alter the fact

  259
  that these are Motions without notice and have generally been made immediately on the relinquishment of the office, and it has not been the custom in the past that these names should be submitted to party meetings. I have had it notified to me that it was the intention of the Government to propose Mr. So-and-so, just before the Motion was made, on a number of occasions, but I assure the House there is no question of rushing the matter, and I think we should try to live up to the traditions of the House. I was very sorry that the hon. Member should have suggested that this was something of an elaborate bargaining, and a subject for spoils. I do not know why it should be when a Labour Member is appointed.
  I quite agree that a Coalition is in a different position, but this is not the first time that there has been a Government composed of more than one party, and certainly there have been occasions on which Government nominations have been made when the Government have been in a minority in the House. But this is the first occasion on which I have known objection taken on these lines. The objection taken is on some grounds of personal dislike. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. and gallant Member has served now in the Chair as a Temporary Chairman of Committees and on the Chairman's Panel for seven years. I have not heard any complaint. He has been a member of various Committees. I think it is extremely regrettable that this line should have been taken, and I think the House would do much better to accept this Motion. I do not think it is right that there should be a lot of trouble over a matter like this, or a wrangle in war-time. I think that is far more likely to do harm to the House than anything else.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I have no complaint whatever to make as regards either of the names submitted. Indeed, I think that in common with most Members of this House my view would be that the services in the Chair of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) have met with universal approval. What I do complain about is that this essentially House of Commons matter should have been put suddenly before the House without the House of Commons as a whole having an
  260
  opportunity to consider the names which were to be submitted to them. It is most unfortunate that this Debate should have taken place, and it will not help either of the hon. and gallant Members when they come to fulfil their task in the Chair. It seems to me quite essential that whoever occupies that Chair should be persona grata with everybody in the House, and that therefore the Members of the House of Commons should be consulted by the Government in any way that is possible before a name is finally submitted to them. I must say that I think that had soundings been taken relative to the proposals which the Government were going to put forward, we should not have had this Debate. It is a House of Commons appointment, not a Government appointment. The House is selecting someone to sit in the Chair and rule over it during its Debates. There is no question of personalities, and personalities would not have come into it had some consideration been shown by the Government to all parties in the House before they brought the matter forward.
  Earl Winterton: I feel great disagreement with most of my hon. Friends opposite. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would interrupt me and tell me on what occasion in the last 100 years there has been any consultation by any Government with their supporters or with anyone else as to who should be appointed Deputy-Speaker or nominated Deputy-Chairman of Committees. The whole thing has got into a completely false atmosphere. The hon. Member below the Gangway has made a speech which I can only describe as malicious. He boasted, as he constantly does, to the boredom of the House, that he is the one Member in the House who is independent and expresses independent views. On this occassion we are adopting the same course that the House has always adopted.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I think the House will at least acquit me of having any very strong partisan views on matters of this sort. I have on a number of occasions tried to assert the rights of the House against the Executive, but I am bound to say that hon. Members' arguments to-day leave me dumbfounded. What is suggested—that the Government make nominations, that

  261
  names should be hawked round for days and weeks beforehand, upstairs in committees, either in our committee upstairs or the Conservative committee upstairs, so that when the nomination is made it will be made in the most unpleasant circumstances possible. The House is being consulted at the present time. The House does not exist upstairs in private committee. The House exists here. This is the only place where the House should be consulted, and the Motion before the House is a form of consulting the House itself. Any bargaining behind closed doors and secret meetings upstairs are no substitution for the consultation of the House. I suggest that a great deal of unnecessary prejudice has been imported into this matter, and I hope hon. Members will not pursue it any further.
  Commander Agnew: I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no objection whatever to either of the two hon. and gallant Members who have been nominated to fill these offices. My objection is as to the method in which it has been done, as, differing from Crown appointments, these are House of Commons appointments. I feel that in future the procedure ought to be—and I say it with all respect to the traditions of this House—that the Patronage Secretary and two or three colleagues in a Coalition Government should put down, some days in advance, a Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. If any groups of hon. Members or parties in the House wish to discuss the matter, they can do so in their private meetings, and if any of the persons so nominated are likely to be persona non grata to strong bodies of opinion, then, of course, the usual representations could be made through the usual channels. I believe that if this suggestion were adopted in future, it would entirely remove the objection to the procedure in respect of the persons whose nominations have been brought forward to-day.
  Mr. Muff: It is the Back Bench Members who are interested in this matter. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) undoubtedly stressed the opinion that he was independent, and straight away he said, "In the absence of the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, I wish to place the views
  262
  of that Committee"—or words to that effect—"before the House." Then he proceeded to say, knowing, as we all do, that he is the recipient and receiver of more gossip in the smoking room than there is at our ladies' sewing-party at my chapel, or to give the impression, that he was also spokesman for a select coterie of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. I repudiate utterly that he is the custodian of the interests of the Labour Party, and, I deny that the hon. Member for Mossley has the right to speak on behalf of the 1922 Committee. The Deputy-Prime Minister has very properly reminded us that this House elected as Deputy-Chairman a former Member for South-West Hull, who was in opposition to the then party which is now in control of the Government. On previous occasions nominations have been made, and I well remember—though I was not a Member of the House, being too young—that Mr. Speaker Gully was elected Speaker of this House and that he was appointed actually with the consent of the Irish Nationalist Party, who were then in a position to give their vote and bring any party into the majority. The hon. Member for Mossley, the independent Member for Mossley, who is persona grata with all the Primrose dames in his constituency, comes down here, stresses his independence and that he is an incorruptible Robespierre, to speak to this House, and then he gives the show away by saying, "I object to any of the spoils being given to any one section of the House."
  If there ever was a case where the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman earns whatever salary he receives, these two hon. Gentlemen, honourable in every sense of the word, earn every penny, and I wish we could give it to them tax free. I rise as one of the back bench Members who saw in the Press, at least three days before Christmas, that the right hon. and very highly respected Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) was laying down his office. We learned that fact. We are not going to take on the sins of "The Times" because they put a certain statement in their rag this morning, but even back bench Members have known that certain appointments were going to be made. I hope that we in this honourable House will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has put it, be true to our traditions and to the men who are

  263
  going to sit in that Chair when we discuss the grievances of our constituents and try to remedy them, and that we shall repudiate the Amendment standing in the name of the very independent Member for Mossley.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I wonder whether I might address a few observations to the House on this subject and then make an appeal to them. There has obviously been some quite genuine misunderstanding about precedents in this matter. My noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) is quite right. I have looked them up carefully, and there is absolutely no precedent for notice being given, or consultation, beforehand. I fully understood my hon. Friend's reason, but it has never, in fact, been done. On every occasion in the last century a Motion has been put down by the Government, and all the precedents I can find—I speak subject to correction—are that on the day when the Chairman of Ways and Means resigns or retires a new Chairman and Deputy-Chairman are appointed on that day. As a matter of fact, it was owing to the advice I gave to the Prime Minister that we did not take both things yesterday. I suggested that it would be better to have the resignation one day and appointments the next. I think that is the first time that even that has been done. I wanted to make that plain to the House, because quite obviously there has been some misunderstanding.
  Mr. Hopkinson: When my right hon. Friend says there is no official notice given, I know for an actual fact, from my own experience, that on every similar occasion the whole thing has been unofficially discussed and the powers that be have obtained the opinion of the House as far as they could before bringing their selection forward. As a matter of fact, the Deputy-Prime Minister told me in conversation that this particular selection had the unanmious support of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Stephen: I think part of the trouble has arisen from a confusion between the appointment of Speaker and the appointment of Chairman. With regard to the appointment of Speaker, generally there are joint consultations,
  264
  but with regard to Chairmen no consultations ever take place.
  Mr. Eden: That is exactly the position. I have been into this with great care. That is the procedure which has always been followed. Almost always appointments have been made on the first day of Parliament, so that consultations would not have been possible. Those are the precedents, and we have followed them absolutely. I do not regard ourselves as being guilty in any way or of being discourteous to the House in a matter of this kind. It has been agreed by all recent speakers that nobody wishes to introduce personal matters into these appointments. If this be so, in order to give the House the best chance of working smoothly, may I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment?
  Mr. Hopkinson: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the previous Question. I should explain, however, that some of the things said of me in this discussion have been demonstrably untrue, and I should have raised objection to them if it had not meant wasting time. However, in view of what has been said, and because it is now practically impossible to get a large-scale vote of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the previous Question in the hope that, having moved it, it will have done some good.
  Previous Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That Colonel the Right Hon. Douglas Clifton Brown be the Chairman of Ways and Means and that Major James Milner be the Deputy-Chairman."

