Sitting of 24 March 1943

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

  GREECE (BULGARIAN BRUTALITY)
  Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Greece is fighting on our side, any steps can be taken in regard to the policy being pursued by the Bulgarian Government in the Greek territory occupied by their forces?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): The information in the possession of His Majesty's Government shows that the Greek inhabitants in the territory in Bulgarian occupation are being treated with great brutality. The Bulgarian Government are also making a systematic attempt to denationalise this Greek territory, and many of its present inhabitants are being expelled in order to make room for Bulgarian immigrants. His Majesty's Government regard as null and void any legislation or other acts by the Bulgarian Government which are aimed at Bulgarising the Greek territory which they covet. All these measures of expropriation and expulsion, for which the Bulgarian Government must be held responsible, will have to be undone at the end of the war.
  Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his assurance will give great satisfaction to our gallant Allies, who are putting up a magnificent fight, not only with their forces outside Greece, but the population inside as well?

  ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America was invited to send representatives to take part in the discussions which took place prior to this
  1600
  country entering into a 20 years' Treaty of Alliance with Russia?
  Mr. Law: No, Sir. But the United States Government was kept fully informed of the discussions which led to the conclusion of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not in the view of the Government essential that America, Russia and the British Commonwealth of Nations should be in complete agreement on post-war economic and monetary matters?
  Mr. Law: Certainly.

  HONG KONG (STANLEY CAMP)
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that private reports received regarding the Stanley Camp, Hong Kong, indicate unsatisfactory conditions in regard to overcrowding, rations, shortage of drugs and instruments, books, bedding and clothing; and whether he will state the date of the latest report he has on the camp and the conditions as shown in it?
  Mr. Law: I am aware that very disquieting reports have been received in the past about conditions at Stanley Camp, Hong Kong. Nevertheless, according to the most recent report of the delegate at Hong Kong of the International Red Cross Committee, which is dated 25th January, the conditions in this camp showed steady improvement.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Have further reports been received from the Red Cross authorities? Are they sent regularly?
  Mr. Law: I have no doubt that we shall receive further reports. The International Red Cross makes periodical visits to the camp.

  PRISONERS OF WAR AND NATIONALS (EXCHANGE)
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the desire of the Japanese Government to arrange the exchange of two more batches of Japanese against Allied nationals held in Japan; and whether any negotiations are taking place on the subject?
  Mr. Law: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) on 24th February, the Swiss Government, as the Protecting Power, have intimated to the Japanese Government the desire of His Majesty's Government to arrange further exchanges of British nationals in Japan and Japanese-occupied territories against Japanese held in the British Empire, but no reply has been received from the Japanese Government. The position has not changed since then, and His Majesty's Government are still hoping to hear that the Japanese Government reciprocate their desire to arrange further exchanges.
  Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a copy of Reuter's message of 26th or 27th February, which states that it was announced in Tokyo that the Japanese Government desire to carry out the exchange as stated in the Question?
  Mr. Law: There is no need to call for a copy of the statement, because I have already seen it. The statement was certainly made in Tokyo, but no approach has been made to us by the Japanese, and, as I say, so far they have not replied to the representations that we have made to them through the Protecting Power.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the arrangements made to exchange Royal Navy prisoners of war in Germany and Italy, the men who had been prisoners longest got priority; and whether a similar number will be taken from the Army prisoners of war in Germany and Italy?
  Mr. Law: The exchange to which my hon. Friend refers arose out of quite exceptional circumstances which are not likely to be repeated, and there is therefore no likelihood of any further exchange on these lines. Last summer His Majesty King Ibn Saud requested the Turkish Government to intervene with His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in order to arrange by agreement the removal of some 800 Italian sailors who had been interned at Jedda, together with a small number of civilians by means of an exchange. We agreed to consider an exchange against a suitable number of British naval prisoners of war in Italian hands and to provide transport from Jedda. At that
  1602
  time it was understood that the total number of British naval personnel in Italian hands was less than the number of Italian naval refugees at Jedda. No question, therefore, arose of the length of captivity. When, subsequently, more British naval personnel were captured by the Italians it was felt to be inadvisable to make fresh conditions in order not to risk delay in reaching an agreement. It was also decided, in order to facilitate agreement, to offer to include some 40 Italian civilians, and also a smaller number of German civilians, mostly merchant seamen, who were also interned at Jedda, in exchange for an equivalent number of British. I am glad to be able to confirm that the exchange was completed at the Turkish port of Mersin on 21st March and to take this opportunity of publicly thanking the Turkish Government for the valuable help which they have given in this matter.
  Mr. Thorne: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered one part of my Question. I asked whether the men who had been prisoners longest got priority.
  Mr. Law: I think I answered that. I explained that no question of priority arises in the circumstances.

  SWEDEN (GERMAN TROOP-CARRYING- AIRCRAFT)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any explanation from the Swedish Government regarding the German aircraft carrying 19 German soldiers which made a forced landing in Sweden?
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now satisfied that German transport aircraft carrying troops and unmounted machine guns have been passing over Swedish territory; and, if so, whether he will make it clear to the Swedish Government that these breaches of neutrality on the part of Sweden must inevitably react to her disadvantage in connection with any post-war settlement of political and economic problems?
  Mr. Law: My right hon. Friend has already communicated with His Majesty's Minister in Stockholm, who has been instructed to establish the facts of this case

  1603
  and to ascertain what is the Swedish Government's explanation of the incident. But I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Surely the Government have power to do something to bring Sweden more into line. Her attitude ever since the beginning of the war has been pro-Axis. She allowed Norwegian and German troops to go through and refused permission for our troops to go through to Finland.
  Mr. Law: The first thing to do is to establish the facts, and that is being done.

  FOREIGN SERVICE (REFORM)
  Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what will happen to candidates who pass the first part of the examination envisaged in his proposals for the Reform of the Foreign Service but fail to qualify in the second part?
  Mr. Law: Candidates who fail to qualify at the second part of the examination will not become members of the Foreign Service. If still qualified as to age, they will be able to compete for the Home and Indian Civil Services. Those who are not so qualified or do not wish to compete will have had the advantage of 18 months' training abroad at the public expense, in seeking positions outside the public service.
  Mr. Thomas: As that may deter candidates from entering, would it not be better to admit them as members of the Home Civil Service as the result of the first part of the examination?
  Mr. Law: I do not think it would necessarily deter candidates from entering, and certainly we do not want to encourage into the Foreign Service particularly those who play for safety first.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (COMPASSIONATE LEAVE)
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet received the application of Corporal Ward for compassionate leave; and whether this application has been granted?
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): This airman's application for compassionate leave has been carefully considered. A sufficiently strong case has not been made out and in the circumstances the application has been refused.
  Mr. Granville: Has this airman been told that if he makes a further application in the future for compassionate leave it will be refused? Will there be an opportunity for him to make a further application?
  Sir A. Sinclair: If there is any change in the circumstances, but I understand that the application is on the same ground.
  Mr. Granville: Has he been told that if he makes an application for compassionate leave in the future, it will be refused?
  Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, on the same ground, but if there is a change in the ground, the fresh ground will be considered.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Air the individual emoluments fixed by him for the members of the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and whether any such members are receiving additional remuneration under Section 1 (5) and (6) of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939?
  Sir A. Sinclair: With the exception of the Chief Executive Member, the members of the Corporation have, from the beginning, given their services without remuneration. In accordance with Section 1 (6) of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, the remuneration paid to the Chief Executive Member is a matter for the Corporation to determine.
  Mr. Bellenger: Has the Corporation in fact so determined, and, if so, what was the amount?
  Sir A. Sinclair: That is not what I am asked in the Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down. I am asked for the individual emoluments fixed by me, and I have answered that Question.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Lord Hailey's Proposals
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered Lord Hailey's proposals for regional international advisory councils for colonial territories in different parts of the world; and whether he has any statement to make?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Lord Hailey's views on policy in this field have naturally received my close attention. I regret however that I have no statement to make at present.

    Civil Service (Cost-of-Living Bonus)
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a cost-of-living bonus has been granted to European and Asian civil servants in the Colonial Civil Service but not to Africans?
    Colonel Stanley: I know of no Colony in which a cost-of-living bonus has been granted to European and Asian Civil Servants but not to Africans.

  KENYA (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the serious food shortage in Kenya; and whether there is any system of rationing or price control?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on 3rd March. A system of rationing for maize, rice and flour has been introduced and distribution boards have been set up throughout Kenya to control the issue of vital foodstuffs in accordance with minimum essential requirements. A controller of prices was appointed last year with power to fix maximum prices for all goods.
  Mr. Ammon: Has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the reports that are coming through as to the very unequal distribution that is taking place?
  Colonel Stanley: There are bound, of course, to be inequalities when there is such a short supply, but, within the limits that are possible to the Colonial Government, I am sure they are doing all that is possible.

  PALESTINE (RETAIL PRICES)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the increase in retail prices in Palestine since the outbreak of war; and what measures have been taken by the Administration to prevent an undue increase in the cost of living and to meet such increase as has already arisen?
  Colonel Stanley: The general economic problem in Palestine is inseparable from that of the Middle East area as a whole, which was dealt with in an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) on 17th March. The retail price of essential foodstuffs in Palestine has risen some 150 per cent. above pre-war levels, wages of the lowest paid classes of workers having risen accordingly. Steps taken and in contemplation by the Government of Palestine include the subsidisation of the cost of essential foodstuffs, the improvement of distribution by bulk purchase and rationing measures, extension of communal feeding, and, as in this country, the increase of taxation on those able to bear it, in order to absorb some of the excess purchasing power which is one of the aggravating factors in the situation.
  Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that frequently rationed foods are not obtainable at the prices fixed and that the real earnings of workers are something like 25 per cent. less than pre-war? Will he ask the Administration to take measures to prevent that sort of thing?
  Colonel Stanley: I will certainly convey that. The Government there have had this matter under close review, and steps have been taken to raise the wages of the lower-paid workers.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the allegations that at Tel-Aviv prices are higher than elsewhere in Palestine, and will he inquire why prices should go up in that particular area?
  Colonel Stanley: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: If there is a shortage in Palestine, is it not desirable that wages and other costs should not be increased any further, otherwise there will be inflation?

  TRINIDAD AND BRITISH GUIANA (CONSTITUTIONS)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to offer to the Colonies of Trinidad and British Guiana similar changes in the Constitutions of those Colonies as are now being offered to Jamaica?
  Colonel Stanley: The Constitution of Trinidad has only recently been amended and the necessary legal instruments amending the Constitution of British Guiana will be ready very shortly. In both cases the changes in the Constitution are in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission and in both Colonies the question of the franchise is being examined by local committees. No further changes are at present contemplated.
  Mr. Riley: Will copies of the changes in the Constitutions be placed in the Library?
  Colonel Stanley: I think that will be so with regard to British Guiana. With regard to Trinidad, I can give the hon. Member any information he desires.

  JAMAICA (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate acreage of land which is provided under the schemes already approved for additional land settlement in Jamaica under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act?
  Colonel Stanley: Except for one training scheme, no land settlement schemes as such have been made for Jamaica under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
  Mr. Riley: In view of the large number of unemployed in Jamaica, is it not desirable that special attention should be given to land settlement?
  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of insisting that subsistence crops must be grown on land provided for settlement so as to provide food supplies for the island?
  Colonel Stanley: We discussed the whole agricultural policy in the West Indies at great length last week.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is not the Governor considering this matter, in view of the fact that undoubtedly there is a certain demand for land in this district? On inquiry it may be found that some arrangements are being made.

  MALTA (POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any consideration has been given, not only to the question of reconstruction in Malta after the war, but also to its future political status and industrial economy, in view of increasing population and its poverty; and whether the money to be set at its disposal by the British Government is available both for reconstruction and new industrial development?
  Colonel Stanley: As regards the first part of the Question, the hon. Member will realise that the attention which can be given to these matters while the Colony is engaged in active warfare is necessarily restricted. As regards the second part of the Question, the gift of £10,000,000 which has recently been voted for the Malta Government is intended primarily to meet the expenses of compensation for war damage and of rebuilding. But any balance which may be left after paying these expenses will be available for other purposes beneficial to the Colony, including industrial development, and the Malta Government will also be eligible to participate in the funds provided by Parliament under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that in view of the ever-expanding population and the appalling poverty, something must be done to secure for the Maltese after the war a more reasonable standard of life?
  Colonel Stanley: I entirely appreciate that, but the hon. Member will also appreciate that Malta is still in the front line of the battle and that the amount of time the Government can give to the consideration of this question is necessarily limited.
  Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate that as everybody does, but my Question does

  1609
  not relate to anything being done now but to future developments similar to what we are doing in this country.

  NIGERIAN TIN MINES (COMPULSORY SERVICE)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate number conscripted into the Nigerian tin mines; whether he is satisfied with the conditions of labour therein; and whether wages have risen proportionately to the cost of living?
  Colonel Stanley: At the end of December the number of workers employed on the tin mines in Nigeria under the Regulations for compulsory service in essential industries was 14,098, out of a total mines-field labour force of 70,802. As regards the second part of the Question, while conditions cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory due to the attempt to attain the maximum production of tin in the shortest possible time, I am satisfied that every effort is being made to improve those conditions with the least possible delay. As regards the last part of the Question, the scales of wages compare favourably with those paid in the case of voluntary labour and it has recently been decided to award a bonus of 4s. a month to all mine workers who satisfactorily complete their four months term of service under the Regulations.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will the wages with this bonus rise proportionately to the cost of living?
  Colonel Stanley: I think they will.

  WEST AFRICA (EDUCATION)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SORENSEN:
  24. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information respecting Churt High School and further information respecting Fornah Bay and Yata colleges?
  Mr. Sorensen: May I explain with apologies that, owing no doubt to my very bad writing, the word "Churt" in this Question should be "Christ," "Fornah" should be "Fourah," and "Yata" should be "Yaba"?
  Colonel Stanley: In the circumstances my hon. Friend will not be surprised that I am not clear to what institution he is referring in the first part of the Question; Fourah Bay College is still housed in the alternative accommodation which has been provided, but I am glad to say that the application for financial assistance to which my hon. Friend referred in his Question on 27th January, has now been approved. The return of the Yaba Higher College to its own buildings is at present under consideration, but I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the matter.
  Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation of the announcement about these two colleges, may I take it that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into the other matter now that he knows the right description?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

  MOTOR VEHICLES (WARNING BELLS)
  Sir Reginald Clarryasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will consider allowing the owners of motor-vehicles to fix a small bell to the front of their motorcar, in order to give a warning of the approach of the vehicle to pedestrians and cyclists and thus help to decrease the large number of road accidents that occur during black-out hours and repealing any regulations that would prevent this?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I am afraid that my hon. Friend's proposal would not achieve the purpose which he has in view. It would add seriously to the noises in the streets, and would tend to diminish the efficacy of the warning bells required on ambulances, fire engines, and certain other vehicles for which the right of Way is essential. For these reasons, I regret that I do not think it would be wise to adopt it.
  Sir R. Clarry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposal is not for noisy bells like fire bells, but for bells that would not be heard more than 25 yards away?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In that case I am doubtful whether they would achieve their purpose.

  INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY (BANNED POSTER)
  Mr. Maxtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that the London Passenger Transport Board has recently refused to display an advertisement for a meeting to be held under the auspices of the Independent Labour Party; and whether he will take steps to see that the advertising facilities of this statutory company are made available to all sections of the community without political prejudice?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am informed by the Board that they rejected this poster on the ground that, in addition to announcing a meeting, it advocated a definite course of political action, and that it is contrary to their rule to exhibit posters of a political and controversial nature. They assure me that this rule is applied impartially to all political parties and other bodies?
  Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Member aware that this was a meeting to be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), and that on the poster there was nothing except the place, time and subject? Surely it is not right that the activities of a political party should be at the mercy of the L.P.T.B.?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In the view of those who made this decision, the poster, in addition to announcing the meeting, contained two political slogans of a definitely controversial character.
  Mr. Buchanan: In a democracy ought not an advertisement for a meeting to be freely allowed, and ought not the test to be, not one of political controversy, but whether the poster contains any seditious matter against the country? If they are free from that, should not the Passenger Board post bills in the ordinary way?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Passenger Board have applied this policy ever since they were first established. They affirm with great conviction that they have applied it impartially to all parties, and I believe that in a dozen years this is the first difficulty that has ever arisen.
  Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister destroyed the electoral truce on Sunday, is there anything wrong in the London Passenger Transport Board
  1612
  being allowed to conform to that situation?
  Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that a responsible official of the Board who was interviewed on this subject gave it as the reason that the poster contained a semi-attack on the Government, and are we becoming so totalitarian now that even a semi-attack on the Government is something that cannot be tolerated?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If that was said—and of course I accept my hon. Friend's assertion—I should myself regard it as a very unhappy way of defending the policy which the Board have followed, but I do not as at present advised feel at all disposed, and I do not think it would be right for me, to upset a practice which has been followed with success for so long a period of time.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that posters frequently appear in the London tubes bearing contentious matter?
  Mr. Buchanan: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMIS- SIONER, EDINBURGH (LETTERS TO MEMBERS)
  Major McCallumasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why the regional transport commissioner in Edinburgh does not follow the practice of Ministers and himself answer the letters addressed to him by hon. Members of the House dealing with matters concerning his office?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The Regional Transport Commissioner assures me that it is his practice to reply personally to letters addressed to him by any hon. Member of the House. Sometimes, however, he is unavoidably absent from his office, and it may then happen that in order to avoid delay, letters are signed for him by someone else.
  Major McCallum: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the second occasion on which I have addressed this officer and a reply has been sent by an assistant, and if my hon. Friend and his Noble Friend

  1613
  can find the time and the courtesy to reply to hon. Members surely this officer can do the same?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the Commissioner had no intention whatever of being discourteous to him, but his duties require that he must travel a great deal and cannot always know when it will be possible for him to get back to the office, and, that being so, he does ask assistants to sign for him in matters which he regards as perhaps rather urgent.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    War Correspondents' Despatches, North Africa
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Minister of Information whether despatches from British war correspondents in North Africa have to pass through Tangier; and whether the post office there is now under international or Spanish control?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): According to my information, the present arrangements for the despatches of British war correspondents in North Africa do not require them to pass through Tangier. In answer to the second part of the Question, the British Post Office at Tangier remains under British control.

    Broadcast Talks to Europe
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the fact that Colonel Britton has not broadcast for 10 months his series of talks to France on revolt against Nazi oppression, it is intended to commence similar talks in the near future as a prelude to the coming United Nations offensive against Hitler-held Europe as outlined in the Casablanca communiqué?
    Mr. Bracken: Talks on resistance are a standing feature of our broadcasts to Europe, and they are related to military needs. Colonel Britton's talks were not addressed specifically to France.
    Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any co-operation between these talks to which he has referred and talks made to Metropolitan France from Algiers?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir.

    Beveridge Report
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Information whether he will make arrangements for speakers on the subject of the provisions of the Beveridge Report to be available to address meetings when so requested?
    Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend's suggestion comes at a time when I am engaged in trying to reduce the activities of the Ministry of Information in providing speakers. The number of meetings addressed by Ministry speakers annually has reached the astonishing figure of 40,000. These meetings are not sought by the Ministry. They are thrust upon us. And we find it very hard to provide suitable speakers. Though I do not suggest that oratory should be rationed, I believe we must show a certain austerity in dealing with suggestions which may add to the labours of our overworked speakers' department.
    Mr. Mander: Is there not a great demand throughout the country for factual information about the Beveridge Report, and would it not be desirable to supply some speakers for this purpose even if the Ministry had to cut out others?
    Mr. Bracken: We study demands very carefully, and all I can say is that so far we have not had any great demands addressed to the Ministry, though they may have been made to outside bodies.
    Sir Stanley Reed: Could not those who want factual information obtain it from the Report itself?
    Mr. Bracken: That seems a reasonable suggestion, but the passion of the British public for oratory is growing to most monstrous proportions.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Information whether he will endeavour to make available in this country copies of the plans on social security recently sent to Congress by President Roosevelt in order that they may be compared with the proposals in the Beveridge Report?
    Mr. Bracken: I will bring the request to the attention of the United States Office of War Information, whose office in this country is concerned with the distribution of American official publications.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman place a copy in the Library?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir.

    Talks to Farmers (Broadcasting Times)
    Major McCallumasked the Minister of Information whether, as the daylight hours are drawing out, he will consult with the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to arranging that agricultural announcements and talks in the series "Farming To-day" should be broadcast after the 9 o'clock news instead of after the 6 o'clock news and at 6.45 p.m., as at present, owing to the fact that at these latter times farmers are still occupied out-of-doors?
    Mr. Bracken: The B.B.C. assure me that they try to place talks to farmers at a time when farmers can hear them. I cannot hold out any hope, however, that the B.B.C. will be able to set aside a time for these announcements and talks after the 9 o'clock news, when the listening audience is at its peak and covers all sections of the community.
    Major McCallum: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that after 9 o'clock in the evening there are generally war commentaries or similar talks, and is not the production of food by the agricultural industry more important for the war effort of this nation than war commentaries?
    Mr. Bracken: Of course, the production of food is most important, but there are all sorts of important activities to which the B.B.C. have to have regard. I must point out that the B.B.C. are already overloaded with news and features, and much as I should like to accept his suggestion I am afraid that it is impossible.

  POST OFFICE

    Final Letter Collection, London
    Sir William Davisonasked the Postmaster-General whether, with the advent of double summer-time, he will consider making the final hour of the collection of letters at branch post offices and post-boxes in the London area somewhat later than 4.30 p.m.?
    The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): As has already been publicly announced, in accordance with our usual practice, summer postal services will come into operation in London on and from Monday, 29th March. As from that date the final collection will be made
    1616
    between 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. from posting points in the London sub-districts, at about 6.30 p.m. in the head district areas, and at 7 p.m. at the head district offices.
    Sir W. Davison: I am much obliged to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

    Cheap Night Telephone Calls
    Mr. Mathersasked the Postmaster-General whether he will minimise the hardship certain to be caused by his decision to impose restrictions of time upon cheap night telephone calls by arranging that calls placed not later than 9 p.m. shall get the advantage of the reduced rate even though they are not completed before the end of the period within which cheap calls may be made?
    Captain Crookshank: Adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal would result in a heavy concentration of "last-minute" calls, which would be very difficult to handle promptly, and would result in the treatment of the calls being extended, as now, late into the night. I am sorry therefore that I cannot accept his suggestion which would in large measure defeat the object in view.
    Mr. Mathers: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not able to accept my suggestion, what does he propose to do to ensure reasonable facilities for cheap telephone calls? Is he aware of the fact that sometimes there is such delay with these calls as to cover the whole of the three hours in which subscribers are to be allowed the opportunity of making these calls?
    Captain Crookshank: I should think it would be very unusual if there were such delay as that. What is going to be done is to reduce the existing hours to the hours which I gave in my reply last week, and that is being done partly in order to facilitate the staff getting home and partly as a contribution to the man-power problem, of which I gave figures last week.
    Mr. Mathers: But does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that the long delays on these calls must be accepted as some part of his responsibility, and that it is futile to advertise a cheap period if advantage cannot be taken of it?
    Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member would have a word with me about the subject, it might clear up some of his difficulties.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask whether the call must be effected within the period which is now prescribed? Can a call be put in an hour before the period expires and, if it does not come through until after the period has expired, can it be charged at the lower rate?
    Captain Crookshank: If the call is not completed by the time set, half-past nine, it is cancelled, or it can be completed at the full rates.

    Flowers by Post
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now make any relaxation of the Regulations so as to permit small parcels of cut flowers to be sent to hospitals by parcel post?
    Commander King-Hallasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to make a statement on the ban imposed on the transmission of flowers by post?
    Captain Crookshank: The ban on the transmission of flowers by post was imposed because it was found that, as a result of the prohibition by the Ministry of War Transport of their conveyance by rail, large quantities of flowers were being diverted to the postal service; and, as the mails are largely railborne, the result was systematic evasion of the Ministry of War Transport's Order. As the restrictions imposed by this Order are being suspended, I have decided to take similar action with regard to the ban on the transmission of flowers by post; it will not be re-imposed unless experience of the working of the new arrangements renders that necessary.
    Major Lyons: Is it not a fact that, only a week ago, when it must have been known to the Ministry of War Transport that the ban by railway was to be suspended, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave an answer in quite the reverse sense? Is not the whole matter rather footling?
    Captain Crookshank: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the interchange of question and answer last week, he will see that my hon. Friend modified his first reply and indicated that I was considering this matter.

    Mail, Cable and Airgraph Services, West Africa
    Mr. Cocksasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delays
    1618
    that take place in the mail and cable services to West Africa; and whether he is taking steps to improve these services and to eliminate avoidable delays?
    Captain Crookshank: Until quite recently, owing to lack of aircraft capacity, the only means of transmission to West Africa was by surface transport which, as the hon. Member will appreciate, is subject to unavoidable delays incidental to war time conditions. I am happy however to say that since 5th March sufficient aircraft capacity has been made available to enable me to extend the air letter service to His Majesty's Forces serving in West Africa. I am informed that there is not normally delay in telegraphic transmission between this country and West Africa.
    Mr. Cocks: Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been called to the fact that letters to West Africa take sometimes from three to four months, air mail three weeks and the cable five days, while parcels do not seem to get there at all? Can he do anything about these matters?
    Captain Crookshank: I cannot accept all those figures offhand, but they sound like the sort of proportion of delay in the mails from West Africa in the past.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Postmaster-General whether the Government have come to any decision regarding the establishment of an airgraph service to West Africa?
    Captain Crookshank: I have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the provision of technical facilities necessary for an airgraph service in West Africa would not at present be justified since, owing to the distribution of the troops in West Africa over a wide area, an airgraph service would be slower than the air letter service now available.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT STONE (RED CROSS SALE)
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works how much of the profit from the sale of stone from the Houses of Parliament goes to the firm which is now circularising Members of Parliament and how much to the Red Cross?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I regret that the information required by the hon. Member is not available in my Department. The stone which has been damaged as a result of enemy action has been placed, free of charge, at the disposal of the Red Cross, who have made their own arrangements with the firm concerned for the manufacture of souvenirs and for their sale to the public on behalf of the funds of the Red Cross.

  POST-WAR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
  Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he intends that existing building Acts, by-laws and Regulations now in force shall apply to post-war construction, or to introduce substantial modifications to enable the new materials and processes evolved in recent years to be adopted?
  Mr. Hicks: My Noble Friend is aware of the desirability of taking all possible steps to make it possible throughout the country to adopt the best methods of construction and to make use of new materials and processes evolved in recent years. As soon as the present technical studies which my Ministry has in hand with the other Departments concerned are completed, consideration will be given to the need for action on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bossom: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to be as speedy as possible in getting these Regulations issued to the public?
  Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.

  RAILINGS REMOVAL (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Summersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware that the compensation payable for the loss of iron railings is insufficient to enable the owners to provide reasonable substitute protection; and whether he will arrange for such compensation to be dealt with through the war damage fund?
  Mr. Hicks: The compensation payable is governed by the provisions of the Com-
  1620
  pensation (Defence) Act, 1939, which does not provide for substitution. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.
  Mr. Summers: Is the Minister aware that it is not the intrinsic value of the railings which the owners have had to give up which concerns them, but the financial sacrifice imposed upon them for the good of all and which they alone have to discharge? Is there not some way of seeing that people as a whole provide compensation for something which is for their benefit?
  Mr. Hicks: The same point which the hon. Member is raising now has constantly been put up, but the Department is not in a position to say authoritatively what the amount of compensation payable may be. It is, of course, clear that the standard rate of 25s. per ton which is offered is inadequate to buy substitute protection. Defence Regulation 50B (8) makes it clear that substitution is not contemplated by the Regulations.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does not a good deal of resentment still exist about this matter? Can we take it that the door is not closed against the possibility of the nation paying the reasonable cost of reinstatement after the war?
  Mr. Hicks: I am only able to interpret the law as it stands. I am not law-making.
  Sir W. Davison: Are not persons who are involved in heavy expenditure, by reason of the removal of their railings, entitled, quite apart from the value of the railings, to claim some compensation for the loss which they have incurred by reason of the removal of the railings?
  Mr. Hicks: That provision is already available to them, if they like to appeal to the tribunals.

  ADVISER ON INDUSTRIAL PUBLICITY.
  Mr. William Brownasked the Minister of Production why a new appointment has recently been made of an officer in the Industrial Intelligence Division

  1621
  who has taken over the duties previously performed in an acting capacity by Mr. John D. Rodgers; what the age of the officer so appointed is; what post he held before he became a civil servant; and whether, in view of this appointment, the continued employment of Mr. John Rodgers in a capacity subordinate to that in which he has been operating for some time is any longer necessary having regard to his age?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): As foreshadowed in my answer to the hon. Member on 9th December, 1942, I have since filled the post of adviser on industrial publicity, a post which, as I then indicated, I regard as one of considerable importance. The officer appointed is 38 years of age, and was joint public relations officer of the London Passenger Transport Board until October, 1941, when he was seconded to the Ministry of Supply for special duties in the offices of the Supply Council. I am satisfied that the continued employment of Mr. John Rodgers as deputy-adviser is necessary.

  MANUFACTURING FIRMS (PRODUCTION METHODS)
  Mr. Kendallasked the Minister of Production what powers he possesses to compel firms manufacturing for the Departments which come under his Ministry, and which are operating out-of-date or inferior systems or methods of production, to conform to the best systems or methods practised by other firms, and, in default thereof, to allocate their machinery to other more efficiently conducted plants, thereby increasing production and diminishing cost to the taxpayer?
  Mr. Lyttelton: It is the normal function of the Supply Departments to ensure that firms fulfil their contracts efficiently and employ the best manufacturing technique practicable with the equipment available or supplied to them. Supply Departments and my Ministry are in regular touch on such matters, and adjustments of equipment are made between factories wherever appropriate to ensure fullest overall efficiency within the limits of the national resources and the necessary measures of dispersal. Adequate powers exist for the fulfilment of these departmental responsibilities.

  BOMBING RESTRICTION COMMITTEE (PAPER FOR BOOKLET)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Supply why paper has been made available for the publication by Bombing Restriction Committee, of 49, Parliament Hill, N.W. 3, of a 16-page protest against the danger caused to German civilians by British bombing methods; and whether he will stop this waste of paper?
  The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): No paper has been specially made available for this booklet. I am having full inquiries made into the circumstances of the publication and shall communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
  Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine how it so often happens that a few cranks can obtain a liberal supply of paper while responsible organs are kept extremely short?
  Sir A. Duncan: Without accepting those designations, I would reply that that is part of the inquiry which I am making at the present time.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Can the Minister give an undertaking that any censorship imposed by the Government will be through the proper channels and not through restriction of paper by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
  Sir A. Duncan: No censorship will be imposed by the Ministry of Supply.
  Mr. Stephen: Is not the hon. Gentleman who put the Question one of the most notorious cranks in the country?
  Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the term "crank" as used by the hon. Member could therefore be applied to Sir Gilbert Murray, and others [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—that, of course, is the Tory mind—who agree with the purposes of this Committee? Can we have an assurance that Fascist methods will not be employed to suppress allegedly unpopular opinions?
  Sir A. Duncan: I have already said that it is no part of the function of the Ministry of Supply either to suppress or to censor. Our business is to see that our conditions are complied with.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Fish Zoning Scheme
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as by the Fish Zoning Order merchants are tied to ports for supplies of fish and retailers are tied to wholesalers, he can state the reasons for failing to tie each consumer to one fishmonger; and whether he will now adopt a simple form of consumer registration for fish?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The suggestion of my hon. Friend has been carefully and sympathetically considered, but I regret that, in view of uncertain landings and the perishable nature of fish, it is not possible to assure a specific share of supplies to the individual consumer. Without such an assurance, registration would have only a restrictive effect and would not in itself secure more equitable distribution of supplies between individual consumers.
    Mr. Walkden: While arriving at those conclusions, has my hon. Friend taken into account the widespread complaint against fishmongers, especially on the ground of unfair distribution? Is he also aware of the experiment carried out by a very successful and enterprising firm of fishmongers in London, who have formed their own registration scheme and satisfied all their customers registered with them?
    Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir, all these matters have been carefully taken into consideration. If all the fishmongers would act in the way chosen by the firm mentioned by my hon. Friend, I think that distribution would be a great deal better.
    Sir William Wayland: Why has there been absolute failure, especially in the Southern districts?