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

FUEL AND POWER
  Voluntary Transport Service, Birmingham
  Voluntary Transport Service, Birmingham
  Coal Supplies Northern Ireland
  Coal Supplies Northern Ireland
  Hydro-Electric Resources, North Wales
  Hydro-Electric Resources, North Wales
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTIONS (RATIFICATION)
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (REINSTATEMENT).
  SERVICE PERSONNEL (REINSTATEMENT).
  DOCK LABOUR SCHEME, CORNWALL
  DOCK LABOUR SCHEME, CORNWALL
  NORTH AFRICA
  NORTH AFRICA
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Women's Auxiliary Air Force Police (Photographs)
  Women's Auxiliary Air Force Police (Photographs)
  Enemy Losses Over Great Britain
  Enemy Losses Over Great Britain
  Beveridge Report
  Beveridge Report
  Air Training Corps
  Air Training Corps
  Air-Crew Trainees (Rank)
  Air-Crew Trainees (Rank)
  BRITISH MISSIONS, UNITED STATES
  BRITISH MISSIONS, UNITED STATES
  OMNIBUS SERVICES
  OMNIBUS SERVICES
  ROAD TRAFFIC BEACONS
  ROAD TRAFFIC BEACONS
  ROAD SIGNPOSTS
  ROAD SIGNPOSTS
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SCOTLAND
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SCOTLAND
  WORKERS (LATE NIGHT TRAVEL)
  WORKERS (LATE NIGHT TRAVEL)
  ANTI-FREEZE MIXTURE
  ANTI-FREEZE MIXTURE
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
  News-Reel Pictures (Rota System)
  News-Reel Pictures (Rota System)
  Aircraft Production (Minister's Speech)
  Aircraft Production (Minister's Speech)
  Wartime Social Survey
  Wartime Social Survey
  Letter (Censorship)
  Letter (Censorship)
  "Brains Trust" Broadcasts
  "Brains Trust" Broadcasts
  AIR-RAID DAMAGE (HISTORIC BUILDINGS)
  AIR-RAID DAMAGE (HISTORIC BUILDINGS)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Immigration Permits
  Immigration Permits
  Smuggling (Penalties)
  Smuggling (Penalties)
  RURAL HOUSES (POSSESSION APPLICATIONS)
  RURAL HOUSES (POSSESSION APPLICATIONS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Essential Articles (Supplies, Tyneside)
  Essential Articles (Supplies, Tyneside)
  Utility Stockings
  Utility Stockings
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  MINISTRY OF WORKS AND PLANNING (APPEALS)
  MINISTRY OF WORKS AND PLANNING (APPEALS)
  HOUSING, LIVERPOOL
  HOUSING, LIVERPOOL
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Chocolate (Licence)
  Chocolate (Licence)
  National Loaf
  National Loaf
  Potatoes (Processing Plants)
  Potatoes (Processing Plants)
  Milk Deliveries, Luton
  Milk Deliveries, Luton
  Bread (Rationing).
  Bread (Rationing).
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Condemned Food
  Condemned Food
  Fish Distribution Scheme, Manchester
  Fish Distribution Scheme, Manchester
  Bakery Trade
  Bakery Trade
  Milk Contracts
  Milk Contracts
  British Restaurants
  British Restaurants
ROYAL NAVY
  Dockyard Workers (Fire Watching Duties)
  Dockyard Workers (Fire Watching Duties)
  Beveridge Report
  Beveridge Report
  Contracts (Investigation)
  Contracts (Investigation)
  POTATOES AND SUGAR-BEET (CROPS)
  POTATOES AND SUGAR-BEET (CROPS)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (ARMY BUREAU OF CURRENT AFFAIRS)
  BEVERIDGE REPORT (ARMY BUREAU OF CURRENT AFFAIRS)
  PALESTINE (JUDGES' ATTIRE)
  PALESTINE (JUDGES' ATTIRE)
WEST AFRICA
  Riot, Freetown
  Riot, Freetown
  Food Supplies, Sierra Leone
  Food Supplies, Sierra Leone
  Gold Coast (European Officials' Allowances)
  Gold Coast (European Officials' Allowances)
  Northern Nigeria (Hospital Accommodation)
  Northern Nigeria (Hospital Accommodation)
WEST INDIES
  Colonial Development and Welfare Act
  Colonial Development and Welfare Act
  Sir Cosmo Parkinson's Visit
  Sir Cosmo Parkinson's Visit
  Railway Employees Union, Jamaica
  Railway Employees Union, Jamaica
  Property Leases, Jamaica
  Property Leases, Jamaica
  Jamaica People's National Party.
  Jamaica People's National Party.
  Jamaica (Constitution)
  Jamaica (Constitution)
  British Guiana and Trinidad (Franchise Commissions)
  British Guiana and Trinidad (Franchise Commissions)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND RESERVATION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND RESERVATION)
  UGANDA (LABOUR SITUATION)
  UGANDA (LABOUR SITUATION)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF)
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WAR PENSIONS AND REHABILITATION.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN rose to call attention to the present position regarding war pensions and rehabilitation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring to your Lordships' notice to-day the question of war pensions and rehabilitation. It is a matter that must in its nature be very close to your Lordships' minds and hearts. The year 1943 is the year of decision; it may or may not be the year of victory. It must be the year of battles, and that means the year of casualties. That is, we do not know when all the Private Snookses will come home again, but we do know that before that a great many Private Snookses will come home wounded. When Private Snooks comes back wounded there are certain things he necessarily needs. He wants maintenance for himself and his family; he wants treatment for his disability; he needs rehabilitation so that he may be fit to work for himself and his family; he wants a job, and, above all, he wants independence. The problem of war casualties is in essence similar to the problem of industrial casualties. There are the same problems of maintenance, of rehabilitation, of re-employment. But the problem of war casualties is also very different from that of industrial casualties. Industrial casualties are actuarially calculable, they can be insured against and guarded against, but the scope of accident prevention for those in the Forces is very limited indeed.
War casualties are a special case for a number of reasons. There is the abnormal side of the problem. I do not know whether your Lordships fully realize that the number of war pensioners carried over from the last war is still 400,000. So far in this war the fighting has not attained the bitterness which we must expect, and while so far casualties have been relatively light we must anticipate the time when they are heavy and are measurable in
672
scale with those of the last war. That is an indication of the size of the problem. And then Private Tom Snooks, wounded, has special claims for treatment, and there will be much widespread discontent if the right treatment is not given.
I wish to say quite frankly that actually the position with regard to pensions and rehabilitation is good. The Ministry of Pensions gives the impression of being run in a really businesslike way, and, unlike some Ministers and Ministries, Sir Walter Womersley and the staff under him, as I can testify from personal experience, far from putting themselves on the defensive against inquiries, show a real forthcoming-ness, a readiness to respond and a genuine spirit of co-operation. To say less would be ungracious and unjust, but I have special reasons for saying this. Important as it is, in my judgment, as I think your Lordships will agree, to those already disabled, it is of even greater importance for the morale of those whom the harsh necessities of war make the potential clients of the Ministry, that the vast numbers of men and women in the Fighting Services should have confidence in the Ministry of Pensions. I believe they can feel that confidence. But that is not to say that there is no room for improvement. I have a few observations to make to your Lordships in that regard this afternoon.
I do not propose to spend much time on the question of the rate of pensions, but I think it might be interesting if I were to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that with 100 per cent. disability the soldier with a wife and three children is entitled at present rates to the sum of £3 4s. 7d. per week. This £3 4s. 7d. a week, is, except for the odd 7d., precisely the same amount as Sir William Beveridge proposes as benefit for the unemployed man with a wife and three children. But note that Sir William Beveridge's standard is a mere subsistence standard; and I think the question which your Lordships might perhaps like to ask is whether a subsistence standard is adequate for a man with 100 per cent. disability. Should the nation be satisfied to provide no more than a mere subsistence standard for those who are so grievously wounded as to have been assessed at 100 per cent. disability? Then, by a curious anomaly, the pensioner of this war at present receives somewhat less than the pensioner of the last war for the

673
same degree of disability. A private soldier of the last war with 100 per cent. disability is entitled to 40s. per week; the private soldier of this war with 100 per cent. disability gets only 37s. 6d. per week. The reasons are based on history. The Great War pensions were subject to a sliding scale according to the cost of living, and though pensions went up as the cost of living went up, so that a 100 per cent. disability man got 40s. a week, the pension has remained at the peak notwithstanding some reduction in the cost of living index from the peak. The pensions of this war are based upon the current cost of living. Is it not an anomaly that these different rates should exist side by side? Might it not be proper to bring the pensioners of this war to the same rates of pensions as the pensioners of the last war?
Another rather curious anomaly arises in this way in die case of widows. The widow of a man in the Fighting Services dying in the Service may be ineligible for a war pension under the Royal Warrant. She may, however, be entitled to a widow's pension under the Contributory Pensions Act. As your Lordships are aware, a condition of a pension under that Act is that her husband should have paid two years' contributions under the Act. If he has not paid two years' contributions then there is no widow's pension. You may therefore get, and you do get, the anomaly of two widows whose husbands had died in the Fighting Services side by side under precisely similar conditions, and the one becomes entitled to a pension while the other is not so entitled. The soldier comes under the Contributory Pensions Act from the imminent when he joins the Army whether he was tinder the Act before the war or not. If he had already paid two years' contribution before joining the Forces his widow is eligible for a widow's pension under the Act even if he dies immediately after joining the Service. If, for instance, he has paid eighteen months' contribution before joining the Army, when he has been in the Army for six months his widow would be entitled to a pension.
But take the man who, before the war, did not come under the Act. Take for instance the small shopkeeper. His qualification begins only when he joins the Forces. If he dies six months or even eighteen months after joining there is no pension for his widow, though if he dies
674
after two years there is. Your Lordships may perhaps think that it is a situation which requires amendment. I find it myself impossible to explain to the satisfaction of the ordinary man in the street why death in the Service should, in the one case, qualify, and in the other case not qualify, his widow for a widow's pension. The solution would appear to be simple. It would appear to be that every man on joining the Forces should be deemed to have paid his two years' qualifying contributions whether in fact he has paid or not; that he should receive a credit for two years' contributions is probably the technical means of effecting this. I hope the Minister of Pensions may feel that this is a case upon which negotiations might usefully be undertaken by him with the Service Departments, and also with the Ministry of Health and, I suppose, the Treasury, with a view to dissipating this anomaly. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is one which should be remedied. Death cannot be appraised on a time basis.
The class of case that gives rise to the greatest difficulty for the soldier and the greatest dissatisfaction among the public, is the treatment of claims in doubtful and border-line cases. I agree, and I think we must all admit, that the border line between the eligible claim and other claims is hard to trace. Where is it that the Army is responsible and where is it that the claimant is responsible? The test of eligibility under the Royal Warrant is, in non-technical terms, whether or not the wound, injury or disease was caused by, or aggravated by, war service. If a man is actually wounded—if he gets, for instance, a bullet through the head—there is of course no difficulty about deciding eligibility. He is entitled to a pension. The hole in his head is there for all to see and it has come from an enemy bullet. But if he sustains an accident, is he pensionable or not? The present position is by no means clear. If a man suffers an accident on his way to or from leave, on the railway journey for instance, he is, as I understand, entitled to a pension, though he is not entitled to a pension if he suffers the accident between the time of arrival at home and the time of his departure from home, for during the time he is actually at home he is deemed to be subject to no more than ordinary civilian risks of life. That seems to me an understandable and not unreason-

675
able theory, but there are cases which are by no means so simple. If for instance a man is visiting a canteen within the precincts of his camp and is run over by a lorry on his way back to his quarters, apparently he is entitled to a pension. If, however, there is no canteen within the precincts of his camp and he visits a canteen just outside the camp, and is run over by the same lorry while returning to the same quarters, he is not entitled to a pension. It is very difficult to understand the basis of this discrimination. I would suggest that cases such as those to which I have referred need review with a view to their assimilation.
But what gives rise to the greatest difficulty, and is the least satisfactory feature of the pensions administration, is in regard to the treatment of those disabled by disease. One would think that if a man is once passed into the Forces with a medical grading A1 and he contracts some disease which involves his discharge, a right to pension would almost automatically arise. But that, in fact, is not necessarily the case and undoubtedly little nests of discontent have been created all over the country because of the situation which has arisen by reason of this way of treating matters. On medical examination a man is asked to state from what illnesses he has suffered during his life; he is asked to give a medical history, and his statement is, of course, taken into account by the examining medical officers. If he has said, and said truthfully, that his health has been good and he is passed A1, it would, in my submission, seem logical that the State should accept responsibility for any deterioration in his health involving his discharge from the Army. Similarly, if he discloses some ailment, and is then accepted for the Army on a proper grading but is afterwards discharged for ill-health, the deterioration would seem to give rise to a good claim for pension.
Take the case of a man who three months after he joins the Army develops, let us say, duodenal ulcer, and is subsequently discharged on that account. Pension or no pension? I believe the practice at present is that in such cases no pension is awarded. But if the man developed duodenal ulcer after eighteen months in the Army there would be an entitlement. Or take cancer. On medical
676
examination a man has declared in perfect good faith that he has suffered from no disease and he is passed A1. A little time after he joins the Army it is discovered that he is suffering from cancer. Admittedly this would not have been discoverable even if it had existed when he was medically examined. Pension or no pension? I understand the practice is that if, for instance, cancer of the leg is disclosed within three or four months of a man joining the Army he is regarded as pensionable because, according to my understanding, cancer of the leg will disclose itself before it is three months old. But if, on the other hand, he develops cancer of the lung he is not entitled to pension because that may have been latent, even though unknown, at the time he joined the Army.
It is obvious, in dealing with the ordinary man in the street and his relations, that it is extraordinarily difficult to explain to the man and woman in the Forces and their families upon what basis pensions are awarded in cases of disease when such apparent disparity in entitlement so often arises. Surely, there is a case for erring on the side of generosity and lenience, and this would have the tremendous psychological advantage of giving to those in the Forces and to their relations. But does not it in fact all lead up to the suggestion that it is imperative that appeal tribunals should be set up at the earliest possible moment? I know the difficulties of finding personnel to man these tribunals. If the analogy of the last war be followed, I believe that it will come within the province of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to select the president and perhaps—I know not—the whole of the personnel for these tribunals. It is suggested, no doubt with a good deal of substance, that it would be difficult, at this time, to find lawyers and doctors to act as chairmen or members of such tribunals. But is it necessary that they should be lawyers or doctors? The problems with which the tribunals would be confronted would be simply problems of eligibility. They would not be matters of assessing degrees of disability—these are matters for the medical boards. The tribunal would be concerned merely with the question of right to pension or no right. In other words, it is a question of evidence.
I should be the last to dissent from the view that lawyers are those who are best qualified to adjudicate on matters of evidence. But if there be a shortage of lawyers for this purpose, as there may be, surely there are many senior officers—each of us knows some—who, on grounds of age, Lave been retired from the Services who could be called in. These officers have, while on the Active List, been entrusted with the greatest responsibilities in regard to matters of evidence. They have sat upon courts martial, presided at courts martial, reviewed the decisions at courts martial, and have adjudicated upon serious offences involving periods of imprisonment. Surely, men with that kind of experience have some qualification for adjudicating on questions of eligibility ender the Pensions Warrant. I know, and I am glad of it, that the Minister has recently set up a small Committee to look into the possibility of now establishing these appeal tribunals and I throw out this suggestion of using retired senior officers as one which I hope will be considered by that Committee. Even if it were not possible to man sufficient tribunals to cover the country as it should be covered, surely it would be good to make a beginning, even if, at the start, the country can only be covered thinly. The problem is cumulative, and unless a start is made now the job will become overwhelming if we have to wait until the end of the war to get these tribunals started.
Now what I have said here by way of comment and suggestion in no way derogates from the remarks I have made earlier on the good work being done by the Ministry of Pensions, and I am sure that, at all events as long as Sir Walter Womersley is at the head of the Ministry, men and women in the Services may rely upon their cases being treated with sympathy and goodwill, and that in the Minister they have a man who is, so to speak, on their side.
I leave Pensions now and come to the question of rehabilitation. Only a few days ago the very important Tomlinson Report was issued. Its formidable title is the "Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons," Command 6415. No doubt your Lordships have taken the opportunity of reading this valuable Report. To me it seems very
678
good. It is penetrating in analysis and positive and constructive in solution. I am concerned with it to-day not in its general aspect so much as with its application to those in the Fighting Services. It would be a pity, however, if it were thought that little or nothing has been done hitherto by the Ministry of Pensions in the way of rehabilitation. In fact a great deal has been done, and done admirably, and I only wish that more publicity could have been given to it. I have recently had the advantage of paying a visit to St. Mary's Hospital at Roehampton. I wish the Minister could see his way to invite members of your Lordships' House to go to Roehampton to see what is being done there, for I am sure that you would be impressed. There you may see men with shattered faces having new faces made for them by the miracles of plastic surgery. You can see these extraordinary and almost miraculous artificial legs being provided for those who are legless. So good are they that, when I was asked to give an opinion as to which of the two legs of one of the men there was an artificial one, I could not make up my mind. As I had to say something, I said that it was the right leg, and then I asked whether this was correct. The answer was that it was correct, but that the other leg was an artificial limb too.
I saw a man walking on two artificial legs who was indistinguishable in the way in which he was walking from the normal man with ordinary legs. That seemed to me very striking, because the fact that he has these two legs upon which he can walk, and that he is to all outward appearance normal, has an enormous psychological effect on the man himself: he does not feel that he is a man to whom anyone can point, or that he has any obvious inferiority of a physical character which would mark him out from amongst his fellows. The work which is being done in this way seems to me quite extraordinary. Men with these artificial limbs have even climbed Snowdon, and have been known to walk all the way to Brighton—not a bad effort for those without the usual complement of normal legs.
It is not strictly relevant to my argument, but it is a striking fact and may be of interest to observe that the ratio of arm amputations to leg amputations in this war is almost precisely the same as in the last war, notwithstanding the differ-

679
ence in the risks taken and the differences in tactics and in the weapons and projectiles employed. It may also interest your Lordships to know that, of the arm amputees, women show a far greater facility than men in using the various gadgets that are supplied to arm amputees to bring them back into normal life and work. I saw one girl there who had been a telephone operator in the North. Both her arms had been taken off above the wrist. She was very jolly and cheerful, and was being re-trained. I understand from an inquiry which I made the other day that she is now back again at her job as a telephone operator, although she has only artificial hands. I think that there is scope for those who are experts in these matters to devise something more satisfactory in the way of artificial hands. Nothing really satisfactory has yet come out of all the inventive work which has been done, although arms and legs are so admirable as to make the damaged person able to perform even the most unlikely tasks.
What I thought was perhaps the most interesting thing that is done for these patients is this. When a man or woman comes to one of these hospitals, fairly badly smashed up, it is always found that he or she is extraordinarily worried about the future. That is particularly true of the married man with a family; he is very worried about what will happen to him so far as his job is concerned. As soon as the first difficulties of his actual disability have been overcome, and whilst he is still in hospital and, it may be, still in bed, a psychiatrist comes to the hospital and talks to him, discussing his past and his possible future, and inspiring him with the idea that he really has a future before him, if not in his old trade then in some new occupation. Later, when he is a little further on the road to recovery or improvement, but whilst he is still in hospital, a representative of the Ministry of Labour attends at the hospital with a view to indicating to him precisely what he can do and where he should go.
I have dwelt at perhaps undue length on what happens at this hospital at Roehampton, because I was most profoundly impressed by it. My only regret was, and is, that the public have so little knowledge of what is being done in that regard, so that too little appreciation of it is shown. I could wish that the Minister's
680
publicity department or Public Relations Officer might be instructed to make all these remarkable facts with regard to the work that is being done known to the public at large. I believe that I shall have your Lordships' concurrence when I say that no time or energy or effort is wasted which inspires confidence in those in the Forces and their relations that things will really be done for, them if they are wounded, and which makes them realize that the utmost care and trouble will be taken to bring them back into a wage-earning life.
I have digressed to say a few words with regard to Roehampton, but I must, before I sit down, say something with regard to the rehabilitation suggestions made in the Tomlinson Report. The outstanding point about the rehabilitation service, taken as a whole, is that it is quite inadequate to fulfil its normal tasks, let alone the tasks which will fail upon it when the flow of Service casualties comes to be dealt with. I cannot emphasize too strongly that success in rehabilitation depends not on good intentions or even upon the right policy in themselves, but on the existence of sufficient personnel and apparatus in the form of doctors, nurses, instruments, institutions, hospitals and clinics. At present there is no doubt that the apparatus is inadequate, although the right policy is known and accepted. There are hospitals at which a special treatment in physio-therapy and occupational therapy is given to reduce the effect of fractures; but that is not enough. There are 21 orthopedic centres and 60 hospitals ear-marked under the Emergency Medical Services to deal with fractures in a specialized way, but most hospitals do not provide more than ordinary surgical treatment, and the number of specialized institutions is quite insufficient.
Moreover, in what has been done so far attention has been paid too exclusively to fractures, and to the rehabilitation of persons with mended fractures. It is one of the virtues of the Tomlinson Report that it recognizes the importance of rehabilitation outside the main field of fractures. It deals with the rehabilitation and post-hospital treatment of persons disabled by tuberculosis, blindness, deafness, damage to the cardiac muscles, neuroses, psychoses and so on. All these aspects of rehabilitation are of the greatest importance in considering the