    Bottled Beer (Long-Distance Trains)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of bottled beer on long-distance trains; what steps are being taken to ensure adequate supplies; and whether this shortage is any way due to the diversion of barley suitable for brewing for mixing with flour?
    Mr. Mabane: I have no reason to believe that the availability of bottled beer in restaurant cars on long-distance trains differs from its availability generally. The reply to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Molson: Will my hon. Friend make sure that there is an increased supply of bottled beer?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty of obtaining food on long-distance trains?

    Cabbage Crop, Devonshire (Option Contract)
    Major Lyonsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the option-purchase by his Department at Oxford, on 21st December, 1942, of some 95 acres of flatpole cabbage, then growing in Devonshire, for delivery as specified; for what reasons delivery was declined by letter from the Fruit and Vegetable Department, dated 4th March, 1943, though the growers were precluded from selling elsewhere during this period; is he aware that the whole crop has now become unfit for either human or cattle consumption; what is the total quantity and value involved in this wastage; whether any and what compensation for the loss will be offered; and what steps are proposed to prevent any such event occurring again?
    Mr. Mabane: While my hon. and gallant Friend does not, in his Question, give me precise particulars, I hope I have correctly identified the case he has in mind. In this case, as in others, my Department made no purchase of the crop but paid for an option to purchase. There was no obligation to take delivery. The contract provided for automatic and progressive releases of the crop during the period of its currency, and final release was given on 25th February. It appears, however, that the growers in question had in fact sold the crop to a third party, and it was to this third party that the subsequent letter of 4th March to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, was addressed. I am unable to estimate the quantity or value of the crop, which I should emphasise was planted as a fodder crop. No question of compensation arises.
    Major Lyons: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this option-purchase by his

    1625
    Department had the effect of precluding any other sale, and when it was, and to whom, any sub-contract was made; and is it not a fact that the whole of this crop is now lying rotten?
    Mr. Mabane: The option-contract provided for progressive releases of parts of the crop which growers could use as they pleased, and the fact that they did enter into a contract of sale shows in fact that they did not regard themselves as precluded from making any other sale. Of course, the option-contract does not preclude anyone from selling any interest outside the option.
    Major Lyons: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these crops were in fact sold, paid for and taken up by someone outside his Department?
    Mr. Mabane: No, I do not. I say that a contract of sale was entered into with a third party, and the third party, I think, has not taken up his contract.

    Poultry and Rabbits (Distribution)
    Mr. E. Walkdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take steps to obviate the waste of transport and man-power now resulting from the lack of control and over-lapping in collection and distribution of poultry and rabbits; and whether he will examine the evidence and general causes of complaints arising from unsatisfactory distribution?
    Mr. Mabane: Steps have recently been taken by my Department, in conjunction with the Ministry of War Transport and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, to deal with overlapping of road transport engaged in collecting and distributing poultry and rabbits. This action should result also in the saving of man-power. As regards the last part of the Question, I am aware of the complaints referred to and certain measures for improving distribution are under examination.
    Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain one simple fact—why it is that one can regularly obtain chicken as part of a meal at the Grosvenor Hotel but that when sick persons, say in towns or villages in Yorkshire, require one, they have difficulty in even buying one in a shop? Can he explain a fact like that or deal with it?
    Mr. Mabane: Not simply or shortly.

    Winter Cabbage Crop (Ploughing-in)
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that winter cabbages are being ploughed into the land owing to the impossibility of disposing of them at current prices; and whether immediate steps are to be taken to prevent this waste?
    Mr. Mabane: The winter cabbage crop has been exceptionally heavy, and I am aware that growers, as is the usual practice, are ploughing-in such surplus as cannot be sold or used as stock-feed. Demand throughout the country has been amply satisfied and there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the existence of a surplus is due to prices currently ruling rather than to crop conditions.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether the demand for all green-stuffs, cabbages in particular, has not been restricted by the high prices which his Department fixed for them, and that that is the reason for the reduced amount bought?
    Mr. Mabane: This Question relates to winter cabbages, but it is a fact that the maximum prices fixed by the Department have not been reached in the markets throughout the country and that the prices ruling have been considerably below the maximum prices fixed.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Does that not prove that the prices were fixed too high and that people have been held off buying because they saw these prices in the paper and thought that they had to pay them?
    Mr. Mabane: No, Sir, the prices in markets throughout the country have been considerably below the maximum prices fixed.
    Mr. Walkden: Did not the trade fix the prices for the Ministry?
    Mr. Mabane: No, Sir.

    British Restaurant Managers
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has given his approval to the enrolment of British Restaurant managers and manageresses in the Industrial Catering Association; and whether it is his intention that any costs incurred

    1627
    shall be borne out of rates and/or taxes to which commercial caterers contribute, or shall be added to the price of meals served in British Restaurants?
    Mr. Mabane: British Restaurant managers are the employees of local authorities and the question of my Noble Friend's approval to their enrolment in an Association does not arise.

    Merchant Seamen (Rationed Food)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that merchant seamen, when ashore, are unable to obtain an emergency ration card from a local food office; and, as this causes hardship, will he take steps to see that these men are enabled to obtain, without undue inconvenience, their fair share of rationed foods?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have been asked to reply. Temporary ration documents for use ashore by merchant seamen are issued at Mercantile Marine offices under arrangements made by the Ministry of War Transport in conjunction with the Ministry of Food. These arrangements are comprehensive and it is only rarely that a merchant seamen should find it necessary to have recourse to a food office. In such a case the Food Office will issue a temporary card for one week, and tell the seaman to communicate with any convenient Mercantile Marine office. I shall be happy to inquire into any case in which difficulty has arisen.
    Mr. Lipson: Is there any reason why a merchant seaman should not be treated as an ordinary traveller and given an emergency ration card so as to enable him to get food in any area in which he finds himself?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that the arrangements are much more to the advantage of the merchant seamen. If we can improve them, we shall be glad to do so.
    Mr. Lipson: But what is the objection to giving the merchant seaman an emergency ration card to enable him to get food in any area in which he happens to be?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Because in our view these arrangements are much better.

  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' COTTAGES (BUILDING CONTRACTS)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he has considered the protest sent to him by the Gloucester and South Midlands Area of Building Industry Distributors that, in the contracts for the construction of houses for agricultural workers, it is specified that certain materials are to be supplied by named firms outside the area; and, as this is unfair to local firms who have these materials in stock, will he amend the contracts so as to give local builders' merchants the opportunity to supply materials required in their areas?
  Mr. Hicks: I received yesterday the protest to which my hon. Friend refers. I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend in the course of the next few days.
  Mr. Bossom: Can the hon. Gentleman endeavour to ensure that local materials are used wherever possible? It will be very much appreciated all over the country.
  Mr. Hicks: While not anticipating the reply which I will give to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) I can assure the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) that local materials are being extensively used. I rather think this is a question of bulk purchases and of getting them into the locality and distributing them from the places of manufacture.

  ROYAL NAVY (VOLUNTEERS, INTERVIEWS)
  Mr. Summersasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that volunteers for the Royal Navy are penalised in respect of the expenses incurred in connection with interviews for this purpose as compared to those who are called up; and whether he will modify the existing arrangements to treat volunteers as favourably as conscripts in this matter?
  The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): A man summoned under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act to attend at a combined recruiting centre for medical examination and interview is paid subsistence and loss of wages allowances, neither of which is

  1629
  payable to the man who voluntarily attends the centre for this purpose. The distinction arises from the fact that the former is not a free agent and cannot choose a time or place to suit his own convenience, and is common to all the Services.
  Mr. Summers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the volunteers who anticipate the date of their calling up ought not to be penalised in this way, and that such petty financial restrictions are resented out of all proportion to the cost to the Treasury?
  Mr. Hall: The volunteer has the advantage not only of stating his preference but is invariably posted into the unit of the Service which he prefers.

  SCHOOLCHILDREN (MID-DAY MEALS)
  Major Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied with the progress, so far made throughout the country, in the provision, with or without payment, of hot mid-day meals for elementary schoolchildren; whether the appropriate authorities are doing all they can to assist; how far progress is impeded by lack of suitable accommodation or equipment; and, having regard to the fact that many mothers are being required for part-time essential work, what steps he is taking to improve matters?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The progress made in the provision of midday meals for schoolchildren has been most encouraging, the numbers of meals provided daily having risen from 300,000 to over a million in the past two years. While a few authorities were rather slow in starting, the large majority have co-operated energetically and many have achieved remarkable expansion; shortage of labour and materials has inevitably caused delays here and there, but these difficulties are being considerably eased. In addition to progress already made, proposals providing for over half-a-million more children to receive meals are in hand. My right hon. Friend is continuing to exercise pressure where necessary, but generally speaking local educa-
  1630
  tion authorities are doing all in their power to expand and improve this service.
  Major Lyons: Do the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given include meals which are given with and without payment? Further, in view of the large numbers of mothers who are now coming into industry for part-time war work is he satisfied that that aspect is receiving proper consideration?
  Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's Supplementary Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part we should not like to be satisfied with anything short of a complete cover, as was explained during the Debate on the Beveridge Report, but really the efforts of local education authorities in this matter are most praiseworthy and the number that have to be stimulated is refreshingly few.

  HARVESTING (LABOUR SUPPLY)
  Major Yorkasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the widespread feeling of uncertainty as to the availability of the labour supply for harvesting the ever-increasing acreage of land under the plough; and whether he can reassure food producers that he has plans in hand to prevent wastage of food through a failure of the supply of labour at the right time?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): My Department and county war agricultural executive committees, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Labour, are making plans to ensure provision of the supplementary workers needed for harvesting this year's crops. These plans depend, of course, on the co-operation of farmers, who should notify their probable requirements well in advance to their employment exchange or county war agricultural executive committee.
  Major York: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the losses on the sugar beet crop last year was that the labour was not available at the right time? Is he not going to plan for that particular crop and for the potato crop this year?
  Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every step that can be taken to assure farmers of an adequate supply of labour for these very special crops is being made.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Requisitioned Houses, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for War when Arundel House, Stroud, was last used by the Army?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): This house was last used by the War Department in June, 1942.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Secretary of State for War how many houses he has requisitioned in the county of Gloucestershire; and how many have not been used by the Army since 1st January, 1943?
    Mr. Henderson: Five hundred and twenty-four houses are at present requisitioned in Gloucestershire, and 97 of these have not been used by the War Department since 1st January, 1943.
    Mr. Perkins: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider allowing the Air Training Corps to have 1 per cent. of these houses for training purposes?
    Mr. Henderson: So far as Arundel House, Stroud, is concerned, if the Air Training Corps would apply, sympathetic consideration would be given to their application, subject to seven days' notice. It will be appreciated that this house has to be held in reserve for certain eventualities, which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
    Mr. Perkins: Could my hon. and learned Friend not release 1 per cent. of these 400 houses all over the country?
    Mr. Henderson: Application has been received from the Air Training Corps only for the house to which I have referred.
    Mr. Perkins: Has not one application been sent in for Arundel House, as well as applications for houses at Stow-on-theWold and Wotton-under-Edge?
    Mr. Henderson: I will look into that.

    Pack Drill
    Major Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for War the date of the abolition of pack drill as a form of Army punishment; in how many cases has such punishment been improperly imposed during the present war, including the awards by Lieut.-Colonel Gates; and what action has been taken in consequence?
    Mr. A. Henderson: Pack drill, which is a colloquial term for punishment drill, was abolished in 1930 except in detention barracks. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas), pack drill in detention barracks was abolished in 1935. Certain complaints were received in March, 1942, that pack drill was being used as a form of punishment, but as no details were given, no investigation of the individual cases could be undertaken. A letter was, however, issued on 28th of that month reminding all Commands at home that pack drill had been abolished for some years. No further instances of this form of punishment were brought to the notice of the War Department until the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. A further case has now been reported, and that is being investigated.
    Major Lyons: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, might I ask whether, in view of the fact that no commanding officer has power to introduce any form of punishment that is not laid down by authority, he will consider circulating that fact to Commands and to officers commanding units?
    Mr. Henderson: I have already indicated to my hon. and gallant Friend that last year a letter was sent to Army Commands drawing attention to the fact that pack drill had been abolished. I do not think it necessary to repeat that circular. If any action is necessary in relation to the particular case to which our attention has been drawn, that action will be taken.
    Mr. Stephen: Is Lieut.-Colonel Gates the only officer who has received promotion for breaking that Regulation?
    Mr. John Dugdale: Is it not a fact that if a private soldier breaks King's Regulations he gets punishment? Should not an officer who breaks King's Regulations also be punished?
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is not this Regulation more honoured in the breach than in the observance? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider some examples I will give him? Is he making a distinction between pack drill as a punishment and pack drill as training in barracks?
    Mr. Henderson: I cannot accept the suggestion that the Regulation is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If my hon. Friend gives me any information, that will be investigated. The difference between pack drill as a form of punishment and for other purposes does not depend on the carrying of the pack, because every soldier in operations or carrying out exercises may have to carry his pack. The object of the Regulation is to prevent the soldier being compelled to carry the full pack for punishment purposes.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. TINKER:
  74. To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Leigh Old Age Pensioners' Association asking for an increase of 5s. per week on the basic rate of all those old age pensioners who are not in employment; and will he make a statement.
  Mr. Tinker: May I call attention to Question 74? I put this Question down to the Prime Minister. It was accepted by the Clerk at the Table and appeared on the Order Paper addressed to the Prime Minister. Since then I have received word that the Prime Minister is not answering it and that it is to be put down for answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When a Member gets a Question past the Clerk at the Table—and it requires a little ingenuity to do that—and on the Order Paper, by whose authority is it addressed to another Minister? I believe that one of the Clerks or one of the secretaries of the Prime Minister has said that it should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that that is the reason for its being transferred. Has anybody authority to override the Clerk at the Table?
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Prime Minister delegates authority to other Ministers to answer Questions if they are not his immediate concern. That is
  1634
  usually the practice. No doubt on this occasion the Prime Minister has noticed the Question on the Order Paper, and therefore the hon. Member has achieved his object.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I was consulted on this Question, and it was decided between me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be appropriate for him to take it.
  Mr. Tinker: In that case I withdraw my objection. I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Question.
  Mr. Wakefield: When a question which has been addressed to one Minister is transferred to another Minister, could it be put on the day on which Questions are properly answered by the Minister to whom it is transferred?
  Mr. Speaker: If a Member puts a Question down to the wrong Minister, he must stand the racket of having it put down for the wrong day.

  TUNISIAN OPERATIONS
  Mr. Speaker: There is a Private Notice Question which I propose to call, but I understand that the Prime Minister wishes to make a short statement before I do so. That is not regular, but if the House agrees, I have no objection.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Thank you for the latitude you have given me, Sir. In the interests of the House, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the operations in Tunisia?
  The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for asking me this Question. It is my duty to let the House and the country know that this great battle now proceeding in Tunisia has by no means reached its climax, and that very much hard fighting now lies before the British and the United States Forces. The latest information from the Mareth Front—later, that is, than that published in this morning's newspapers—shows that the Germans, by counter-attacks, have regained the greater part of the bridgehead which has been stormed, and that their main line of defence in that quarter is largely restored. I take occasion to make that statement as I do not wish hopes of an easy decision to be encouraged. On the other hand, I have good confidence in the final result.

  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION AND R.A.F. TRANSPORT COMMAND
  Mr. Montague(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make any further statement about the relationship between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the Royal Air Force Transport Command?
  Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. As I informed the House on 11th March when announcing the decision to form the Royal Air Force Transport Command, it is the intention that the British Overseas Airways Corporation shall contine as a civil organisation. Some of its services terminate in, or pass through, neutral countries, and much of its work meets the essential communication needs of overseas civil administrations. Clearly, however, the services and requirements of the Corporation and those of the new Command must be co-ordinated if our air transport organisation is to be efficient and the most economical use—and the most effective for the conduct of the war—is to be made of our available resources.
  In the discussions that ensued between the Air Ministry and the Corporation, general agreement was reached on the relationship which should obtain between the Corporation and the Command, save for one point of principle. The Corporation asked for an assurance that it would be responsible for all regular trunk services except those carrying exclusively R.A.F. loads. I was unable to give the Corporation this assurance, and the Corporation, to my regret, did not feel able to accept as adequate the form of understanding which I proposed as an alternative. In these circumstances, four of the five members, including the Chairman, felt obliged to offer their resignations.
  For the convenience of hon. Members, I am issuing a White Paper which explains the point of difference between the Air Ministry and the Corporation and contains the letters which have been exchanged between the Chairman and myself. Copies of this White Paper are available in the Vote Office.
  I have to-day appointed a new Board. Sir Harold Howitt, who has been a member of the Air Council since 1939, has accepted my invitation to become Chairman of the Corporation for the time
  1636
  being. I have also invited Mr. Simon Marks and Mr. John Marchbank to become members, and they have accepted. Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger, Commodore of the Air Transport Auxiliary, will continue to serve. These four members will, for the present, constitute the new Board. It will be for the new Board to appoint a Chief Executive and to arrange for the duties of that office to be discharged until the new appointment is made. Meanwhile, and at all times, the resources of my Department will be freely available.
  Mr. Montague: Do I take it that the White Paper explains how it comes about that a public non-profit-making Corporation should be so much concerned about the allocation of these services as to lead to wholesale resignations?
  Sir A. Sinclair: The White Paper contains the draft agreement to which I have referred and the amendment which the Corporation proposed and which I was unable to accept. It also contains the letter which I received from the Chairman of the Corporation intimating his resignation and that of three of his colleagues, and the answer which I have sent him.
  Mr. Perkins: Will the new Board continue to negotiate with the British Airlines Pilots' Association as did the old Board?
  Sir A. Sinclair: I think it is rather early to answer that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Granville: May I ask the Leader of the House, on Business, whether, in view of the important pronouncement he made on the wireless on Sunday night on post-war policy, he will give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing it?
Mr. Speaker: There is a Question to be asked on this matter on the next Sitting Day.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,—
War Damage (Amendment) Bill, with Amendments.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Lords Amendments to be considered upon the next Sitting Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NURSES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think that it will be necessary for me to detain the House long, not because the Bill is unimportant, but because I think that Members who have read it will agree that the subject with which it deals has been discussed very fully in official and unofficial reports over a long period of time. Indeed, there are hon. Members in the House who were members of that very strong Committee who sat under the Earl of Athlone, and they will remember that most of the items which are dealt with in this Bill were the subject of recommendations by that Committee; and I hope that Members will agree that the terms of the Bill itself are reasonably clear to the lay mind.
  The main objects of the Bill are three—to secure that assistant nurses should be given a recognised status and placed on a roll under the control of the General Nursing Council; to secure also that the public should be protected from unqualified persons representing themselves as nurses; and to this end it is proposed that agencies for the supply of nurses, commonly known as "Nurses' Co-operations," should be controlled by a system of licensing and inspection.
  There are one or two subsidiary points to which I will come later, but it is true to say that the contents of the Bill are

  1649
  broadly in line with the Interim Report of the Athlone Committee. If Members who possess a copy of the Report will look at Part VI of the Report, beginning on page 64, they will find the whole case set out. I should also like to point out that the Bill is broadly, although not entirely, in line with the Report of the Nursing Reconstruction Committee of the Royal College of Nursing, over which Lord Horder is presiding.
  And now a word or two about the present situation. All who know about it will agree with the reports that have dealt with it, namely, that the position is most unsatisfactory. There is nothing in the Nurses Registration Act, 1919, to prevent a person from calling herself a nurse or practising nursing without training or qualification. The result of that is that the public and the patients may be, and indeed are, misled. There are many thousands of nurses who are called assistant nurses at the present time, but the phrase "assistant nurse" has no accepted meaning whatever. It describes a great variety of people, some with training, some without, some capable, some not capable. At the moment there are about 16,000 assistant nurses in hospitals doing useful work, and in addition there are a great number doing private work, mainly through the agencies which are dealt with later in the Bill.
  One word about the agencies. They differ. Many of them are of the highest repute, others not so high, and there is another section much less scrupulous, which employ a large number of assistant nurses with small qualifications and send them out to patients at high fees without any indication that they are not qualified to give expert attention. Some of them have actually circularised student nurses who have just passed or even failed to pass the examination, offering them high pay. That is the background against which I am entitled to say that the sick may find themselves treated at considerable expense by nurses with little or no qualification, and so the status of the profession may be undermined.
  The Athlone Committee in the paragraphs to which I have drawn attention clearly gave two sides to the picture. On one side they called attention to the need for a certain class of nurses who might be admirable nurses under supervision, though not able to reach the high standard set up under the Nurses Registration Act,
  1650
  1919, which is the foundation of the present State Register. On the other, they drew attention to the need to eliminate from the profession those who might have been dismissed from hospitals or who proved unsuitable or unwilling to continue training. I need not add that the danger of having such people sent out as nurses to attend people in their own homes is, in war-time, greatly increased.
  Let me then call the attention of the House to the main points of the Bill. Part I contains six Clauses. It provides for the establishment of a Roll of assistant nurses for the sick to be kept by the General Nursing Council. The House will remember that the Council is responsible for all matters affecting the State register under the Act of 1919. It provides for the making of rules subject to the approval of the Minister of Health, and those rules will cover such matters as the training required, its duration and the institutions in which it can be given. They also provide a basis for removal from the register if necessary and for the conduct of the necessary examination. Provision will also be made for those engaged in bona fide practice before the Measure comes into force, if they have the necessary knowledge and experience. The provisions in this Bill thus broadly follow similar provisions in the Nurses Registration Act, 1919, making these additions to the duties of the General Nursing Council.
  In Clause 3 we provide for the formation of a Committee of the General Nursing Council. It is to be composed—as hon. Members will see in the first Schedule to the Bill—of 11 members, six appointed by the General Nursing Council and five—since there is as yet no roll of assistant nurses—for the first period by the Minister of Health. That is to say, I am to appoint five of these members after consultation with the appropriate persons and bodies. All matters wholly or mainly concerning assistant nurses will be reported on by this Committee before the General Nursing Council takes action. I need not trouble the House with Clause 4, except to say that it deals with the necessary fees. Clause 5 provides an assurance of appeal to the High Court against removal from the Roll and to the Minister of Health against refusal to approve an institution.
  Clause 6 is very important. It restricts the use of the title "nurse," and it does so in order to protect the public and the

  1651
  nursing profession against unqualified persons operating in this field. Now there is an important issue here which I have had to decide. Hon. Members who have followed the various reports on this subject will know that those representing the Royal College of Nursing would have liked a closed profession. But a definition of "nurse" is very hard to reach, and I have not found myself able to accept the view of the Royal College. I have taken the course proposed in Clause 6, which provides that no person other than a registered nurse or enrolled assistant nurse may use the name or title of nurse. There are certain exceptions to which I will come. The chief abuse at the present time, as I see it, consists in leading the general public to believe that a person is qualified for nursing, when, in fact, she has little or no qualifications, with consequent danger to health and even to life in cases in which, if fuller knowledge had been available to those concerned, such danger might have been avoided. The Clause will secure the object of making it clear to the general public that a person who calls herself a nurse has, in fact, certain nursing qualifications. If, then, private persons choose to employ someone else to look after them, they know that the risk is theirs and that there is no blame either on the profession or on Parliament.
  There are certain exceptions to this provision. It is obvious that a children's nurse, the traditional "nannie," has a traditional right to the use of the name "nurse," and I propose to retain it for her provided that she does not use it in circumstances such as to suggest that she is something other than a children's nurse, that is to say, use it in a form which might lead people to believe that she is a sick nurse as well as a children's nurse.
  Mr. Graham White: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I venture to interrupt him? This Clause 6 raises the only point about which I have had any representations, having taken the precaution or rather rendered the service of submitting the Bill to interested people in my area. The inquiry which comes to me is whether the security given by this Clause is real. Is it not still open to agencies to employ people who are not nurses under some other designation? There seems to be doubt on that point.
  Mr. Brown: I think the doubt can be resolved when I take action in making the regulations, for which proviso (b) to sub-section (1) arranges. It is clear to all those familiar with this problem, and there are many such in this House, that I must take steps to safeguard the rights of mental nurses, tuberculosis nurses, and other nurses of that kind but I want to make it clear that it is my intention to keep exceptions to the minimum. Unless I do so, the restriction of the title would be quite useless, but I have taken power to deal with the matter by regulation because we shall need to consider with all concerned just how far we ought to go to safeguard the rights of those whose rights ought to be safeguarded. I did think, however, that the term "children's nurse" was of such universal application that it ought to be mentioned specifically in the Bill.
  Mr. Craik Henderson: The question which has just been raised is one which worries a certain number of hon. Members, namely, whether this definition of "nurse" is not too narrow and whether it will not be possible to get round it by the use of such terms as "nursing sister" or something like that. One remembers the difficulty about the use of "dental practitioner" instead of "dentist" and so on. Is the Minister satisfied that this Clause really meets the case?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. and learned Friend may take it for granted that if I had not thought this was necessary, I would not have introduced it, but, naturally, before the Committee stage of the Bill I will have a very close look, with my advisers, at the point which has been raised to see whether we can make it any clearer and secure that what we intend to do is actually done.
  Colonel Sandeman Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when he is looking into this question, which is a very serious one, the position of Roman Catholic sisters—nuns engaged in nursing—who are gravely concerned, and will he see that they are not excluded?
  Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for reminding me of that point.
  The next thing to which I call the attention of the House is Part II of the

  1653
  Bill, which concerns the control of agencies. I need hardly say that the different factors in this question hang closely together. Without the control of agencies for the supply of nurses, it would be useless to restrict the title of "nurse" or to provide a roll of assistant nurses. The Bill provides that anyone who carries on an agency for the supply of nurses shall supply only registered nurses, and enrolled assistant nurses, certified mid-wives and such other classes of persons as may be prescribed. This will mean, in practice, that these agencies will no longer be able to supply unqualified persons. The Bill lays down that the agency which supplies the nurse should inform the patient of the qualifications of the nurse supplied and I understand this is already the practice of the most reputable agencies. The Bill also provides that in each case the selection of the persons to be supplied by the agency to a patient must be made by, or under the supervision of, a registered nurse or a registered medical practitioner in order to secure that a properly qualified person should be in charge of the arrangements on the nursing side. The Bill proposes to make all these agencies subject to licence and inspection by the councils of counties and county boroughs, or, in the City of London, by the Common Council, and it deals with licensing procedure and enforcement, in common form.
  In addition, I have taken advantage of the opportunity to do two other things. Clause 13 gives the General Nursing Council what it has not now power to do, namely to make rules governing the training and qualification of sister tutors employed by training schools for the training of student nurses. There is no power to do that now, and I am asking for that power. At present in the training institutions there is a course for training sister tutors, but no standard is laid down, and all those concerned in this matter are agreed that there ought to be such a standard.
  In Clause 15 provision is made for the establishment of a new list of nurses by the General Nursing Council. That will be open to nurses who could have applied for admission as existing nurses under the Nurses' Registration Act, 1919, but did not do so for various reasons. Some were abroad, some expected to get married and not to continue nursing, and others were advised by the matron of the day not to
  1654
  register, there being at that time not the same unanimity about registration as there is now. These people are doing invaluable work, and we are proposing to set up a list.
  I hope I have made clear the main purposes and outline of the Bill and that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. Ammon: May I congratulate the Minister on his clear exposition of the Bill and on taking another step to clear up certain matters connected with the medical and nursing professions which have wanted clearing up for a long time? I rise to give the Bill, which is the final blow at Sairey Gamp, more or less general support and to make one or two suggestions of a critical nature into which the Minister may look later. The first thing that I think is worth noting is that local authorities have been consulted with the draft of this Bill and have approved it in principle, as has, also, the Royal College of Nurses, to which most nurses belong. I think it is well that that point should be made clear, so that it may be realised that this Bill has not suddenly come "out of the blue," without those intimately connected having an opportunity of considering its provisions. The Bill gives recognition to an excellent and deserving body of people who up to now have had to do the disagreeable part of nursing, who have been most concerned with the chronic cases, have done all the drudgery, and have had little or no recognition. It also clears a bottleneck in that it enables a better flow of nurses to come forward and, by no means least, ensures a better scale of remuneration. I would like to quote a brief passage from the Athlone Report, which has been copied in the Rushcliffe Report:
  "It is essential, however, to make it clear that we contemplate that, whatever scales of salaries may be ultimately established, they should show a marked improvement over the scales at present in operation, and should approximate to those in force in other comparable spheres of employment."
  What is puzzling to many of us is that callings like nursing, concerned with the highest duties of life, have been paid below what is a decent living wage.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the general scale of the remuneration of the nursing profession comes within the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. Ammon: I am only referring to assistant nurses, who are among the worst

  1655
  paid and treated. However, I understand that because of the heavy demands being made upon the nursing profession just now—and we hope they will not be heavier, but they may be—the need for raising the standard of assistant nurses will be realised. It is incorrect to say that this Bill means lowering the standard of nurses. Let us look at the definition of "assistant nurses" as given in the Report. It states:
  "Category A.—Those possessing a certificate of two years' training as an assistant nurse given by a local authority, e.g., that given by the Essex County Council."
  The Essex County Council has probably done more in the way of training assistant nurses than any other local authority. Others have followed their example, but I think Essex deserves the chief credit. The definition goes on:
  "Category B.—Those in training for such a certificate.
  Category C.—Those who have had at least two years' training in a training school approved by the General Nursing Council.
  Category D.—Those who have worked two years on nursing duties at a hospital under the supervision of trained nursing staff.
  Category E.—Others employed in nursing in a hospital or an institution."
  I think that is what the Minister means when he talks about assistant nurses. The Royal College of Nurses would make it a closed profession. The point was put to me that this Bill purported to do that. It does not. What it does do is to restrict the use of the term "nurse" so that those people who go about in various kinds of uniform and are engaged at high prices which are not at all commensurate with their qualifications will not find things so easy in the future. People who come on the list will have to satisfy certain authorities that they are competent to carry out nursing which will be helpful and efficient. The Bill also breaks down to a great extent a good deal of the snobbery which has pervaded the profession. More than that I will not say now, as I see that you, Mr. Speaker, are rising in your Chair. But that in itself is well worth while.
  The Minister indicates that a Committee will be set up, as stated in the First Schedule as follows:
  "The Committee shall consist of six persons appointed by the Council and five representatives of assistant nurses."
  I think there is a danger here that the
  1656
  assistant nurses may get a raw deal from the General Nursing Council, and I hope the Minister will look into this point again, as they are placed in a minority. I do not put this point of view forward solely on my own initiative; I have also had the advice of people intimately connected with the profession, who see possible dangers here. The other important thing which the Bill does is to place the licensing on a national basis, apart from the conditions which apply in localities at the present time. That in itself is a good thing. Moreover the Bill will prevent unqualified persons from calling themselves nurses. I wonder whether the Minister would think it worth while considering if something can be done to guard against extortionate charges. That is a danger that obtains now. For instance, would it be possible to have a fixed tariff and to have it deposited with the local authorities, so as to prevent charges from going up to fancy levels?
  With regard to an agency that has its licence revoked, what is to prevent that agency from going over the border into the area of another local authority and setting up a business there? I think the Minister ought to look into the question whether steps can be taken to safeguard against this. In the case of agencies wanting to set up a business, perhaps there could be some provision regarding the giving of assurances that they have not been in business somewhere else or, if they have been, the reasons they went out of business and want to start afresh. Probably this could be done if the Minister were himself more or less the central agent, so that everything would be reported to him and he would have available the reasons agencies have closed down. I mention this because in other connections and in other organisations that sort of thing is happening at the present time, and bodies which have fallen out of favour because they have broken the rules established by one local authority move from London to Essex, or vice versa, and again carry on practices that have been found undesirable.
  Having made those remarks, I have great pleasure in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the Bill, which is a step in the right direction and which comes at a time when it looks as if we may very much need the assistance of these people. What must be re-