681
problems of Service casualties, and any scheme will stand or fall by the extent to which the necessary apparatus and personnel can be found to deal with the scale of the problem. Where I think that perhaps the Tomlinson Report is weakest is in the assumption that the means for carrying out its proposals will be available. This is not only a question of finance, though of course finance has its importance, but it is also a question of administrative and technical apparatus and personnel. It is no good deciding to carry out this policy or that policy unless at the same time steps are taken to see that the necessary apparatus for carrying it out will be forthcoming at the right place and the right time. The great danger is that, unless this practical point is fully realized and foreseen, nothing effective will be done, whatever policy is accepted; that is to say that by shooting too high you may hit nowhere. The urgent need is not only to see what is to be done, but also to work out how it is to be done arid to decide what in practical terms is possible.
The Tomlinson Report deals with rehabilitation in general, but all its recommendations and all its assumptions concern very specially ex-Service rehabilitation, because of the scale of the ex-Service casualties which we must expect, and because of the claims of ex-Service men and women. The Tomlinson Committee lay stress, and welcome stress, not only on restoring disabled persons to health and fitness, but also on the restoration of the utmost possible degree of working capacity by special treatment and, more important than anything, on re-employment. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that rehabilitation only starts when hospital treatment ends. Re-education and re-training, with all the necessary apparatus and skill, are crucial. Re-employment, either in the old field of occupation or in a new one for which special training facilities are provided, is the crucial test of a rehabilitation policy. Here the Tomlinson Report is most highly to be commended, for it stresses the fact that the rehabilitated person can be made fit for full work, and it has produced, as your Lordships will have seen in the Report itself, ingenious suggestions for ways and means of securing re-employment in ordinary occupations and especially in scheduled occupations set apart and reserved for those unable to follow
682
their normal pursuits. I will not weary your Lordships with the details, for your Lordships will have read them in the Report.
Finally, I would say this. The real problem, as I have said, begins when hospitals have done their work, and the real problem is how to re-employ the rehabilitated. This question of re-employment is, of course, an essential part of the large post-war economic problem. If there is work for all who are willing to work then the disabled and rehabilitated Snooks will have a better chance of finding his niche, but if there is mass un-employment, or anything approaching mass unemployment, Snooks will be left by the wayside. He must not be left by the wayside. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, after the eloquent and exhaustive speech on pensions and rehabilitation which we have heard, I feel your Lordships will agree with me that there is very little that can be usefully added. I should like to thank the noble Lord for an extremely interesting exposition of the whole subject. I rise only for a very brief moment to outline to your Lordships a line of investigation into the last problem which the noble Lord mentioned, that of reemployment, which was being followed in certain industries in this country before the war. It had been noted that a man who was injured or had fallen sick was frequently on the sick list for a very considerably longer time than was necessary because he was unfit to take up his old employment, which required 100 per cent. fitness, though in fact he could have engaged in some lighter employment. This was very unfortunate, both because it impaired the man's earning capacity at a time when it was most essential that there should be adequate money coming into his home to pay for perhaps special feeding or treatment, and also because of the bad moral effect of being out of work and dependent upon some form of pension.
To this end labour in a number of industries was subdivided into three classes. There was first of all the A class, where a man was 100 per cent. fit; then there was the B class which did not entail the lifting of any load greater than 56 lb.—which is I believe medically considered the maximum load that should be lifted by a woman; and then there was the C class

683
where no load of more than 10 lb. need be lifted. An analysis of the man-hours employed in a number of industries of these three classes of work over a number of industries so examined—and obviously your Lordships will realize that these figures can only be tentative—tended to show that 25 per cent. of the man-hours in the examined industries came under the C class, 60 per cent. under the B class and only 15 per cent. under the A class. Quite clearly it would be impossible to put only Grade C men to do C class work, and only Grade B men to do B class work, leaving A men to do A class work only, because the strain on the A class men would be too great. But it has been computed by competent medical opinion that every industry could possibly, without putting an excessive strain on its A class men, carry as much as 25 per cent. of the men of the B and C classes to do that work. This line of inquiry seems to me to be worthy of the attention of the Ministry of Pensions, and to link up usefully with this problem of re-employment, and that is why I have ventured to bring it to your Lordships' attention.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is altogether appropriate, even in the midst of a desperate war, that sympathetic consideration should be given to the needs and the claims of those who have been disabled in its service, and the fact that this problem is not being neglected will give assurance and bring some comfort to the men and women of every rank in the three great Services. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has a long-standing and commendable and useful interest in the matter which he has brought before your Lordships' House, and the Government welcome the discussion which his Motion has stimulated. The problem is in fact everybody's responsibility. Everybody has a responsibility to see that all that can be done in this matter shall be done in a generous way. We should be accused and we should be shamed if men who have suffered for our safety and our freedom were left uncared for. Therefore I am sure your Lordships will welcome the Motion that the noble Lord has introduced. As far as I understand the argument which Lord Nathan has put forward with force, it is that the anxieties of the men who are serving are greatly increased
684
by the fear that they may be dismissed wounded and incapacitated and that insufficient help will be provided for them. Lord Nathan has summarized his criticisms on this matter by saying that the men demand maintenance for self and family, treatment for their disabilities, rehabilitation until they become self-supporting, and, above all and most important of all, they demand a job when they are able to resume their work. The noble Lord has laid proper and particular emphasis on the needs of the individual man whose life has been spared but whose health has been lost and whose industrial efficiency has been impaired.
It may be worth while to remind your Lordships that the problem as it exists to-day is not immense nor is it unmanageable, and also that the vast majority of those already discharged have been discharged on medical grounds and not on account of wounds. It may also be useful if, in a few brief phrases, I greatly abbreviate a description of what the actual provision is for these men. So far as pensions are concerned, disability pensions are available to men whose disability is accepted by the Ministry as being due to, or aggravated by, service in the present war. The rate of pension depends on the degree of disability and on the man's rank, and it may also be affected by the length of his service. The degree of disability is measured in comparison with a normal healthy person of the same age and sex, and the pension, it is to be noticed, is not disturbed by the amount of wages that the man receives. Then there are some family allowances. These include allowances in respect of wife and children. The rate varies according to the degree of disability, and the allowances for children are ordinarily terminated when the children reach the age of sixteen. There are certain conditions required as to eligibility. In regard to education, there are allowances available not exceeding £40 towards the cost of education, if the Ministry is satisfied that family circumstances justify it. Then there are certain allowances for cases where constant attendance is required upon 100 per cent. disability. These do not exceed 18s. per week in the case of the men and are not over £90 Year in the case of officers. Finally, there are certain allowances for limbs and appliances. The Ministry arranges these if no other source is available. Those

685
afflicted may, during treatment, receive allowances based on pensions, together with any additional allowance for which they may be qualified in respect of their families.
That is a highly summarized account of the present provisions, and I thought it might be useful to your Lordships to be reminded of them so as to form a basis upon which to think of the future. Lord Nathan has made certain criticisms in regard to the rates and so on which are paid. His general position is that the situation in regard to pensions is on the whole satisfactory, but there are certain points of criticism he has to make. One of these refers to injuries received when a man is on leave. This difficulty is commonly described as the "on and off duty" question. Under the Royal Warrant a disability must be attributable to, or aggravated by, war service. This is generously interpreted, but there must be a limit. Accidents on duty are always accepted, as are accidents occurring directly between stations and billets. Accidents when going on or returning from long leave are accepted. Accidents in an immediate battle area and accidents due to unfamiliarity with foreign conditions, or with some unsuspected danger peculiar to a locality at home, are accepted. Accidents while a man is on pass or while he is actually on leave are not accepted. What a man does when on pass or whilst actually on leave is not subject to any Service compulsion, and any accident with which he meets might equally befall a member of the civilian population. Accidents of the most common kind are those arising from traffic and black-out conditions which are general to all of us, unfortunately, in these times.
Lord Nathan made certain criticisms in regard to tribunals, and I promise him that both his criticisms and his suggestions will receive the consideration of the Minister. His desire is that these tribunals should work with the utmost publicity, because this will allay dissatisfaction with decisions in border-line cases. The Government have announced their intention to set up independent appeal tribunals at the earliest opportunity. Their immediate institution would require a considerable medical staff and some hundreds of lay staff. Qualified personnel are not at present available, and to the extent to which some could be made available it would be at the expense
686
of activities more immediately vital to the war effort. The whole problem is being further explored by a sub-committee of the Ministry of Pensions Central Advisory Committee. I repeat that the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will be transmitted to the Minister and will, I am sure, receive his consideration.
LORD NATHAN: Is my noble friend in a position to say anything upon the anomaly regarding widows to which I referred? If he is not in a position to say anything now I understand.
LORD SNELL: I regret that I am not informed on that special point, but it will receive consideration. The question of the rehabilitation of afflicted men and reemployment for them is one of the most important that your Lordships have to consider. Let us always remember, however, that merely to find work for a man is not a satisfactory solution of the problem. It must be suitable work. Merely to throw a man into some sort of job for which in any case he would be unfitted, is not to deal with the problem effectively. In regard to rehabilitation there is, I think, very little basis for Lord Nathan's criticism that rehabilitation only starts when hospital treatment has ended. It is recognized in the general treatment of these men that rehabilitation should begin as soon as possible after the injury or operation and continue throughout the whole period of convalescence. For instance, if a man has a fractured limb it is important that he should begin to use it at the very earliest moment and that is looked after by the authorities.
The criticism that the Tomlinson Report is rather weak on that point would, I think, not be accepted by the members of that Committee. If I may I will refer your Lordships to page 42 of that Report where you will see that rehabilitation is dealt with under five points. I will not trouble your Lordships to listen to my reading of them, but the Report does deal with this matter, and I think on the whole fairly efficiently. Much has already been done in the matter of rehabilitation in the Ministry's hospital. Their object is to bring the man back to the stage when he is either able to resume his old occupation or be trained by the Ministry of Labour for a new one. The interim scheme for the training of disabled men