  1657
  membered is that examinations do not always tell everything. The difficulty which assistant nurses very often have in obtaining higher certificates arises from the fact of their having left school at a very much earlier age; but they possess qualities which are very essential in nursing and which are brought out in the practice of if. No doubt the precautions provided in the Bill will lead to a certain weeding out, but at the same time there are provisions to safeguard those who have some vested rights and who have proved themselves efficient in the calling. I think one may feel that all necessary precautions are taken in the Bill, subject to a review of the one or two points I have raised, and that the House may well give the Bill a welcome.
  Mr. Linstead: I expect we shall not want to give a great deal of time to the discussion of this Bill, because probably it will get fairly general support, but I think there are one or two observations that may usefully be offered. First of all, the Minister is to be congratulated on having implemented the Report of the Royal College of Nursing so very rapidly. It is rather a custom in this country to favour the unqualified practitioner. I do not know whether it is our natural proclivity for betting which encourages people to go to quacks rather than to registered and well known men, but undoubtedly, particularly in the health services, there is every reason why trained and qualified practitioners should be recognised by the State, so that ordinary people may know whether they are dealing with properly qualified men. In this Bill the Minister has gone a very long way to close the nursing profession, in fact if not in actual words in the Bill, but I hope he will watch the situation and that if he finds that a prohibition upon the use of titles is not sufficient, he will be prepared later on to come to the House with additional suggestions.
  There has been rather substantial opposition to the proposals of the Royal College of Nursing, although that opposition, perhaps because the time was not sufficient, has not come out into the open against the Second Reading of the Bill. The opposition seems to be based mainly upon fears of dilution. It would seem that fears on that ground are more or less baseless. First of all, there is an enormous demand for nurses. The assist-
  1658
  ant nurses are in fact there, and no new set of people is being brought into the calling. There is also the probability of a universal medical service coming into being in the course of months, let us hope—[Interruption]—and that will undoubtedly increase the demand for nurses and assistant nurses. I say months, but it is open to other hon. Members to put their own time on it. There is also, of course, the third fact that it is not unknown for a nurse to get married and it is highly probable that gradually a large number of these assistant nurses will get married. Consequently, I do not think the fear of dilution need be very great.
  I have received and possibly other hon. Members have also, a memorandum from the British College of Nurses, Ltd., which contains some very detailed criticisms of the Report of Lord Horder's Committee. I need, I think, refer only to two paragraphs in that memorandum. In one paragraph they say that the suggestions for the education of semi-trained assistant nurses would degrade the standards of nursing education and could only result in depreciating nursing as a profession for educated women. I should imagine the result would be entirely opposite to what is suggested in that criticism. Later on in the memorandum it is stated that the proposal that the assistant nurse should have all the economic privileges of the registered nurse could only have the result of eliminating the registered nurse from the body politic as it would prevent educated women from entering the nurses' training schools. I am sure that criticism is based entirely on a misapprehension. So long as there are higher educational qualifications available, so long will the great bulk of the women do their very best to achieve them. I think that probably the best answer to this series of criticisms is that of the 22 recommendations which Lord Horder's Committee made, the British College of Nurses, Ltd., has disagreed with 21 of them and agreed with one only. That probably is a fair measure of the value of those criticisms.
  There will probably be some Amendments which some of us may wish to put down on the Committee stage. I would like to make only two observations on the details of the Bill at the present time. One is that I think it a great pity that the fee annually for assistant nurses should

  1659
  be only 2s. 6d. I know it is the fee for a registered nurse, but in this world we tend to value things according to what we pay for them, and I should have thought that some higher fee would give a better sense of the value of registration than a mere half-crown. Another point is with regard to the disciplinary control of assistant nurses. I have some experience of the working of a domestic disciplinary committee, and I hope it will be found possible for some legal advice, possibly a legal chairman or assessor, to be placed at the disposal of the Committee. I can imagine some difficult question arising where such help would be useful.
  I believe the Bill will go a long way towards putting the nursing profession in a very sound position, and it should be implemented by all those who employ nurses seeing that they get the best possible conditions of service. I hope the General Nursing Council will not keep these assistant nurses in a sort of concentration camp. They ought to be encouraged by every possible means to take the training and to pass the examinations which will put them on the full register as registered nurses, and one hopes that the new grade will be received by the General Nursing Council in that spirit so that the whole profession can be welded together.
  Mr. Messer: I am sure everyone who is interested in the question of health and the care of the sick will welcome anything that tends to make the service one that can be reliable. One fact that we have to face is that we have assistant nurses. They are here, and, if it were not for them, the problem with regard to nursing man-power would be just that degree more serious that it is. There are those who say we ought not to have assistant nurses at all. We have not got assistant doctors; why should be have assistant nurses? Are there any sick people who should be cared for by those not having the highest qualifications? As one intimately connected with administration, I have to admit that we owe a great deal to the Cinderella of the nursing profession, the assistant nurse. Let us examine her as we find her. The nurse who has failed in her examination often becomes an assistant nurse. There is the nurse who started training and did not get on with it, probably broke off with it and came back as assistant nurse. There
  1660
  is still the V.A.D. of the last war, and there are those who just found themselves in a hospital or institution where they could be made assistant nurses. We have those varied types, and up to now nothing has been done to lay down any minimum standard that the assistant nurse should have, so that all those who are seriously interested must welcome the opportunity of controlling them. I also think that one must pay some attention to the criticism of the State registered nurse and the suggestion in the Bill of putting these assistant nurses on the roll. You can give them what title you like, but, if you put them on the roll, which of course is only another name for a register, under the General Nursing Council they will be State registered nurses. There are some people who favour placing them on a register directly compiled by the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Labour.
  I do not know that I would favour anything that would attempt to stigmatise a section of people, and I believe the qualities of nursing are not necessarily found in the intellectual capacity to pass an examination. Something more than intellect is wanted in nursing and something more than physical strength. There are human qualities. Nurses would not remain nurses unless they had a deep sympathy and interest in their work. Patience, perseverance and care are wanted and the tenderness of dealing with difficult subjects. This is the profession that we praise. We call them angels and treat them like menials. I am deeply interested in the nurses but more interested in the patients, and I want to be assured that, when the Minister's regulations come to be considered, assistant nurses are to be given a specific type of work to do. In the main, assistant nurses are employed by local authorities—not many of them by private hospitals—and in the main they are employed on what is called chronic work. The chronic case is very much misunderstood. It is a comprehensive term in which there are the aged and the senile, as well as cases of real sickness of long duration which require careful nursing, such as rheumatoid and other arthritis, etc. I want to be assured that the position of assistant nurse may be covered by regulation. I do not want to see a section of the sick nursed through varying phases by nurses who are

  1661
  not qualified to do it, so that the qualification of the assistant nurse should be sufficient to justify a nurse doing specific types of work. I think the community owes it to the nurse to secure her against the possibility of the grave situation in which she has found herself up to now, and it is a healthy sign that the Government themselves are turning their attention to the economic position of the nursing profession.
  There are one or two other matters in the Bill which are long overdue and upon which every congratulation ought to be given to the Government. Those not familiar with the question will be very interested to know what has happened in regard to nursing agencies. Some of them call themselves co-operationists, but they are a long way from being anything in the nature of co-operative. They are merely employment agencies, and what they do is to farm out nurses. We have had nurses in a hospital with which I am connected, and as soon as they have gone on to the State register they have gone into the co-operative because they have been able to get higher wages. These agencies have held local authorities to ransom. Quite recently the London County Council called into conference representatives of the whole of the Home Counties health authorities to deal with the claims that were being made by these agencies for, I will not say too high salaries, but such salaries as made it almost impossible for us to compare them with our ordinary staffs. I am very pleased that the Bill proposes to control them, and, in controlling them, it will give the health authorities of the local councils the right of inspection and licensing, so that in the event of anything happening which would justify their removal they would not be able to continue. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to the point that, if they are removed in one county, they will not be able to set up in another.
  Another point is the indiscriminate use of the title "nurse." Anyone can call herself a nurse at present; it does not matter whether she has had any training or experience. This applies to men as well as to women. The loose and indiscriminate use of the title "nurse" means that the public can be deceived, and the importance of the work done by nurses is such that such a deception is worse
  1662
  than a material one. We ought to take steps to see that the public cannot be imposed upon by someone not qualified to do the job.
  I put a question to the Minister a few weeks ago and was disappointed with the answer, but I find that my question is answered in the Bill. I have always had very deep sympathy for nurses who have been through their training, passed their theoretical and practical examinations and actually got their training school certificates but are not on the register because they did not apply in time when the register was first formed. The Minister has done a generous thing which will not injure anybody. It will not injure the rest of the State registered nurses, but it will help these nurses to get on the register. They have exactly the same qualifications, they have their training school certificates and they have done all that has been required of them except the technical matter of having their names put on the State register. This Bill will make them State registered nurses, and to that extent the Minister has done a useful piece of work.
  My last point is in connection with male nurses. Why should we secure the patient against the untrained nurse when the untrained nurse is a woman and not secure the patient against the untrained nurse who is a man? The male nurse can be trained. He can reach the standard which is required and pass every examination which is set, but he can never become a State registered nurse. There is no place on the general register for him. Why not? The argument that is advanced is that a man cannot be put on the register because male nurses do not study certain subjects which are taken by female nurses. There is no reason why he should not study these subjects. There are, however, different qualifications in the nursing profession. There are nurses who get their training school certificates and others who get their midwifery certificates. There are others, too, who get their "T.B." and those who get their "fever." All nurses are not exactly the same standard. Why should we not, therefore, say to the man that, provided he reaches the standard which is required for the particular type of work he does, he will be put on the register? I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this point. The number is not large, but there

  1663
  is a special type of work which can be done by male nurses.
  The Bill in general is a good Bill. What we can do to tidy up what has been a very untidy profession in the past deserves the encouragement and support of all right-thinking people. I would like to see the nursing profession a real profession. The difficulties of nursing, because of the complexity of medical treatment, become more and more varied. We have a type of woman now nursing who is doing work much more difficult than the work that was done 20 years ago. We have nurses taking risks that were unthought of years ago. We have such an advance in medicine, which depends so largely on the nurse, that I am glad that steps are being taken to bring her to her rightful place in this co-operative service. One may have the cleverest surgeon to perform an operation and a good medical man to make the diagnosis, but the patient relies on one who is doing not only the day-to-day work but the hour-to-hour work in the ward. The sisters and nurses who are doing that work are deserving not only of protection but of recognition, so that they can have their rightful place in the most humane service to which we can put our hands.
  Mr. Jewson: The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has given us, as he always does, the benefit of a wide experience in these matters to which I can lay no sort of claim. The subject of this Bill, however, is one in which every one of us must take a real personal interest. I suppose that we owe our very survival in the first instance to nurses, and I imagine that there are few of us who reach any considerable age without adding to the debt which we owe to the nursing profession. Certainly great strides have been made in our consideration of it in the last 100 years. Reference has been made to Sairey Gamp, who flourished about 100 years ago. Since her day we have had, fortunately for us, the Lady of the Lamp, and from that time the public have always been willing to accord some sort of halo to the nursing profession. But even ministering angels want something more solid than a halo as a basis for life, and I welcome this Bill because it goes a good way to provide that something. It means a real advance in status for a great number of nurses, and from the public point of view, which
  1664
  is even more important, it assures the qualifications which nurses shall possess. About 100 years ago Praed told us that among his many preoccupations he wrote "Hints to Noble Lords—and Nurses," though I always suspected he put in "Nurses" merely for the sake of a convenient rhyme. That shows in what a desultory manner nurses were expected to pick up their education in those days. This Bill will put them on a better basis while providing for proper examinations to be passed. That will be an excellent thing for the nursing profession. A Bill of this sort, however we look at it, must mean a certain restriction of liberty. For that reason it should be carefully and closely scrutinised by this House. My opinion is that the Bill will stand up to such a scrutiny. In a Bill of this sort we have to safeguard the rights of existing practitioners, as has been done in charters granted to other professions. Here again I think that the Bill stands well up to examination.
  I should like to ask for enlightenment on one or two small points. I take it that all voluntary hospitals are included in the description in Clause 11, Sub-section (1), but I should like to know what is the position of cottage hospitals under this Clause. In Clause 14 it is indicated that the approval of Parliament has to be sought for the rules and regulations made. In war-time delay is dangerous and must be avoided, but this is really a peacetime Measure, and I do not think there is any great hurry about it. Therefore, I should be much happier if the rules made did not come into force until after the 40 days during which Parliament may express its opinion had expired. I wonder whether the Minister will consider an Amendment on those lines. In the First Schedule it is laid down that the first members of the Committee are to hold office for three years or such longer period as the Minister may from time to time determine. Should there not be a maximum time? It may not be considered necessary, but I should have thought that a maximum of five years might be desirable. With these small criticisms I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. Burden: May I join with those who have offered congratulations to the Minister upon sub-

  1665
  mitting this Bill to the House? The nursing profession is one which calls for many and varied attainments from its members. On the one hand, there may be required highly skilled and technical knowledge. On the other hand, what may be required from nurses is a kindly, sympathetic attendant with some training but with few if any paper qualifications. The Inter-Departmental Committee of 1939, the Athlone Committee, for the first time formally recognised the second grade of assistant nurse—less highly trained than the State registered nurse, but at the same time undertaking important and necessary nursing duties. The Bill gives recognition to the assistant nurse and for that reason is to be warmly welcomed. I agree that just as the General Nursing Council is the appropriate body for the register of duly qualified nurses, so it should keep the roll—that is the distinction—of the assistant nurses. I do not consider, however, that the General Nursing Council is the appropriate body to prescribe the training, its duration, the institutions at which training should be given, and the conduct of examinations. My alarm at that provision in the Bill is enhanced by the Minister's suggestion that the profession wish to keep it a closed one.
  The problems associated with assistant nurses are those affecting public hospitals and institutions under the control of county councils and county borough councils. In the main it is a problem of providing for the nursing of the chronic sick. If I may, I will quote from the admirable summary of the P.E.P. Report dealing with the Health Services issued in 1939:
  "To-day the public hospitals provide nearly three-quarters of the available hospital beds, including most of those for infectious diseases, tuberculosis and maternity, and they deal with the bulk of the chronic cases."
  I am aware that the Hospital Year Book gives a list of hospitals which admit chronic cases, but most of those hospitals are small, and some of them are restrictive as to the type of cases they will take. Some indicate that they will not accept chronic cases of cancer, or senile cases. These voluntary institutions cannot in any way be compared with an institution like Fir Vale, administered by the county borough of Sheffield, where there are more than 1,000 bed-ridden or, to use an expressive North-country term, "bed-
  1666
  fast," cases. Fir Vale has 250 assistant nurses, and they have to deal with men and women suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and acute carcinoma and senile cases. That is typical of conditions in many other large public hospitals under the control of county councils or county boroughs. Voluntary hospitals will not keep the chronic cases. That is not a matter of reproach to the voluntary hospitals, whose job is a curative one, but the chronic cases turned out from voluntary hospitals have to go somewhere and they find their way to the municipal hospitals, and assistant nurses are administering to their needs.
  I submit with respect that the General Nursing Council have no knowledge of these problems. As far as I can gather from the scanty published information, all the nurse members are retired matrons or matrons actively associated with voluntary hospitals. While official recognition is given in the Bill to assistant nurses, I submit that it is vitally important that the training and other conditions for assistant nurses should be prescribed by those who have some knowledge of the problems of nursing the chronic sick. I wish I were able to give to the. House some picture of the conditions in an incurable cancer ward—the sloughings from the wounds, the horrible stench, the problems of looking after the doubly incontinent, and so on. I am glad that at long last some official recognition is given to those men and women who so cheerfully undertake those very unpleasant duties, but I am more than anxious that their conditions should not be worsened by having on the proposed assistant nurses' committee a majority of people who have absolutely no knowledge at all or practical experience of the problem of the public hospitals. May I therefore respectfully submit to the Minister that he should consider withdrawing the Clauses placing responsibility on the General Nursing Council and take power under a new Clause himself to appoint six members, and see that he appoints women who have had some practical experience of the work of a chronic hospital?
  In regard to the Clauses designed to bring what are known as Nurses' Co-operations under a system of licensing and inspection, while I readily acknowledge that the proposals in the Bill may have the effect of preventing one of the most glaring evils, the supplying of a

  1667
  person as a nurse whose only qualifications are that she has a birth certificate and has been vaccinated, I am sorry to say that the proposals fall far short of what is really required. I have here an advertisement which appeared in the "Nursing Mirror" of 20th March. I am not going to discuss salaries, in view of the Ruling of Mr. Speaker. The advertisement says:
  "Vacancies regularly occur in London, Middlesex and provincial county hospitals and nursing homes at these weekly salaries: Assistant Nurses £2 9s. to £2 12. 6d. per week——."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): By reading out a list of salaries the hon. Member is obviously opening the Debate very wide to a discussion of salaries.
  Mr. Burden: With respect, the point I was going to make is a simple one. It is that these relatively high salaries as compared with the salaries paid in the hospitals attract nurses from the hospitals to the "co-ops," to the detriment of the public hospitals. What happens is that a matron of a hospital which is short of staff——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. member really must leave this point, because if under the procedure we are not allowed to discuss salaries and we begin discussing the attracting of people from one part of a profession to another by means of salaries, it opens the whole subject of salaries.
  Mr. Burden: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, and will only say in a general way that partly-trained or trained nurses are supplied by the "co-ops" to hospitals and at rates far higher than those which the hospitals pay, and the difference between what the nurse gets and what is paid by the hospital is a rake-off for the nursing "co-ops." The Bill provides for the inspection of the "co-ops" by the local authorities. In many cases the place consists of one room with one person and a telephone. While I admit there is some improvement, in effect this Bill legalises a racket. I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw these Clauses and place upon the medical officers of health in county boroughs and counties the responsibility for keeping a register of nurses or midwives available for relief work or for private practice. I would com-
  1668
  pare the methods of the "co-ops" with the truly noble work performed, often under miserable conditions, by district nursing associations, both in the towns and in the rural areas. How can we ever have a comprehensive medical and nursing service while the nursing "co-ops" remain exploiting the needs of the suffering? I hope the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, with her wide knowledge and sympathetic understanding of these difficult questions, will appreciate that I have tried to help, and I should again like to express my thanks to the Minister for his speech and for the Bill. The Minister has the opportunity of producing a real charter for assistant nurses, but in all seriousness, and speaking from my experience first as an appointed Poor Law guardian in 1929–30 and as chairman until recently of a public assistance committee under a county borough council, I would warn him that if the General Nursing Council dominates by a majority the assistant nurses committee, restrictive conditions may be prescribed which will hamper recruitment and may make more difficult the task of those who have to administer institutions providing for the care of the unfortunate suffering men and women who are the chronic sick of this country.
  Mr. Storey: The speech of the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) is one which leaves me in some little difficulty, because while he warmly welcomed the Bill, he first asked the Minister to withdraw the whole of Part I and substitute something different and then asked him to withdraw the whole of Part II and put something entirely different there.
  Mr. Burden: The opportunity arises for doing that.
  Mr. Storey: Apart from that, I think he is undoubtedly in general agreement with the principles of the Bill. I do not share his fears arising from the General Nursing Council being the body responsible for the enrolment of assistant nurses. I recognise that he has made a good case for his contention that the work done by many of the assistant nurses is completely different from that of the State registered nurses, but, on the other hand, much of the work is interlocked with the work of the State registered nurses, and therefore I feel that it is in the interests of both sec-

  1669
  tions of the profession that one body should be the registering authority.
  Mr. Burden: I have admitted that and agreed to that.
  Mr. Storey: I particularly think that is desirable, because I hope that the enrolled nurses will in many instances advance to be State registered nurses, and if there is one body in control of registration it is more likely we shall achieve that end. I, too, want to join in the welcome which has been given to the Bill, because I feel that it is an essential preliminary step in the creation of a national health service that can be safely undertaken even in a time of war. I am surprised that any body of nurses should oppose the provisions of the Bill. I believe it can only improve the status, both of the State registered nurse and of the enrolled assistant nurse.
  Let us recognise the facts. The first is that there is work for the assistant nurse to do, and the second is that our health and hospital services could not carry on without her assistance. If that is so, it follows that we should take steps to ensure that the assistant nurse is properly trained for her own special work and that, when she is properly trained, she shall be confined to that work. That is not to say that the assistant nurse should be prevented from undertaking additional training which will enable her to become State registered. Indeed, the work that has been done in Essex shows that, under a proper scheme of training of assistant nurses, many recruits to the State Register may emerge. I believe that the development of the Essex plan should prove a useful ladder by which assistant nurses may advance to the highest ranks of the profession.
  I am glad that the provisions of Part II for the control of the ages of supply nurses have received such a general welcome, because I believe they will go a long way, not only to stop the drain upon student nurses who are liable to succumb to the financial inducements which the agencies can offer to partially trained nurses but also that it will provide that the public, when engaging the services of a nurse, will be safeguarded in that people will know that the qualifications of the nurse supplied are such as will enable her to perform the particular task for which she is engaged. There is one point, however, on which I am not quite clear, and that is whether
  1670
  these proposals fully cover the position of the enrolled assistant nurse who is practising on her own. I feel that she should be under the same obligation as an agency to disclose her qualifications to the person who engages her services. I hope that the Minister, in drawing up his Regulations, will consider this point and will make it incumbent upon the enrolled assistant nurse to make it quite clear that that is her capacity.
  I think the Bill does all that is reasonably practical to improve the status of the nursing profession. I have sympathy with the view of the Royal College of Nursing that nursing should be made a closed profession, but how we can achieve that aim in a more practical manner than is at present proposed I have yet to be convinced. I only hope that the Minister will carefully watch the working of the Bill when it becomes law, and that if any loopholes are driven through it he will take steps to close them, as I feel sure it is his intention to do, so that there may be no loopholes by which those who are not qualified can attempt to nurse for gain. In conclusion, I repeat that I believe the Bill is an essential step in the creation of a national health service. I hope that the Minister will be helped to place it quickly upon the Statute Book and that he will go on with these preliminary steps so that we may, at an early date—although I shall not express the optimism of the hon. Gentleman who thought one could be created in the space of a few months—build up a national health service that is worthy of the people of this country.
  Mr. Frankel: Like other hon. Members, I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I wish to offer one or two criticisms at the same time or to emphasise one or two that have already been made. I do not agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that this Bill could not have been stronger or more complete in its protection of the nursing profession than it is in its present form. Where the Minister stands on the question of a State service is rather dubious at the present time. Speaking as a member of a local authority very much concerned in this matter, I am doubtful—and I do not say this offensively—about which way the cat is jumping, whether still supporting to a great extent the voluntary hospitals or willing to do the sensible thing and

  1671
  recognise that the future must lie with the services of local authorities and in State hands—not that I want to run down the voluntary hospitals. They have done valuable work in the past, and a good many of them are still doing so. As I have said before in this House, I believe it was necessary for the voluntary hospitals to do their great work. Local authorities with powers in the matter did not exercise those powers for a great many years. I hope that we shall continue to move in the direction of a real State medical service.
  The Bill is good, but more timid than it need be. It could go further. The hon. Member who preceded me described this as the preliminary step to a State medical service.
  Mr. Storey: A national service.
  Mr. Frankel: A national service. I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It is a preliminary step, but it is too timid a step. It could have been a much greater step. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that even during the war great strides can be made along the line to a national service. One provision of the Bill allows special exemption from restrictions in favour of children's nurses. It may be made also in other cases, but I do not know about this. Children's nurses are apparently still to be allowed to be called nurses. A great deal of misconception is met with in regard to these people whom the Minister described as nannies and who are often thought of as nurses fully qualified to do almost anything in the nursing profession. I urge upon the Minister the importance of finding some other term to describe these people. It must be chosen so that people will be less confused than they are on this subject. I have not thought much about such a term, but I will coin a phrase. Perhaps they could be called "children's nurses" instead of the generic term "nurses," which apparently is still to be allowed. I shall not be very critical about the other exceptions until I hear what they are. We are not at all certain about this matter.
  Mr. Messer: The hon. Member must permit student nurses still to be called nurses.
  Mr. Frankel: I entirely agree with that suggestion. "Student nurse" describes them. I do not want anybody to be called a nurse who is not a fully qualified person.
  Mr. Messer: The student nurse is not fully qualified.
  Mr. Frankel: The word "student" qualifies it, and I think that is sufficient. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who spoke earlier on this matter, mentioned a point which I would like to stress. He talked about what are called the nurses' agencies. The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) described another term which is very familiar to me, namely, the "co-ops." He mentioned that when a person who is not allowed by one authority to practise within its area may still be able to practise in the area of some other authority. There ought to be one central place where it is possible to know whether a person has been disqualified from practising in some other place before that person is allowed to start up in a new situation. I do not want to enter into the financial aspect of this matter, but a point occurs to me. If these persons are disqualified, they are probably almost bankrupt. I think bankrupts have to be notified everywhere. In this case it might be so too.
  Another point mentioned by the same two hon. Members with regard to the "co-ops." requires to be stressed. It is that their charges should be published. The local authority should know what the "co-ops." propose to charge. It may be argued that this is a private matter between the patient, the nurse and the agency, but I do not think the present situation should be allowed to continue. We ought to know what it is permissible for the "co-ops." to charge and what they are legally entitled to charge, and everybody should be able to receive equal treatment for that charge. A further point which I want to emphasise was made about the nurse leaving voluntary or publicly-controlled hospitals to work for these "co-ops.," presumably for a bigger amount. I do not think it always works out that the nurse gets paid as well or treated as well after the change. In the expressive phrase used by the hon. Member for the Park Division, a phrase which is being used all over the world now, it is a racket and a most undesirable racket, with profits for those who organise and run these places to the great detriment, in the long run, of the nurses involved.
  Although I think that assistant nurses have not been treated in the Rushcliffe

  1673
  Report as they deserved to be treated, I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the Minister and his advisers will go a little further on the Committee stage and make the Bill a much quicker step towards a national service.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: So much has been said about the Bill, about which there is really so little to be said in opposition, that I do not wish to take up too much time. But at the same time, having been a member of the Athlone Committee, which presented at the beginning of 1939 an Interim Report—I am afraid the only Report it will have made—I am bound to say on behalf of that Committee how much we must welcome the fact that the Minister of Health and his predecessor have taken up that Interim Report and have brought this measure of actual legislation before the House. It is a very difficult job to deal with. Certainly it is an enormous subject, requiring, as it does, treatment in so many ways of the nursing profession. I think none of us are divided about the tremendous gap there was between the actual conditions of nursing and what was required in the way of the decencies of nursing. At the same time the demands on the services of the nurses were being increased day by day, year by year, and it was almost impossible to fulfil the demands that were required—quite impossible to fill the demands required—by the existing numbers of nurses on the register.
  Let me just run over the reasons for the increased demands. It was not simply that the nurses were already overworked, that the hospitals were already understaffed, but there were six factors in addition to that to account for the increased demand. First of all, the voluntary hospitals had increased for some time past by 1,500 beds a year. That meant to say that so many extra nurses were required every year in order to staff them. Secondly, after the Local Government Act, 1929, which was the main factor in transferring hospitals and infirmaries of the guardians to county and county borough councils, the nursing staff for these had to be tremendously increased. In the last 10 years it had increased from 9,000 to nearly 14,000. That is a great strain on the other requirements of the nursing profession; yet it did not fully meet the needs of these vastly improved municipal hospitals. Thirdly, there was an increased
  1674
  public demand for hospital treatment of acute sickness. That requires extra nurses if anything does. Fourthly, there was the increased public demand for domiciliary nursing. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) mention the wonderful work, the extraordinarily valuable work, done even in the villages by nurses of the nursing associations, not simply in nursing but in the widest sense by entering into every house and family, becoming a personal friend of the family and the neighbourhood—an immense factor in all cases of sickness, and a great deal of other troubles as well, and to a large extent helping to fill in now, in war-time, gaps made by the depletion of the medical service.
  I find over and over again in the country, where the ordinary panel patients, for instance, cannot get hold of their doctor who lives five miles off, and is doing or trying to do the work of two other doctors as well, they run round to the nurse, who manages to hold the fort until two or three days afterwards, when the doctor can come and look after the patient. Meantime it may be that they have got well, which is a very good thing for the humiliation of the medical profession and for the benefit of the patients themselves. Then there is the constant need for fresh development. The new treatment of heart cases requires, say, three nurses for a single case. The X-ray and deep therapy treatments require extra care. Then there are the recent efforts in the hospitals to reduce the nurses' hours of work to a decent figure. What is proposed is a 96-hour fortnight; but to bring that in means an increase of some 20 to 30 per cent. in the establishment of many hospitals. All this means that on the whole, whereas 9,000 a year applicants have been sitting for the final examination, requiring 12,000 entrants for training (allowing for those who cannot get through their courses), another 8,000 a year are required—20,000 entrants instead of 12,000 as at present.
  Where are you to get your increase? We should all like to fill up these demands and extra demands by fully trained State registered nurses. That is the ideal of what we might call the diehards of the nursing profession, people who have the highest possible ideals for their profession and desire to see nothing else. But

  1675
  it is impossible to get that number. It is hoped that the general influence of the present movement for youth will help in getting nursing understood more and more, as I think it is being understood more and more in the schools, especially in the secondary schools, as offering a future for those who decide to follow that profession. All of us regard the work of the volunteer aid detachments of the Nursing Reserve in this war as invaluable, not only in bringing home to the public generally the very great value of these half-trained, if I may so describe them, or partly-trained nurses, even in the great exigencies of war, but also in bringing home to the public the fact that nursing is a fine profession for women to go into, one that gives them a value in the event of our being able to carry out all the different proposals which are now made.
  In order to fill the gap, what can we do? We must make use of the assistant nurses. I think it was the hon. Member for the Park Division who explored the possibility of other names for the assistant nurse. We were constantly doing it on the Athlone Committee. I personally suggested that they should be called aids, as being quite distinct from nursing. That would have passed the highbrows of the nursing profession, but I am afraid the public would not have called them that, as they are called nurses and are nurses for ordinary purposes. These partly-trained people are doing good work in the chronic wards of the municipal institutions. I think it is a very good thing that they should be called nurses. Perhaps we could add some kind of adjective to show that there is a difference. It is not enough simply to have a name. They will be enrolled instead of being registered. We shall have so many registered nurses and so many enrolled nurses, and I believe the public will realise the difference and when applying for a nurse will ask either for an enrolled nurse or a registered nurse. They will not say "full nurse" or "assistant nurse," but they will know what the distinction means.
  I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) meant about children's nurses, because there is a definite provision in this Bill to allow children's nurses to carry on their work and title. People will shorten the title, and you cannot help it; but the
  1676
  official title is there, and I suppose they must put it on the brass plate outside the door, not that they are nurses, but children's nurses, though I have never seen a children's nurse put out a brass plate. If they apply for a post, they must do so in the proper form. I was particularly glad, therefore, that, in addition to the main part of the Bill bringing in the assistant nurses, provision is made by which they shall carry on their practice under the best auspices of the General Nursing Council, who I hope will rise to the great possibilities there of training these women and giving them such training as is possible and—a very important point—making a proper ladder by which they can, without undue demands upon them, proceed from the position of the assistant nurse to the fully trained State registered nurse. We do not want them to have to go through a very long ordeal. At the same time we want them to show that they are worthy to be considered fully trained State registered nurses. That will be left to the General Nursing Council.
  As we found on the Athlone Committee, there are many women splendidly suited for nursing who can never get through examinations and never get through the higher training for the higher positions and consequently will never be able to aspire to the position of a State registered nurse. There are others who can get through perfectly well with proper training, and I hope that will be allowed and the way eased for them. There is a little tendency for these bodies when they have power assigned to them to introduce so many forms, ceremonies, courses, examinations, lectures in order to avoid any possible infraction or deterioration of their regulations that they make it really unduly hard for people to get into their profession or get up the ladder. I hope that will be avoided.
  Mrs. Tate: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but is he suggesting that wherever people cannot pass examinations things should be made easier for them? Is that to apply also to the medical profession?
  Sir F. Fremantle: I am afraid you would rule me out of Order, Mr. Speaker, if I were to go into the hon. Member's point about the medical profession, but I know she only wants to have a dig at the medical profession as usual. On the subject of the nursing profession, what I