687
is working well. Officials of the Ministry of Labour and National Service dealing with this particular matter visit the man while still in hospital and discuss his position with him and his doctors. Training is available for all who need it, and with the present demand for labour there is no difficulty in placing in employment those who have been trained.
In regard to re-employment, this, as Lord Nathan rightly said, is a major anxiety of the men. No one who remembers the grim tragedy of unemployed men after the last war can possibly seek to minimize the importance of that anxiety, and I will see that the attention of the Minister is brought to the suggestions which Lord Faringdon made in his interesting speech. So far as the re-employment of disabled men is concerned the problem is undoubtedly a difficult one, but it is one to which the Government are giving full and serious attention. A strong Committee under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service has just produced a comprehensive Report on the whole problem of the rehabilitation and re-settlement of the disabled. The proposals in this Report are not limited to the war disabled, and they will be discussed with the British Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress and the Royal National Council. They cover the whole field, but at the moment the position is that they have been accepted as a basis of discussion. The House will forgive me if I have not dealt adequately with particular points mentioned by Lord Nathan in his interesting speech. I was entrusted with this duty at very short notice, and I have tried to indicate as far as possible what the general attitude of the Ministry is in this matter. There is the fullest sympathy with what has been said to-day, and a desire to see that the needs of those to whom the nation is so greatly indebted shall be adequately provided for.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his full, careful and sympathetic reply. I shall not in these final words indulge in any controversy, but I should like to protect myself against possible misapprehension arising from what the noble Lord has said and in regard to which I have perhaps in my opening observations not made myself
688
sufficiently clear. My noble friend seems to think that I was speaking in a critical spirit when I said that rehabilitation starts when hospital treatment ends. I was not speaking in a critical sense, I was speaking in a chronological sense, although I agree that rehabilitation and hospital treatment may to an extent overlap.
Again—and this is perhaps a little more serious—I should not like there to be any misunderstanding in regard to another point. My noble friend seems to have thought that I attributed to the Tomlinson Report a weakness in that it had not dealt with rehabilitation, and then my noble friend pointed out how rehabilitation is dealt with in that Report. Far from attributing this as a weakness I pointed out in my observations that it was a special virtue. Where I referred to a weakness was in a different context. I said that where the Report was weakest was in the assumption that the means for carrying out the proposals would be available. That is rather different from what was attributed to me by my noble friend, but I do not pursue that matter any further except to point out that it would be a misapprehension if it were suggested that I had blamed where in fact I had praised. Finally, I hope my noble friend may possibly think it advantageous to suggest to the Minister of Pensions that the proposal I made as to members of your Lordships' House being given an opportunity under his guidance of visiting the Roehampton Hospital is worth while pursuing. With that closing remark I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn may I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, with respect to one point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nathan? We do not expect him to reply to it to-day. The point is that concerning the case of widows of men killed side by side mentioned by Lord Nathan. May not both be eligible for a pension? Will the noble Lord assure us that he will ask the Minister to look into that matter and perhaps give the House some information and some hope for the removal of this manifest hardship in the near future?
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord will realize that I cannot give an authoritative answer now, but I will see that the point

689
is put to the Minister and perhaps some other opportunity of explanation will be available.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ARMY AND THE BEVERIDGE REPORT
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government why the publication of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs summarizing the Beveridge Report was withdrawn from circulation; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I desire to draw your Lordships' attention, according to the terms of my Motion, to the withdrawal, after it had appeared on December 19, of the publication of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs dealing with the proposals in the Beveridge Report. I hope that this may give the Government an opportunity for making a more ample statement than they have been able to give hitherto in another place, and I think it is one of the advantages of the procedure of your Lordships' House in war-time that it gives so much time to the raising of important matters of public interest by private members.
In case some of your Lordships are not familiar with the activities of A.B.C.A., as it is commonly known, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words by way of introduction. Fortnightly pamphlets entitled War and Current Affairs respectively are used in the Army to stimulate discussion and talk about the wider aspects of soldiering and citizenship. I speak this afternoon as one of the junior officers who have been given the job from time to time of starting the ball of talk rolling at these periodical gatherings. I can say from my own experience—and I am sure it is borne out by the experience of the great majority of those who have taken part in this work—that these talks have helped to build up the best possible relationship between officers and men. They have also acted as a splendid stimulus to morale, because they do meet the anxious questions of the average soldier about the progress of the war on its different fronts and about the prospective conditions that will be met when he returns home. I know from experience what subjects of discussion attract the men and
690
what subjects will probably require a hint from the Sergeant-Major in order that some nervous subaltern may not be confronted with rows of empty benches. No topic has attracted larger audiences than life after the war. This is not unnatural when one remembers that the vast majority of men in the Army to-day are civilians in khaki, not regular soldiers, and that military service for them is a brief interruption of their ordinary life.
Every soldier is thinking, not without a good deal of anxiety—the anxiety to which the noble Lord opposite alluded with so much emphasis in the speech we have just heard—about events that affect, or that may seriously affect, the job awaiting him and the home to which he will return. It was therefore a real encouragement to those of us who have been doing this work when a number of Current Affairs appeared dealing in a condensed form with the proposals of the Beveridge Report. No account of these important recommendations could have been more strictly accurate and unpartisan. I believe it has been stated that the account was not altogether objective. If that is the view of His Majesty's Government I think it ought to be said publicly in what respects this summary does not represent a fair picture of the Report. The pamphlet contained a short introduction by the editor of the series, which pointed out that the summary should be read not from the point of view of personal advantage but to see whether and how far the proposals would benefit the country. This introduction was followed by a potted version of the Report written by the author himself. Nothing, I think, could have resembled less an apologia pro vita sua either on the part of Sir William Beveridge or on the part of the Prudential Assurance Company. It was, if I may so describe it, a succinct, schoolmasterly précis. This simple narrative drew attention to the salient facts without for one moment raising the question of merit. The reader was invited by implication to judge for himself the value of the Report in the context of the whole postwar economic and political situation.
The impression created by this sudden ban on what appeared to be an inoffensive pamphlet could not have been more unfortunate. The noble Lord opposite says it had not been issued. I can only reply

691
that a copy reached me and I believe copies reached many others who are doing this work, and we were told that a decision had been taken according to which our copies were to be immediately returned. It was only in that sense that I used the word "ban." The natural and inevitable reaction to the withdrawal of the summary—unreasonable, no doubt, but entirely human—was that someone high up wanted to blanket discussion of the Beveridge Report. I know that was not the desire of the noble Lord opposite, or, I imagine, of any member of the Government, but that was the impression given. It gave quite a severe, though small, jolt to morale. The only people I believe who have benefited from this episode have been the few political extremists for whom this sort of action provides, and can be used as, effective propaganda both inside and outside the Army. If the inclusion of the Beveridge Report among the official publications of A.B.C.A. was inadvisable or premature—a view I personally do not share—surely once the pamphlet had appeared in print less harm would have been done by allowing it to circulate than by suddenly calling in the thousands of copies that must have been distributed. It should either not have been published at all, or, the fatal and irretrievable step having been taken, those in authority might well have seen that suppression would only aggravate the original mistake.
Two main reasons have been given for this action. Firstly, that the Beveridge Report contains proposals that will give rise to political controversy, that are of a controversial nature, and should not therefore be the subject of official talks conducted by officers during hours of duty. But I think we are entitled to ask ourselves this question: Is there any matter of policy relating to the vital needs of the man in the street that does not provoke differences of opinion and occasion political, if not Party political controversy? The inevitable result of cutting the live issues out of these fortnightly talks and confining them entirely to military matters or to dry academic domestic topics, would be, I fear, to kill the A.B.C.A. scheme. That is why I am extremely anxious that this decision should not become a precedent.
One thing which I should like the noble Lord opposite to explain, if he would be good enough to do so, is this: Why is
692
there this cavilling at the discussion of the Beveridge Report when a number of subjects of a controversial nature have already been passed as suitable for discussion by the troops? I will draw your Lordships' attention to those topics. When I looked up recent issues of Current Affairs, I found in June last an article on India with a brief account of the Cripps Mission, and in September a contribution on town planning, written by an ardent advocate of national and local planning after the war. I am sure your Lordships will agree, with the memory of recent debates on India and post-war planning fresh in your minds, that both these subjects have given rise to lively exchanges. About a year ago I myself initiated a spirited discussion on the subject of Russia, again with a brief consisting of one of these pamphlets. On this occasion I think the contents were provided by Sir Bernard Pares, the acknowledged authority on that subject. What I fail to understand, and what I hope the Government will explain, is why the Beveridge Report should be regarded as more controversial than the problem of India or the social system and conditions prevailing in Russia, or the vexed question of future developments of our towns and countryside. I apologize for firing so many questions at the noble Lord opposite, but I am sure he will be glad of this opportunity of answering questions which are uppermost in many people's minds. May I ask him further, does this decision mean that postwar reconstruction is henceforth banned or excluded from all talks conducted under A.B.C.A. auspices? Is it not merely a departure on one point but a departure of policy and principle?
The second reason that has been mentioned was that the Beveridge Report has not yet been debated in Parliament, and that it would be improper for the War Office to sponsor official discussions in the Army until Parliament had had an opportunity of giving a lead. This is surely a surprising argument to hear from those who still maintain, so far as I am aware, that this war is a fight for democracy. Democracy, in the accepted sense of the word, is surely the rule of public opinion through a popularly elected Assembly. It is a new, and, I think, dangerous doctrine, quite foreign to our traditional practice, that public opinion should wait patiently to take its cue from the proceedings of Parliament. Quite

693
apart from the merits of this particular case, I cannot help feeling a certain alarm about this principle of discouraging the free and general discussion of important social issues, until they have beforehand been thrashed out in Parliament or until the Government have announced their official policy. It is somewhat puzzling—and again I seek enlightenment—that these reasons for withdrawing the pamphlet should lead to precisely opposite conclusions. If the Army is not to discuss, under official auspices, any matter giving rise to political controversy, it is fairly obvious that this particular ban or decision will not be lifted or withdrawn. If, on the other hand, the authorities are only waiting for a Parliamentary debate on the subject then presumably this number of Current Affairs will be released in the near future. I should like to know very much from the noble Lord who is sitting opposite—if he would be so good as to give a reply on this point—whether its the intention of the Government to release the number at the appropriate moment or whether this is an irrevocable decision?
I have heard it said, in other circles, that this veto on official talks about the Beveridge Report does not really matter because soldiers have the same opportunity as civilians to read about it in the Press, to buy cheap summaries from bookstalls, and to study and discuss the whole subject when they are off duty. But, in fact, the Serviceman is at a grave disadvantage as compared with the civilian. He is less well paid and the threepence or sixpence that he would have to spend on a pamphlet makes a bigger hole in his pocket. Also he has considerably less leisure, and he leads a tougher arid more strenuous life. I cannot imagine people really seriously expecting him to organize a debating society, or to pore over miniature Blue-books during his few spare moments. The right time for serious study is, surely, during working hours, when he can apply himself to these complicated social problems with a fresh and active mind. Moreover, there is an advantage in having an officer present who can answer questions, and, perhaps, help to solve difficult points. Lectures by Army education officers are no substitute at all, excellent as they may be in themselves, because they take place in spare time and because they only reach a comparatively small number of the
694
troops. They are a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, the present system.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. I have stated my case as briefly as I could. I should like to end by saying this. It is a truism that I think can bear repetition that the modern Army is a citizen Army and that every soldier has the right and the duty to vote at Elections. But how can he exercise this right to the satisfaction of his own conscience, and choose the candidate lie considers will make the best M.P., without a full knowledge of the most widely discussed scheme of social reform published in recent years, and without ample opportunity to argue the pros and cons with well-informed people? How can he develop the basic virtue of a good citizen, an instructed judgment about public affairs, if essential facts and opinions that would enable him to form a sound judgment are withheld? I should like to urge that any policy placing obstacles in the way of good citizenship in the Army should be reversed at the earliest possible moment.
My final plea is this. I want to ask the Government to reconsider their decision in deference to public demand, and to lift the ban at the earliest possible moment. This, I think, is a rare opportunity for making a generous gesture that would be enthusiastically welcomed both inside and outside the Army. I am handing this petition to the noble Lord opposite in the, name of thousands of serving soldiers, officers and men. I regret that the noble Lord opposite does not agree with me on that point, but I can assure him that there is a very wide measure of anxiety. I am not speaking for myself alone; I represent a very wide section of the public and a very great number of serving men who are deeply anxious about this matter, and I am handing the noble Lord my petition in their name. They are forbidden by King's Regulations, and rightly forbidden, to speak for themselves, but they firmly believe that Parliament will always give them a fair hearing and allow them a square deal. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the noble Earl who has just spoken has rendered a useful public service in bringing this matter to your attention. He has stated the case with great clearness and lucidity. I share his view that an