  1677
  would suggest is that the course or examination and the provisions required by the General Nursing Council shall not be confined to Latin and Greek, so to speak, and to what are called the higher requirements of paper work, but that they shall allow a great deal of latitude for assistant nurses to prove their qualification for the State register.
  I am so glad that in this Bill the Minister has taken the opportunity to deal with the agencies. There is really a great deal of scandal attaching to the agencies. I am not going to infringe on your Ruling, Sir, in supplying the details, though there are many interesting details which one could supply on that subject. On the other hand here you are dealing with the question of distribution. It is just the same thing as the matter of the small traders. You have to have the distributing agencies. The ordinary nurse has no idea as to how if she wants to engage in private practice she is to get suitable employment. In that and in assisting her to choose between different employers, agencies are doing a very useful and necessary work. We have to see that they do that work properly and do not get undue reward for it at the expense of the individual members of the nursing profession. I think there is a good deal to be said for this Part II. I have not yet quite summed up in my head as to how it will work out.
  What will be the powers as regards applications for the licence? The hon. Member for the Park Division was speaking on that subject. I have an idea that there is sufficient provision; the licensing authority may refuse to grant such a licence. I do not know what the grounds will be. It says something with regard to their being unsuitable. It seems to me this is on a par with regard to legislation which was passed eight years ago dealing with nursing homes. There was a similar scandal attaching to nursing homes, which otherwise did a great deal of good work. We put through a Bill requiring the supervision, registration and inspection of nursing homes, and giving powers to county and county borough councils. I presume that similar machinery will be used in the case of these agencies. Good work was done in improving the position of the nursing homes, and I am sure that similar improvement would result among these agencies. We may require some alteration or amendment later on.
  1678
  Finally, we come to the sister tutors. I hope that some attention will be given to the very minor Amendment which has been suggested—I do not know whether it has been suggested yet in this Debate, but it has been suggested outside—that there should be male "brother tutors"—we had better call them teaching nurses. You will need proper rules for them. The matter was brought home to me recently by a distinguished colleague who has gone from this House to the upper House, Lord Keyes, and by a surgeon-commander, retired, of the Navy, in connection with sick berth stewards in the Navy and corresponding men in the Army. The point was whether arrangements could be made to admit them in the full role of State registered nurses. I do not think that the negotiations have completely terminated, but I expect the Admiralty think that their provision for sick berth stewards is sufficient to qualify such men to be registered, while the Ministry of Health do not think that it is sufficient, because these men have not had the training, especially in regard to women and children, that is required in civil life. These men who come from the Services, however, at the age of 45 or so, can do useful work in civil life.
  As to whether nursing should be a closed profession or not, the medical profession is not, and we do not want it to be, closed. Anyone can practise the profession and take fees—and people do so—as long as he does not hold himself out to be qualified according to the law. But the two professions which we have dealt with recently, the midwifery profession and the dental profession, are closed.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we can go into those professions. This Bill deals with nursing. We are getting very wide if we go into the question of other professions.
  Sir F. Fremantle: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. That might come up on an Amendment later on. I will only say that the nursing profession should be as free, as open, as liberal, and yet as precise, as conditions necessitate. Subject to those considerations, I think that this Bill will be a material help to the hospitals and to the country.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I would not have intervened but for the fact that I was a member of the

  1679
  Athlone Committee. After that Committee had sat for a considerable time I was amazed to find what was happening in our hospitals, in relation to the nursing profession. This Bill is a very necessary Measure, and every Member who has spoken to-day has supported it. But I feel, in spite of the provisions of the Bill, that the Government, the General Nursing Council and the hospital authorities will have to probe still deeper into the problem. This is the only profession that I know of for which a young person leaving school may have to work in an office as a clerk or in a factory as an artisan until she is 17 or 18 before she can start on her new career as a nurse. I would like to know of any other profession or occupation where that practice prevails. It seems to me that the Government and the General Nursing Council will not settle this problem until they find means of putting the girl on the road towards nursing straight from school. How that is to be done I do not know, but administration can do many things in spite of the law. I do not want to be too critical of the General Nursing Council, but they gave our Committee the impression that if they could have their way no girl would be allowed to enter the nursing profession unless she had passed through a secondary school. The Board of Education representative told them flatly that there were not enough girls passing through secondary schools to supply the requirements of nursing after meeting the demands of the teaching and other professions. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be very careful about this point. He will not secure the necessary number of nurses, even with this Bill, until he bends his mind to the question of enrolling girls from the elementary schools. That was clear to the Athlone Committee. A remarkable thing that transpires in this country—I do not know whether it is the case in any other country—is that the person who does the most humanitarian, the most necessary, and indeed the most dangerous task often gets the least remuneration for his labour. The competition of other vocations and the conditions of employment of this profession are such that you will not get the necessary number of nurses until something is done to alter those conditions for the better. Another point that arose—and I speak with a little knowledge of this—
  1680
  was, why on earth do they erect these huge buildings called nurses' homes? What sense is there in a girl being compelled to live in a nurses' home when her own home is within a mile or two of the hospital where she is in training? I studied this problem a little in America; they do not do those things there. Why should it be allowed here?
  Mr. Messer: In many towns the nurses' home is used only for those student nurses who come from a long distance away, and the nurses live out.
  Mr. Davies: Yes, but that is not the practice in every town. In the probationary period they are expected to live in the nurses' home even if their own homes are quite near. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the very important fact that a girl should be allowed to go home, or, at any rate, to lodge with relations if she likes, instead of living in one of these big nurses' institutions. I come now to the problem of examinations. We found that the General Nursing Council in establishing a standard of examination never took note of the law of supply and demand. If, for instance, you require 30,000 doctors—I appeal to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) on this—what is the use of setting a standard of examination under which only 10,000 can ever hope to pass? The standard of examination must always relate itself to the law of supply and demand. When the last war ended it was very much easier for an ex-Service man to pass through a university than would have been the case if he had never been in the Services. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not take any notice of what I say. [Interruption.] He looks in that direction, and I suppose that where he looks he listens.
  Mr. McLean Watson: The hon. Member should withdraw that.
  Mr. Davies: Why should I? Nearly everybody else has thrown bouquets at the right hon. Gentleman. I want to raise another point with the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the General Nursing Council. I understand that he will draw up regulations for the Council from this time forward. I have reason for referring to this, because the General Nursing Council the other day passed an extraordinary and amazing regulation, in which they arrogated to themselves the

  1681
  right to determine when a girl was ready to sit for examination whether she should be allowed to do so. I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact; he made representations to the Council, and then they modified it a little. I do not know much about the General Medical Council, but I do not think that, with all its power—and it is one of the most powerful trade unions in the country; it can even bring Coalition Governments to their knees—it lays it down whether a student shall sit for an examination. It can say whether he shall be registered when he has passed the examination——
  Sir F. Fremantle: The hon. Member does not seem to know the difference between the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council is not a trade union.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think we need argue the point as to which section of the medical profession is a trade union. We should keep to the Bill.
  Sir F. Fremantle: I rose on the point that one is a statutory body and the other is not a statutory body.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I rose on the point that we should keep to the Bill. It is not relevant to the Bill which section is a trade union and which is not.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that it was not I who was out of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was saying that the discussion on both sides should keep to the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to watch the point to which I referred. It seems a little unfair that these girls should study for examination and then be told that they cannot sit. We ought, however, to have this problem of nurses in proper perspective. It must not be assumed that, because there is a shortage of nurses, the number is decreasing. Inded, it is increasing. The flow of probationers into the profession is increasing annually. The point is that the demand is increasing more than the supply. I hope that the Bill will do a great deal to settle the problem of providing the hospitals with an adequate supply of nurses. After
  1682
  sitting on that Committee for 15 months, I was very impressed with the work done by these women. There is no sufficient tribute that we can pay to them for what they do in looking after the sick. In wishing this Bill well, I trust that the nurses may get a better deal because the Bill has passed into law, and I hope above all that, in dealing with hospitals, nurses and doctors, we shall not forget the patients in respect of whom everything we do must in the end apply.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): On this occasion we may congratulate ourselves that there is a Measure before the House which is agreeable to, and considered useful by, every hon. Member who has spoken here to-day. The subject of the assistant nurse has been discussed on many occasions. When the Civil Nursing Reserve was formed at the beginning of the present war there were three sections in that Reserve, and there are still—the trained nurse, that is, the State registered nurse with her full training, the assistant nurse and the nursing auxiliary. The assistant nurse is with us in hospitals and in the Civil Nursing Reserve; we hear of her work in various ways up and down the country, but never before has she been defined. Having had a good deal to do with the Civil Nursing Reserve and seen a good deal of work in the hospitals, I agree with many hon. Members that some assistant nurses are excellent nurses. They have a real aptitude for nursing. They may not have had the aptitude for the training in mathematics or chemistry or something else sufficient to pass examinations, but one cannot dispute their real gift for nursing, and they are doing this good work. But there may be others who may call themselves assistant nurses, because there is no regulation as to the name, but yet are not suitable persons and are entirely without any form of training at all. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said, we have to consider and defend the patient who may apply for someone to nurse him and find that it is someone entirely without any skill whatsoever. Therefore, the necessity which was put forward by the Athlone Committee of defining and enrolling assistant nurses has been in the minds of many of us for some time.

  1683
  I would like to make it clear that it is not that at this moment we are going to recruit assistant nurses. I want to recruit, and we are doing it, many more girls who can come in and take the full training as State registered nurses, but we also want to organise assistant nurses who are working now and to find out which organisations ought to have a title under the new regulation and which ought not. I want to make that clear, because some people have thought that this Bill has been brought forward owing to the difficulty of staffing our hospitals and that we want to lower the standard of nursing and to have assistant nurses. It is nothing of the kind. I want to see the status kept up. It is a very proud thing that the standard of British State registered nurses is the highest in the whole world. Such a nurse can get appointments all over the world because she is known to have had that high standard of training. I do not want her to come down, but there are many people who could assist in hospitals and in sick nursing and who can help the highly trained State registered nurse and who are doing so at the present time. These are the assistant nurses we want to enrol and put under the new scheme, so that those who do not come up to that standard may no longer be employed for doing work for which they are not fitted.
  The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), in welcoming the Bill, asked questions on some points about the machinery for the Nurses Co-operatives. These details have been worked out pretty successfully for nursing homes and other institutions of various kinds. If the hon. Member will look at the particular Clause in the Bill, he will see that it is drawn sufficiently widely in order that the local authorities may be able to satisfy themselves on the work that is being done and how it is being carried on by the agencies. We find, and I quote the words:
  "Subject…to such conditions as they may think fit for securing the proper conduct of the agency."
  If there are further points—and the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) also spoke on arrangements for these co-operatives—no doubt when we come to the Committee stage we can make the position clear. The fact, as the hon. Member said, is that the
  1684
  co-operative might have to inform the licensing authority what its tariff was; any other schemes that it had would probably come under the licensing arrangements. These points are details, and any difficulty can probably be dealt with on the Committee stage.
  Mr. Messer: The chief point about which I was concerned was, that if, for any reason, a licence is taken away by one authority, it would be possible to go over the border into another authority and set up business again at once.
  Miss Horsbrugh: We have already noted that point. I had something to do with a similar case of licensing when piloting a Bill on child adoption through this House. We tried to guard against this particular idea. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), in welcoming the Bill, also asked whether the General Nursing Council had any legal advice. I am informed that the General Nursing Council has legal advice, so that that should also be available for dealing with the assistant nurses. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fee of 2s. 6d. is not sufficient. He pointed out that if the fee were larger, the enrolment would be more popular and that it would look as though it were something of greater importance. But it has been a good arrangement with regard to State registered nurses, and I think we ought to keep it the same. The General Nursing Council, in being asked to undertake this work in addition to the State registration, will have the weight of its influence, as the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has pointed out, to urge whenever possible that a nurse should take her full training. Their desire is that as many nurses as possible should take that training, and by having the assistant nurses' roll and the State register of nurses under the same authority we shall get more cohesion. Personally, I do not want there to be any idea that the assistant nurse is outside the nursing profession. Suggestions were made that the enrolment should be under the authority of the Ministry of Labour or Ministry of Health. I want the assistant nurse to be what the title declares her to be—a nurse assisting the fully trained nurse, and I think that keeping the matter under the same authority of the General Nursing Council will give both the nurse and the public a clear idea of her duties.

  1685
  In spite of the rather stern remarks that fell from the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield on the subject of the General Nursing Council, we ought to give this scheme a fair trial. I do not think that there need be any grounds for the fear that he has for the appointment on the Assistant Nurses Committee of a certain number of members from the General Nursing Council. If he remembers how the General Nursing Council is appointed, perhaps some of his fear will be put at rest. He also feared that the examination might be too difficult and that there might be too many regulations for assistant nurses, but I do not think that that will be so. The idea is clear as to what work she should be asked to undertake, and it is not to be up to the full standard of the State-registered nurse. But the enrolment of the assistant nurse is important so that persons without any training at all should not be doing some of the work they are doing at this time.
  The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) felt rather upset about the children's nurse being allowed to call herself a nurse. I do not believe that it will make the slightest difference, if the hon. Member for Mile End or anyone in this House or the Government said that a children's nurse was not to be called a nurse, because she would still be called a nurse. The old tradition and common sense would still remain, and no law or regulation would prevent a nurse looking after children being called a nurse. We want to stop anybody without training as a sick nurse from advertising herself as a nurse to obtain employment.
  Mr. Messer: Is there not now a category of sick children's nurses?
  Miss Horsbrugh: There is the category of sick children's nurses, and that really is a class of nurses.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would it not be a mistake to suggest that children's nurses have no special skill? Apart altogether from the sicknesses of children, it has become a very specialised training to bring up children in the proper way, and many of these girls have taken such training.
  Miss Horsbrugh: There are, of course, training and examinations for nursery nurses as well. There are some children's nurses who have not passed examinations and who have not been to college who are doing extremely good work, as we have
  1686
  found. The actual definition goes as far as possible in the Bill, although the hon. Member for Mile End thinks that my right hon. Friend was rather timid in not actually trying to get rid of the old-fashioned idea of the children's nurse. But I think most hon. Members will be glad that that description is to remain. The hon. Member for Westhoughton spoke of nurses' homes and of training and of various other things to do with the nursing profession. I was interested in his description of his work on the Athlone Committee, but these are subjects which it would not be in Order for me to go into at the moment. The enrolment of the assistant nurse, the necessity for the Nurses Co-operatives to be licensed and other minor points are what we have to deal with to-day.
  Although there has been this criticism—and I agree with much of it—on the subject of the nurses' co-operatives, do not let us forget that there are a good many which are doing extremely good work and are very particular. Among these I believe that there will be a very warm welcome for this Bill. They have selected their nurses carefully and have told patients to whom they send nurses the standard of their training. I think that they will welcome this provision, which will give more knowledge to the person who receives into his or her home a nurse to look after any member of the family during illness. It will give a chance to more people to be enrolled definitely as part of the nursing profession, which we all hold as one of the finest professions for women, who have been doing a job during the years of war which may not be spectacular but which, I believe, is second to none.
  Mr. Messer: Can the hon. Lady deal with the point as to whether the male nurse will continue to be known as a nurse, and will there be an opportunity of his being registered so that he can be a nurse?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry I forgot that point. There is a supplementary register for male nurses, and in connection with that I would tell the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that there could be male "sister tutors"—brother tutors, perhaps! We only know of one, and we will look after his interests, and if he has any other brothers we will try to look after their interests, too.
  Sir F. Fremantle: Does he act as male sister tutor?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I think that in the Bill under the heading of "sister tutors" the word "persons" appears, and the word "sister" is not used in the terms of this Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Captain McEwen.]

  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This simple Bill to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading is to extend for five years the time within which local authorities may give grants to individuals who are prepared to erect houses for agricultural workers, small holders and other persons of similar economic condition in the Highlands of Scotland. Part 2 of the Act of 1938 enabled local authorities to give such grants only for five years—a period that expires on 13th July next. The amount of the grant and the ways in which a grant may be earned are explained in paragraph 2 of the Financial Memorandum. Since the Act of 1938 came into operation 381 houses have been completed with grants. Some of the houses which have been approved are under construction. It was expected that a great deal more would be done with the help of the Act, but war conditions have greatly hindered progress. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the operation of the grants system for another five years.
  Clause 1, Sub-section (1), extends the time within which applications for assistance under the Act of 1938 may be made to local authorities by five years, from July, 1943, to July, 1948. Clause 1, Subsection (2), provides for the substitution of the new limit of date for the former limit in any scheme made by a local authority under the Act of 1938. Clause 2, Sub-section (2), is merely an application Clause.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my hon. Friend explain what is meant by the words:
  "Subject to the provisions of any amending scheme, after the passing of this Act, by a local authority."
  Mr. Westwood: In the administration of any of these Acts of Parliament which enable local authorities to make grants to individuals they are subject to the preparation of a scheme by the local authority and approved by the Secretary of State, and, consequently, local authorities may desire to amend any of their existing schemes. As my hon. Friend well knows, we leave a certain amount of power to the local authorities. They may not desire to give the maximum grant; they may desire to have a varying system of grants, so we do not infringe upon their rights at all so far as this amending Bill is concerned.
  The grants to which I have referred are not to exceed either one-half of the cost of the house, or £160 in the case of a three-apartment house, and £200 in the case of a larger house. In every case of a grant-aided house it must be to replace a house that is unfit for habitation and has been dealt with as such by the local authority under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930. The houses that are to be replaced by new houses are confined to houses, bothies, chaumers, etc., occupied by agricultural workers on farms, or owner-occupied farms not exceeding 50 acres in extent or entered in the valuation roll at a gross annual value not exceeding £50, or of houses occupied by statutory small tenants or land holders, or houses in the Highlands and Islands occupied by cottars and squatters. A tenant who builds with the consent of the owner or land holder, or a statutory small tenant who is entitled to compensation at outgoing, may receive a grant from the local authority, and if compensation becomes payable in some cases, so much of the value of the house as is attributable to the grant paid is to be taken into account and deducted. The benefit of the grant will remain with the next tenant or land holder.
  Part II of the Act of 1938 operates where schemes are adopted by local authorities and approved by the Secretary of State. This scheme lays down the conditions subject to which a grant may be given, and a copy is sent to every applicant so that he may understand clearly what the conditions of grant are and whether he is in a position to obtain assist-

  1689
  ance provided by the Act we are seeking to extend. The 33 county councils in Scotland, except Bute, have schemes, so have the Town Councils of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dunfermline. The idea behind the grant is that it is for new houses to replace unfit houses situated on a farm or holding in circumstances where it is essential that the house should be near a farm or building, in cases where an agricultural worker must be near his job on the farm, where accommodation suitable to the requirements of the workers employed is not available in the locality, and where it is impracticable for the local authority to provide such accommodation under the scheme for the provision of housing accommodation for the agricultural population of the locality. Under the terms of Section 8 of Part II of the Act the Government contribute a substantial part of the grant by way of annual payments to local authorities for 40 years, representing three-quarters of the grant, except in the case of the Highlands and Islands where small holders and occupants of that kind are concerned, when the Exchequer assistance amounts to seven-eighths of the grant. That, briefly, explains the purpose of this simple and short Bill.
  Mr. Mathers: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just dealt so admirably with the purpose and scope of this Bill that the purpose which I wish to fulfil is rendered very simple indeed. Most of us, I am sure, remember the Act which this Bill seeks to extend for another live years and the hopes that were then engendered of dealing very effectively with the bad houses to which the Act of 1938 was intended to apply. I am sure we regret that all those houses have not been dealt with up to the present time, but hopes rise in our breasts again that before 1948 that purpose will be completely fulfilled, so far as present standards are concerned. It may be that when that time comes our ideas with regard to housing may have undergone a change for the better, and we may feel the necessity for continuing further provision of this kind for the benefit of the agricultural population. When we consider the benefit that has accrued, I am sure we are grateful that there has been such provision on the Statute Book, and I am sure we shall all be ready to agree that the provisions be continued for another five years, or as long as may be necessary.
  1690
  When we look at the terms of the provision that is made we see what appears to be a very small burden indeed is laid upon the local authorities and that a greater burden proportionately is laid upon the shoulders of the National Exchequer. But we must not allow ourselves to be led away with the idea that that small monetary burden, as it appears, is not something of considerable consequence to the local authorities who have to make provision for it, because in many of the areas to which these provisions apply a penny rate brings in a very small amount. The result is that a small burden of this kind is one that cannot be lightly undertaken. I am sure that the Scottish Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be gratified at the way local authorities have, in the main, applied themselves to the use of the powers that have been available under the 1938 Act, and I am sure that it is the desire of all of us who wish to wipe out the bad conditions that still remain that those responsible on local authorities will bend their energies to continuing the job so removing what is, and has been for many years, a reproach to our native land.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) praise this Bill and the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary presented it to the House, because I recall vividly the Debate on the Second Reading when the original Bill was passed. On that occasion my two hon. Friends most vigorously opposed Part II of the Act, which is the very Part we are now asked to extend. Indeed, they went so far as to move an Amendment and walked into the Lobby in support of it. It is a great pleasure to know that time has modified their opposition and that experience and responsibility have changed the opinion of even so stubborn a Scotsman as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Here is a case of sinners repenting, and I am sure we are all very happy about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said he hoped the Bill would go on for longer than five years and that local authorities would avail themselves of this Act to the full.
  But I am bound to ask why this Bill has been brought before the House today. Why does my hon. Friend the

  1691
  Under-Secretary want power to extend it for another five years? The only reason he gave us was that since the Act was passed in 1938, and with the intervention of the war, few houses have been built and it was necessary, therefore, to extend the operation of the grant system for another five years. I cannot follow that reasoning at all. If my hon. Friend wants this power extended, clearly he must have a plan in mind, and I want to ask what is the plan. Why does he ask the House for the extension of a power which he does not particularly like himself? The only answer I can offer is that he must feel that this Act is valuable and that something is going to be done with it. But even then, I am not happy about the answer, because when the Bill was before the House in 1938 it was pointed out by many hon. Members, and more particularly by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Air, that the grant given under Part II was not big enough. The right hon. Gentleman asked for its increase, at that time in 1938, by 25 per cent. He showed that the cost of building a house of this type in a country district in Scotland was £465; he said it was impossible for owners at that time to build houses costing that amount with a grant that ranged only from £160 to £200 per house; and therefore, he asked for a 25 per cent. increase. If that grant was insufficient then, how absolutely valueless must it be now, when the cost of such a house would be double £465. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has published the prices he is to pay for the houses under his rural scheme, but I should be surprised if it is possible to build any house, under the Scottish or the English scheme of rural housing, for less than £900 at the present time. Therefore, unless the Under-Secretary intends substantially to increase the grant under that Act, he is asking the House for something that is ridiculous. In these circumstances, I must assume that the grant is going to be increased. I must assume that, and unless my hon. Friend wants me to sit down so that he may counteract that view, I go on the assumption that the grant is to be substantially increased.
  Mr. Westwood: The assumption is wrong. It is clear to anyone who reads this very simple Bill that it merely changes a date.
  Mr. Stewart: I am not talking about what is in the Bill. I am asking my hon. Friend for what purpose he wants the Bill. I say he can only ask for it in order to undertake new construction in the future. Obviously this is a post-war Measure. I say that the Act, which was of such little value in 1938 that since then only 300 odd houses have been built under it, is valueless to-day, when houses cost double, unless it is to be accompanied by a substantial increase in the grant to private owners.
  I must recall to the House what the Act was intended originally to do and what was its origin. Why was it brought along? The Act of 1938 is composed of three parts. Part 1, with which it would be out of Order to deal to-day, gives power to local authorities themselves to build houses in the countryside. Part II gives local authorities power to give grants to private individuals, landowners, to build houses. Part III contains miscellaneous provisions. It is with Part II that we are now concerned. How did Part II come about? It was the result of the Report, in 1937, of the Committee on Rural Housing in Scotland, among the recommendations of which there appeared:
  "We recommend that in order to expedite the provision of dwellings of a suitable health standard for agricultural workers, it should be open to County Councils for a period of five years, if they are satisfied that a tied house is radically unfit and must be replaced by a new house on the farm, to give the landowner assistance to replace the tied house."
  That recommendation was adopted by the Government of the day and by the House, and the Act followed. Why did the Committee make that recommendation? I submit it is essential for the House to remember the reasons to-day, because those reasons apply even more in this year than they did in 1937. The Committee set out very plainly what they had found as a result of their inquiries. They said:
  "There is no general shortage of farm servants' houses on farms, but all witnesses who appeared before us agreed that a very large number indeed of these houses were unfit.… The National Farmers' Union informed us that the reconstruction or replacement of defective farm houses was an urgent necessity in every county in Scotland."
  Is not that a most pregnant sentence? In 1938 the Committee said that it was an urgent necessity; how much more important is it in 1943, when agricultural production is vital to the nation?

  1693
  "No appreciable number of farm cottages has been built since the war"—
  that is, the last war—
  "and until 1926 little or nothing was done to maintain farm cottages in good repair or improve them. Appendix II shows that in the three parishes surveyed, which we have no reason to believe are exceptional, 40 per cent. of the farm workers' houses were damp, 35 per cent. had no sanitary conveniences whatsoever, and 14 per cent. were beyond repair,"
  I commend those figures to the House. They are most damaging and startling figures. I invite the House to reflect that that was the position six years ago, and to-day it is worse. I am speaking now as the representative of a rural constituency, pleading the case of my constituents.
  Mr. McKie: Semi-rural.
  Mr. Stewart: Largely rural. The report continues:
  "About 70 per cent. of the farm workers' cottages had major defects.… The main defects of farm servants' houses are dampness, absence of water and sanitary conveniences, no storage or larder accommodation, insufficient lighting, defective grates, no drainage, ashpits too near the house, cement or brick floors."
  The report concludes:
  "We recognise that in urban slums there may be individual houses which are as bad as, if not worse than, any farm servants' cottages, but we are satisfied that in general no section of the population is compelled to live in such consistently bad housing conditions as are farm servants."
  That is the platform upon which I stand. I am examining the Bill on behalf of those who are, in the opinion of that Committee, more badly housed than any other section of the population in this country. That was so in 1937? How much worse is it to-day?
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has said that this Bill will not produce any houses. He has damned it, and now he welcomes it.
  Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will listen a moment or two, he will see where I stand. So far as the Bill is a contribution to the housing position, I welcome it, but I ask the Under-Secretary, realising that these were the conditions in 1937, knowing that practically nothing has been done since then, and appreciating that the conditions to-day are, and after the war will be, infinitely worse, I ask him what is his programme? I think the House should be told before it gives this Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Westwood: If I had attempted to do such a thing, undoubtedly I would have been out of Order. It was not that I was afraid to do so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must remind the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that the sole question before the House is whether the Act shall be extended for five years.
  Mr. McKie: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a Bill prolonging the Act of 1938. Are we not entitled to regret that something was not included in the 1938 Act? Is it not virtually a Second Reading of that Act over again?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: With great respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and while, of course, I accept your statement, may I remind you that Part II of the 1938 Act states:
  "A local authority may, and if so required by the Department shall, submit to the Department a scheme or schemes for assisting the provision of housing accommodation in new houses.… On approval by the Department of any scheme so submitted a local authority may, in accordance therewith, give assistance, etc."
  The operative Section of that part of the Act is Section 4 (3, a), which states:
  "No assistance under this Section shall be given in respect of any house unless the application for assistance is made by the local authority within five years after the passing of this Act."
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is inviting us to extend the Act for a further five years. This would permit of the full application of Part II. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I feel that I should be in Order in discussing Part II of the Act. It is concerned substantially with the building of hew houses for farm servants on the farms.
  Surely, when my hon. Friend asks us to extend these powers for five years, he has something in his mind. What is it? It is not a question of his being afraid to deal with this matter. Am I to understand that he has no plan at all? How many houses is it proposed to build under this extended Act? On the basis of the Report of the Committee from which I quoted, I have worked out that Scotland will want something in the region of 270,000 new houses in its agricultural areas after the war—27,000 new

  1695
  houses a year. Has the Under-Secretary any plans under this Bill to meet that immense problem? What is it intended to do? How many houses does he fancy he can build under this special authority? Surely, we shall be told that before this Bill is given a Second Reading. It is not enough for the House to say that because something was not fully satisfactory before the war, we must extend it. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is quite right; up to now the thing has been a comparative failure, and if it has been a comparative failure, why should we extend the Measure? Surely, it must be because changes are to be made in the grants and because there is to be a big programme. I do not feel disposed, very readily, at any rate, to give a Second Reading to the Bill without having information along those lines.
  May I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a further question? In considering the application of this Bill when it becomes an Act, will he not consider changing the prerequisite of Part II? The prerequisite, as he explained, is that the house must first be demolished before another house can be built in its place. Would it not be Wise to remove that condition? Why stand in the way of building new houses wherever they may be built in the countryside? I wonder if the Scottish Office has taken a leaf out of the book of the Ministry of Health in London. The other day the right hon. Gentleman made a most urgent plea, almost in the nature of an instruction, to English local authorities. I hope we are not going to be behind an English Department. He reminded them that it took 20 years to build 4,000,000 houses after the last war and said that there were in all about 300,000 families living in houses which had already been, or would have been but for the war, condemned as slums. He said we must learn from that bitter experience and do the preliminary work which must be done now and not, as in the old days, leave it to the return of peace. Planning and thinking, however, were not enough. There must be action. He intended to inform local authorities that they need not wait for the result of the Ministry's full investigation or for a pronouncement by the Government. He was suggesting to local authorities that there were almost certain to be sites which ought to be used. In England the
  1696
  Department is pressing local authorities to make their post-war plans now in detail and to make all the preparations. Is anything like that being done in Scotland? If it is, I am not aware of it.
  I do not exaggerate the importance of this little Measure, but I think it would be a small contribution. At any rate, the Under-Secretary appears to think it is of some value. I admire the vigorous fight that the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) make for the better housing of their constituents. I have brought to the notice of the Secretary of State equally pressing cases on behalf of the people in my part of the world. They are living now in such houses that the women find life intolerable, the men's spirits are broken, war production is affected and the morale of the whole countryside is undermined. If you could give these people good houses, it would be worth 10 Beveridge Reports to these ploughmen of the countryside. I beg that the Government shall not only take powers but indicate clearly what they intend to do.
  Mr. Maxton: I rise on behalf of my friends and myself to support the view which the hon. Member has so ably put, and I hope we shall have his company when we go into the Lobby against the Second Reading. I think that is the obvious logical conclusion of his speech.
  Mr. Stewart: I asked for justification of the Bill. If the Under-Secretary cannot justify the Bill better than he did, I shall certainly vote against the Measure. I expect the other Under-Secretary will have some justification to offer.
  Mr. Maxton: Certainly he cannot look any more sheepish and uncomfortable than the other Under-Secretary did, because I am certain that he does not like a little bit of it. I think it reflects great credit on the discretion of the Secretary of State that he has found himself unable to appear on this occasion. Indeed, I am very interested to note that there is not a single Scottish Labour Member, except two gentlemen on the Front Bench, who are rather hostages to fortune. This is a bad Measure, and the Act was a bad Measure, bad in principle and bad in practice. It was opposed very strenuously on the Second Reading and in Committee, but

  1697
  on the same plea that the hon. Member is making now, that it might give us a few houses and somewhat relieve the position in the rural districts, the House gave it a Third Reading without opposition if I remember rightly. But it has not fulfilled that hope. It has done nothing to relieve the situation in the rural districts. If it was no inducement, either to the owners of houses or to the counties, to go ahead energetically in the pre-war period, certainly, with conditions precisely the same, it will not stimulate the building of a single house. I am glad to see the hon. Member who was largely responsible for piloting it through when he was Under-Secretary. I am sure that, if he spoke on it now, he would stand in a white sheet, because I believe him to be an honest man, and tell us that he has to admit that in retrospect the Act has actually produced nothing.
  I am not prepared to accept this sort of thing as housing legislation. From the earliest days when I came into the House, the housing problem of Scotland has been an over-riding curse. There have always been Ministers, whatever their political complexion, prepared to put us off with some makeshift which would not cope with the situation at all. Now they have the war as an excuse, but it is not an adequate excuse. I am not prepared to accept the view that we have to sit still and wait until the end of the war—someone may see the end in sight; I do not—and then get all the wonderful things that are forecast for us, while no single step is being taken to make even the post-war visions take anything like concrete form. I gather that we now have a Council of State. If one reads the newspapers, one is led to believe that there is complete unity among all Scottish Members. These paragraphs appear regularly. There is a Council of State composed of ex-Secretaries of State in consultation with the present Secretary of State. Secretaries of State—Conservative, Liberal and Labour—are sitting together and pooling their best brains and getting complete agreement. About what? "That we would all like to see a better Scotland," and they say how fine and harmonious they all are. Then something concrete requires to be done and the Labour Under-Secretary for Scotland comes forward with a Measure that was produced by a Conservative Government and that he condemned as being reactionary even
  1698
  for that Conservative Government. It is not treating either his job or this House or Scotland in the way that each of them deserves to be treated.
  We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that
  "owing to the shortage of building labour and materials, it is unlikely that many applications for assistance under the Act will be granted between now and the end of the war."
  I do not believe this story about shortage of labour and materials. I think that it is an excuse. It was true up to a point when there was great constructive work going on in the extension