695
error of judgment has been committed in this case, and it is necessary for me to add only a few supplementary observations to what he has so ably put before you. The proposals of the Beveridge Report do not constitute an item in some Party programme. They are not put forward on the part of any sectional interest within the nation. They are the outcome of an official investigation; they are the Report of a Commissioner appointed by a Government, and, as it so happens, by a Government which is a Coalition Government, and non-Party. In the country at large they have been acclaimed, and acclaimed enthusiastically, by a very wide body of impartial opinion; and undoubtedly they have enlisted the interest of the whole nation, to a degree which has surpassed that of any other domestic issue of recent months. Furthermore, we have been told on good authority that the troops in the Middle East have shown a keen interest in such accounts of these proposals as have reached them through the Press and otherwise; and what is true of the Middle East will most certainly be true of the men in the Forces in this country as well.
The Army Bureau of Current Affairs and the Army education scheme are both admirable conceptions. They show a far better conception of the relationship between the Army and the nation than has ever prevailed in previous times, and both are rendering most useful service; hut, if there is to be an Army Bureau of Current Affairs, what could possibly be more appropriate for its consideration than this very important matter of the Beveridge Report? It appears from some interjections made from the Government Front Bench that the Government draw a distinction between this memorandum having been stopped from circulation when only a certain number of copies had been issued and its having been openly published. If it had not been openly published, or if it had not been circulated, that also would have been a matter for censure; I think that public opinion would have condemned the Army Bureau of Current Affairs for not having brought forward this proposal of their own free motion.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for War, speaking in another place, gave an answer on this subject which I shall be in order in quoting, since it is an official
696
statement made on behalf of the Government. In the course of it he said this:
"Any soldier can read the Report or the abridged form of it as much as he likes, and the Command education authorities are being encouraged to provide lectures on the subject by qualified lecturers, both military and civilian, under the ordinary Army education scheme."
They are not merely permitted to give lectures on this subject to the troops, but encouraged to do so. There is nothing said there about the matter not having been brought before Parliament, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords not having been able to give an opinion. Entirely irrespective of such a flimsy argument as that, the Army lecturers are encouraged to give lectures to the troops on this very subject of the Report. It is a somewhat fine line to draw, I venture to suggest, if while the Army education scheme is being encouraged to give lectures on this very subject the Army Bureau of Current Affairs is not merely discouraged from dealing with it, but, apparently, for the time being is not permitted to deal with it.
It is not perfectly clear—perhaps the Government will make it clear—whether this ban on the memorandum is a ban on the lectures. As I understand it, lectures can be given only on subjects on which a brief is circulated to the officers concerned. An official brief was prepared and was bound up in the same pamphlet with Sir William Beveridge's synopsis of his own Report. Both have been withdrawn; and, that being so, since no brief has been circulated to the officers on this subject, they are not permitted, as I understand it—if I am wrong, perhaps the spokesman for the Government will correct me—at all events for the time being, to open discussions on this subject. We have therefore the extraordinary anomaly that while one set of officers is encouraged to lecture on this subject to one group of soldiers, another group of soldiers in the same battalion or squadron or whatever it may be is prohibited from discussing the matter.
The Secretary of State gave three reasons for this action. The first is that the A.B.C.A. has compulsory characteristics, while the Army education system has not. The men are required compulsorily to attend the A.B.C.A. discussions, while they are free to attend the Army educational lectures or not as they choose. But is there anything so very obnoxious about

697
the proposals of the Beveridge Report that anyone's conscience is likely to be strained by his being required to attend a discussion of this subject? I cannot imagine any soldier going there and stopping his ears for fear his mind should be contaminated by a discussion of the Beveridge proposals, nor do I think that we are likely to have a new set of conscientious objectors who would resist compulsory attendance at a discussion of this character. The Secretary of State said that his second reason, to quote his own words, was that
"it might easily have conveyed the impression that the scheme set out in the Report was settled Government policy whereas in fact no decision of any kind has been taken."
Does not that apply equally to Army lectures under the other scheme? If there were anything in this point, what could be simpler than to preface the pamphlet by a clear statement that this must not be presented as a matter of Government policy, that it is the Report of a Commissioner which has aroused widespread discussion, and that this point must be brought home to every audience whenever the matter was raised? That would be amply sufficient to meet that point.
The third reason was that the Secretary of State for War, who was one of the founders—and rightly took credit for it—of the A.B.C.A., was distressed to think that the effect of bringing forward matters of a controversial character, or which in some quarters, might possibly be regarded as controversial, would be to discredit the whole A.B.C.A. scheme. That would be so if matters which were the subject of bitter and raging controversy up and down the country were foisted upon soldiers who did not want to hear about them. This, however, is obviously no such matter, and I venture in conclusion to suggest to your Lordships that the A.B.C.A. would be far more likely to be discredited if matters in which everyone was taking a keen interest were not allowed to be discussed. Since the action was taken with so little justification, suspicion will be bound to arise that vested interests and reactionary influences must have brought pressure to bear upon the Government in order to obstruct discussion in the Army of progressive proposals.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: My Lords, I must first ask you to extend to me that generosity which your Lordships extend to any
698
member of this House who has the honour of addressing you for the first time, and I hope that you will forgive any short-comings on my part. For over a year I have served in the Adjutant-General's Department at the headquarters of a district. I have watched the growth of the A.B.C.A., and it has been a matter of considerable pleasure to me to observe the genuine interest that all ranks take in these discussions. In my branch I have to deal with the problems of personnel, and had there been any widespread feeling in the district in which I serve that this pamphlet should not have been withdrawn, I should have learnt about it, because complaints or suggestions would actually have reached my desk. I can say quite honestly that I have not heard one single complaint about the withdrawal of the pamphlet. There is enthusiastic discussion on the pamphlets which are issued, and that must mean that a very great weight of responsibility is placed on those who write and issue them. There is no doubt in my mind that it is most important that we should steer clear of any subject which has the flavour of Party politics, and for my part I feel that the Beveridge Report, at any rate in its administration after the war, has such a flavour. When I say that pamphlets on subjects which have a flavour of Party politics should not be issued, I refer to any matters of public interest which are the subject of impending legislation.
For the past 280 years we have had a national Army, and during that time the country has had its ups and downs economically and politically. We have had our good and our bad Governments—I might almost add, our good and our bad Armies—but as yet we have avoided the worst of all forms of government, that is, the military government, and my great fear is that if we in the Army are to discuss controversial political points there will be some danger that certain individuals will try to form a military party in the country. We have been told this afternoon that there will be lectures delivered on the Beveridge Report, and doubtless that is so, but there is a vast difference between lectures delivered to troops and the canvassing of the political leanings of troops, which is what one inevitably gets through the medium of the A.B.C.A. discussions. That has been my experience. The next logical step will be that the members of

699
the illustrious Loamshire Regiment will write to their Members of Parliament and point out that at various A.B.C.A. discussions entered into by the 5th Loamshires they were unanimous that this or that particular Bill should be voted on in one way or another. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also said that the troops found difficulty in getting papers owing to the shortness of their purses, but in practically all units there is an ample supply of papers, which are found from the regimental funds.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon for interrupting, but what I was referring to was not ordinary daily or weekly papers, but summaries of the Beveridge Report which will have to be bought at the bookstalls out of the pockets of the soldiers concerned.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: I can only say that if there is this widespread interest in the Beveridge Report these little pamphlets, which can be bought at the bookstalls; are very cheap—3d. or 6d.—and I am perfectly certain that all units can supply the men with these pamphlets in their reading rooms. As regards newspapers a man's contact with a newspaper goes on from week to week, and even if he has the misfortune to find himself in the detention barracks he has a range of papers which he can peruse at his pleasure and for which he pays nothing whatever. He therefore is able to keep himself just as well informed on the Beveridge Report as a civilian. The question of the impression caused by the banning of this pamphlet, I suggest, carries us nowhere, because it is well known that any new and struggling novelist who produces a book is quite delighted if his book is banned by the censor, so long only as the ban is lifted after a short time, and then the book immediately runs into a whole series of editions—such is the interest taken in the matter. I think that is precisely what has happened in this case. The men are told that this interesting little booklet has been published and that the War Office have now banned it, and they say immediately: "I wish I had got a copy first." I will close by saying that personally I regret that this pamphlet should ever have been printed at all, but, as it has been printed, the right and proper step was taken by the War Office in ordering that the matter be not discussed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before I come to the subject of debate, your Lordships would wish me to say one word of very warm welcome to the noble Viscount who has just made his maiden speech. We greatly welcome his presence here to-day, and we hope, now that he has taken the plunge, that he will often in future take part in your Lordships' discussions.
Speaking for the Government, I should like to say we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for putting down his Motion, because I hope and think it will enable me to remove some widespread misconception on this question. There has been a suggestion—it was in the noble Earl's own speech—that there is a sort of ban on any controversial subject in connexion with Army educational affairs. Of course there is no ban on all controversial subjects. Indeed, if you have a system which allows debate, debate without controversy would be a very hollow affair indeed. The noble Earl himself mentioned the question of India. He said there had already been a debate on India. That is the answer to his own question. What is important for educative purposes—and, after all, this is an educational scheme—is that the conditions under which a debate is carried on should allow of a full understanding of the problems which are being dealt with. Not only the details of any given scheme like this scheme, but the background should be understood both by the troops who listen to the lecture and by the officers or other ranks who initiate the discussion. That, as I hope to show, was the difficulty in this particular case.
There seems to be sonic strange idea in certain quarters—I am very glad it was not mooted by the noble Earl—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, either for reasons of political bias or for some other sinister reason, had done his utmost to prevent the Beveridge Report coming to the knowledge of the troops. Of course that would be not only foolish on his part but completely illogical. After all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has reminded your Lordships, the Secretary of State for War is a member of the Government, and the Government appointed the Beveridge Committee and have themselves published the Report in a Command Paper. Indeed, they have done more than that. They

701
have published a summarized cheap edition in order that the Report may more readily be available to the public. The suggestion therefore that there could be any attempt, either by His Majesty's Government or by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, in such circumstances, to prevent the Report from coming to the knowledge of the Army is clearly quite absurd. It would be rather like King Canute attempting to control the waves. No one who knows my right honourable friend would consider him capable of adopting so ostrich-like an attitude. Clearly the Beveridge Report is going to be a main topic of discussion in tins country among all sections of the community for a great many months to come, and in fact, as your Lordships know—the majority certainly know—no attempt has been made by the Government to discourage such discussions at any time.
Perhaps the easiest way for me to make the position clear would be if I explained the character of the educational work which is at present being done in the Army. Lord Listowel has referred to it, but perhaps he will allow me to go into it in a little more detail. This educational work may be divided into two categories. There are, first of all, classes on technical subjects, and lectures by qualified civilians and military lecturers on subjects of general interest. That is the first category. Under this category, as has already been stated this afternoon, lectures on the Beveridge Report are being encouraged so long as they are purely objective and informative in character. That is obviously essential. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said he did not see why we should have lectures going on by qualified lecturers and at the same time place a temporary ban upon debates under the other scheme to which I am going to refer later. I see a very great difference between the two. Firstly, the lectures are voluntary and are conducted by lecturers who are qualified by experience to speak on their particular subjects. The other scheme, the A.B.C.A. scheme, is not only compulsory, but the officers or other ranks who give the lectures have very often no personal experience at all in these subjects and entirely rely on the official briefs which they are given. Therefore quite evidently the two conditions are not at all the same.
702
I now come to the second category—the category with which we are concerned today—the educational work which is conducted under the it ægis of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, A.B.C.A. This is of a different character. It consists of compulsory discussions on various subjects. In alternate weeks, as your Lordships know, A.B.C.A. issues Bulletins, which are called War and Current Affairs, to regimental officers in charge of units. Discussions take place among the troops which are compulsory discussions, initiated and guided by the officer or other rank in charge of the unit, on the subject which is dealt with in the Bulletin. The troops are obliged to attend these lectures. The Bulletins are not distributed to all the troops; they are the official briefs for the man, whoever he may be—officer or other rank—who initiates the discussion. Those in charge of A.B.C.A. have, as the noble Earl will agree, been given a very free hand in the selection of their subjects since the scheme came into operation. On this occasion, they chose the Beveridge Report as the thesis for discussion. I understand they approached Sir William Beveridge and got him to write a summary, which was accompanied by a short supplementary official brief, to appear as an article in Current Affairs as the basis for the discussions which might take place. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War was shown an advance copy of Current Affairs he took very strongly the view, in which I may say the Government concur, that a compulsory discussion of this extremely complicated subject was at least premature.
I would assure the noble Earl that there is no suggestion that there was any intentional bias in Sir William's article. He said himself it was a factual account. It is a factual account, as one would expect, but necessarily it was most incomplete. The noble Earl said it was "succinct." What "succinct" means in plain words is that Sir William, in order to get the article into the requisite space, had to cut out a very large part of his Report. There was in fact only an absolute skeleton there. I do not think it is the slightest criticism of the Beveridge Report to say that it raises very fundamental issues. Your Lordships are all aware of what these issues are. They are issues of the widest possible description, both in connexion with the proposals themselves and in connexion with those other matters of general policy

703
which must be weighed in conjunction with the Report if a wise decision is to be reached by Parliament and by the Government. Some of these subjects of the first importance, which require most expert and careful examination, are dealt with in one or two sentences in Sir William's article in Current Affairs, and others are not mentioned at all.
As noble Lords know, the Beveridge Report has not yet been discussed in Parliament, and what is the reason? The reason is that it is generally felt that time must be given to noble Lords and members of the House of Commons to digest the Report before a debate can usefully take place. If Parliament, with all its experience and all its knowledge, is not yet in a position to put forward considered views on the subject, how can it be expected that officers and men of the Army, who have not the same background as your Lordships, can as yet take a useful part in a debate on this subject?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Does not that apply to India?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, with all deference to the noble Viscount, I do not think it does. India has been the subject of discussion in Parliament for years and years. The noble Viscount himself has made a number of very important contributions on that subject and certainly he could not possibly argue that India and the Beveridge Report stood in exactly the same class.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: They are at least as controversial and just as difficult and it requires as broad a knowledge to deal with the one as the other.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is perfectly true, but what is also true is that the British public on the whole has had much more opportunity to gain a wide knowledge of India as a result of the discussions that have taken place so frequently on public platforms and in Parliament. For years India has been the subject of discussion, while the Beveridge Report has only just been put before the public. Moreover, as I think my right honourable friend has already explained in another place, the issue of Sir William Beveridge's Report as an official brief might easily convey the impression, and is likely to convey the impression, that it was the settled Government policy,
704
whereas in fact, as your Lordships know, no decision has yet been taken either by the Government or by Parliament itself upon it. Therefore, to hold a debate at the present juncture on this very difficult and delicate subject seemed to my right honourable friend, and the Government share his view, to be clearly premature. Education in the Army; I would remind your Lordships, is the same as it is elsewhere. It does not consist in encouraging people to reach conclusions on inadequate premises. It must be conducted upon a basis of the fullest possible information. I was a little surprised that that view was not taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who has a great experience of these subjects. I would have thought it would have been quite clear to everybody that to hold a compulsory debate on a subject on which those who had to take part had not had the opportunity to obtain a comprehensive view of the problem that they were discussing would, from an educational point of view, be worse than no debate at all.
For these reasons my right honourable friend, and I think quite rightly, came to the conclusion that compulsory debates on this subject should be postponed, I will use his own words, "at any rate until a preliminary debate in Parliament had taken place." Unfortunately—and I think this was unfortunate—the matter was only brought to his notice at a late stage, and he found that copies had already left the printers for distribution. The only course open to him, therefore, in his view, was to give instructions for their withdrawal, and this he did, and in the view of the Government, who have considered this point very carefully, he was absolutely right. Those, my Lords, are quite simply the facts. There is no question, as I have said, of a ban on discussion of all post-war problems—I think that was suggested by some noble Lord—nor is there in fact a ban on the right of discussing the Beveridge Report by the troops. Of course there is not. There seems to be a sort of suggestion in the House this afternoon that the Army is being penalized in comparison with the civilian population. Do I understand that that is suggested?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Unless that is true, there is no ground for criticism at all.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: But it is true.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is it? Wait a moment. The troops can get the Report if they want it, they can get an abridged Report if they want it, they can discuss it among themselves, they can attend voluntarily lectures by qualified lecturers if they want to do so, under the Army education scheme. All that is happening is that they are not being compelled to attend debates on this particular subject under A.B.C.A. Noble Lords will not tell me that the civilian population is compelled to attend debates. The Army is in exactly the same position as the civilian population in that matter, and unless any noble Lord wishes to controvert me on that point, I know of no case where the civilian population is being compelled to attend debates on this question at the present time. Even the House of Commons and the House of Lords can absent themselves if they wish from the debates.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Of course the civilian population is not compelled to attend debates on any subject whatever. The Army are. The only question is whether, if there are debates which they are required to attend, this should be the subject of one of them. The question is not one as between the Army and the civilian population.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Not to the noble Viscount, but to the noble Earl it is. He has said, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, that the troops were being penalized. There appears to be a difference or opinion between critics of the Government in this matter. In any case, in the view of the Government, they are not being penalized in comparison with the civilian population. Moreover, I would say this, because I have been asked a definite question on this matter. There is no irrevocable ban on the discussion or debate of the Beveridge Report by the Army under A.B.C.A. I would refer noble Lords to some words spoken by my right honourable friend yesterday in another place. He said he took the view that
"compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been at any rate a preliminary debate in the House on this subject."
His view was that knowledge of this subject was not widely enough distributed
706
to enable debates to be held at present, and when he alters that view no doubt he will alter his view about the debate also. I hope I have explained this matter to your Lordships' satisfaction. A debate held on a very difficult and complicated question of this kind at the present juncture would not really have assisted very greatly to the education of the Army, but no doubt when a proper time comes such a debate will be held.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure everyone must admire the ingenuity and friendliness and, I may say, plausibility, of the case made by the noble Viscount. I think he presented his case with a singular facility which rather appears to be lacking in the explanation given by the Secretary of State for War in another place. But when he sits down and seeks to comfort himself with the suggestion that he has convinced us as to the wisdom and the necessity for this decision, then I really must take the opportunity of pointing out to him that in that he must be seriously disappointed. Quite frankly, I do not think even the Army is compelled compulsorily to debate anything under the A.B.C.A. These things are to be circulated. I am not going over the case so ably put by my noble friend and by Viscount Samuel, but I would like to know whether this deplorable blunder, because that is what it is, will be undone so far as it can be undone, as early as possible, and can we have some assurance that this synopsis, entirely objective, as the noble Viscount said, and prepared dispassionately by skilled persons, will be made available for the Army after the public has had the benefit of reading, as far as it does read, the reports of the debates in Parliament on the Beveridge Report which will be held shortly? Will it then be released?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think the final form of this brief will inevitably depend on the discussions in Parliament. The noble Lord, perhaps, has not read the account of the debate in another place yesterday, and I think I had better read what it was that my right honourable friend said. He said that it would be much better to wait and see what final edition might be sent out in the light of the situation after the debate in the House. That, I think, is clearly the correct attitude. Members of your Lordships' House and members of the House

707
of Commons will no doubt make very valuable contributions which may alter in some respects the brief that is finally sent out, and I think it might be better to wait until the final edition is produced before any distribution is made.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I hope the time will come when King Canute will have ceased to continue that ostrich-like attitude.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is perhaps a somewhat mixed metaphor, but at any rate the temper of mind of the ostrich and King Canute was the same.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that the noble Lord, although he has made out a very strong case with great ingenuity, was not very much more at home or easy or satisfied about the case he was making to-day than the case he made out yesterday on behalf of secret debates. I would say that in matters such as that which we have under discussion no one would expect the Service Departments to be logical, but I would like to ask why it is that the Secretary of State for War thinks that the Army is so ignorant as to believe that the Beveridge Report is already endorsed by the Government. A strong point has been made that it would be dangerous to encourage the Army to think that the Government have endorsed the Beveridge Report. The Army really is much more well aware of what is happening in the world than to think anything of that kind, and it is a mistake to suppose that the Army is ignorant of the action taken by the great insurance companies. I would like to ask what is A.B.C.A. for? What is the purpose of its existence if it is not allowed to discuss anything except agreed matters? What is the point of allowing A.B.C.A. to discuss a question if there is no argument about it? Surely the whole purpose of A.B.C.A. must be to forward some sort of discussion on matters about which there is not full agreement.
I was very interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Downe, and I would like to add my congratulations, but I thought a certain amount of what he said was rather unreal. He stressed the point that the object of A.B.C.A. was not discussion but merely information. I can see no purpose in the existence of A.B.C.A. in that
708
case, because the Press and other organs of public information are perfectly capable of affording information on this subject.
VISCOUNT DOWNE: May I be allowed to point out that I did not say A.B.C.A. was not for discussion? A.B.C.A. is for discussion, but it would not be right to canvass the men in the Army on their political views. A.B.C.A. meetings are a series of discussions. They are held every fortnight exactly for discussion.
LORD WINSTER: I pay great respect to the views of the noble Viscount, but if discussions in A.B.C.A. are to be confined to matters on which the Government have already made up their minds, I really cannot see that discussion is worth very much. I would say, with great respect again, that I think it would be wrong from what I have heard of them to say that the discussions which take place in A.B.C.A. are made a means of canvassing the political opinions of those who listen to these discussions. I think it is an entirely unreal point of view to say that as a result of these discussions there will be a spate of representations made to Members of Parliament by those men in the Forces who have listened to the discussions. I think the noble Lord raised a point of very great importance when he spoke about the supply of newspapers. One of the great difficulties at the present moment is that, owing to restrictions upon the amount of wood pulp which we may import and the consequent restriction upon the number of newspapers that may be printed, large bodies of men in new camps—I am not talking about old-established camps—are very largely deprived of the possibility of getting the supply of newspapers which they would like. Consequently they are very largely ignorant of the matters which are agitating public opinion at any given time. I agree that the Beveridge Report may be easily bought. It is on sale and various summaries are on sale, but that seems to me only to add weight to the argument of those who feel that A.B.C.A. has made a very great mistake in restricting the discussion of the Report.
I would like to ask a simple question. I listened with great attention to what the noble Viscount said, but I do not think he really gave us any explanation on this matter. If there is no political bias involved in this matter—as I understood

709
the noble Viscount to say—why did the Secretary of State for War stop discussion of this matter in A.B.C.A.? I really entirely fail to understand that. If there is no political bias on the part of the Government, why may not this discussion proceed?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am sorry if I did not make my point clear. The point really is not whether there is political bias but whether the article, as written, covered the ground or did not cover the ground. There are some very big issues involved in the Report. But this document is a very brief one and some great problems are dealt with literally in one or two lines. It might very well be that the lecturer would be somebody without much more background than the troops listening to him, and in such circumstances the troops would not be given a real chance of reaching an informed and valuable conclusion. When the Report has been debated in Parliament and the matter fully ventilated, and when the Report has been fully digested, then I think there will be a very strong case for discussion. But I do not think it is much good having a debate which does not give an opportunity of a full and considered judgment.
LORD WINSTER: Then I understand the real objection to the document is that it does not state the facts of the case fully and adequately. That is the objection to it. There is no political bias.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have said already there is no question of political bias on the part of Sir William. His article in Current Affairs is an objective account of the Report. But it is very brief. It is not really an assistance to democracy to expect people to express views until they have some chance of fuller knowledge of the subject. That is why the debates in Parliament have been postponed, to give everyone an opportunity of digesting the Report and considering the problems raised. I certainly think that if Parliament finds that difficult the same thing must be true of the Army.
LORD WINSTER: I am most obliged to the noble Viscount. I could not agree with him more in what he has just said. Then I gather that the reason that A.B.C.A. is not allowed to discuss this matter is that the report issued to A.B.C.A. is considered an insufficient and
710
unsatisfactory account. That is what the noble Viscount is saying—it is not considered an adequate account of what is contained in the Beveridge Report. May I ask the noble Viscount has that been brought to the attention of Sir William Beveridge? Has the pamphlet been issued to him, or has he been told that the report prepared for the use of A.B.C.A. is considered an unsatisfactory and inadequate representation of what is contained in his review?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not know whether the noble Lord is wilfully misunderstanding me. The point is that this is a very abbreviated summary of Sir William's Report, whereas in order to get a really sound judgment on this Report you must take into account all sorts of considerations some of which do not come into the Report at all. It involves questions of general policy which have to be balanced, one issue against the other; and this will be done in the exceedingly important debates which are coming on in Parliament. Even if the copy of Current Affairs had been rather longer, and had contained more about the Report, I do not think that the troops would yet have been in a position to come to a considered judgment. I think that they will have to hear the views which are expressed in Parliament, for those views, after all, are the views of their representatives. That is the opinion which has already been expressed in another place by my right honourable friend. He said, as I have already stated:
"I took the view that compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been, at any rate, a preliminary debate in this House on the subject."
That is to say, until not only the troops but the people who are going to lecture to the troops—not official lecturers but officers and N.C.Os, who lead these debates—have had an opportunity of hearing the whole subject fully ventilated. That seems to me to be merely common sense.
LORD WINSTER: Then I understand from the noble Viscount that it is the intention of the War Office ultimately to prepare a report which in its judgment embodies the views of all political Parties on this subject as well as the views of Sir William himself.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn again. The noble Lord had better look at what my right honourable friend said in the House of Commons yesterday. He will get his answer there.
LORD WINSTER: I leave it there. But I would sympathize with those at the War Office responsible for the task of preparing a report such as I envisage. I will not detain your Lordships any longer except to say that I do feel there is something rather unnatural and rather unreal about A.B.C.A. when we are told that debates, not attendance but debates, on matters brought up before A.B.C.A., are compulsory.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): Attendance.
LORD WINSTER: The words have been used this afternoon. I have listened very carefully and have written them down. We have often heard in the past about compulsory church services and I have frequently heard that matter debated with great warmth. But at a compulsory church service a man who attends has only got to sit down and listen. Now we have had the point of view advanced this afternoon—I wrote this down very carefully—that A.B.C.A. is a matter which provides for compulsory debate.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Attendance.
LORD WINSTER: No; the words have been used "compulsory debate." I do not feel that what the noble Viscount has told us to-day will in any way remove the impression which the public and the Army have formed that there are political reasons behind this decision of the Secretary of State for War not to allow discussion of the Beveridge Report under the auspices of A.B.C.A.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the discussions to-day have shown that here, at any rate, in view of the admirable fare that is provided, it is not necessary to have either compulsory attendance or compulsory debate. I think your Lordships will also agree that the Government
712
have one of its most able advocates in the noble Viscount opposite, and that he has put before us with the utmost skill what most of us still consider a rather weak case. I must confess that in my own mind I have been very considerably relieved by what he has said, and I think that that relief will be shared by many people outside this House. Our anxiety is primarily that it should be possible for the Forces to discuss the most urgent and important issues of the day, and it is quite evident from what the noble Viscount said that, although for the time being this ban is still in force, when opportunity has been provided for a discussion in Parliament, and for full consideration of its contents, this pamphlet will be issued as a basis for the consideration of the problem by the troops. That was a very great relief to me. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having made it perfectly clear.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I confined myself to the answer given by my right honourable friend yesterday in the House of Commons. The noble Lord will be able to see that for himself. I do not want him to be under any misapprehension. I repeat my right honourable friend's words:
"I took the view that compulsory discussion of this subject in the Army ought to be postponed until there had been, at any rate, a preliminary debate in the House of Commons on the subject."
I think the implication of that is fairly clear and I leave it to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No doubt, if the implication of what was said in another place is perfectly clear to the noble Viscount, it will be perfectly clear to us also and to the general public. I take it that I am not wrong in assuming that in the course of time the Army will be able under the auspices of A.B.C.A. to discuss the Beveridge Report. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer on this matter, but I should like to say that I think the very full and ample discussion to-day will have served a very useful purpose, from the point of view both of the general public and of the Forces, in view of the misconceptions that have been caused. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ADOPTION OF INFANTS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent disclosures regarding the traffic in adopted infants, they will consider putting into early operation such provisions of the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939, as are necessary to bring to an end the abuses which have row arisen.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the question whether it would be right to bring this Act into operation at an early date is still under consideration. Its operation was originally deferred by the Postponement of Enactments Act, 1939, as the outbreak of war imposed a large number of new duties on local authorities as well as on Government Departments, and it was not felt right to divert time and attention to the measures required for operating the protective pro-
714
visions of the Act. It has, however, been suggested that there are new circumstances calling for reconsideration of the decision taken by Parliament in 1939, and efforts have been made to obtain such information as is available. This information has, however, to be reviewed in the light of the present urgent need for economizing man-power, even if this means postponing certain activities which are desirable in themselves. The Government hope that it may be possible for them to announce their decision on the matter at an early date.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned.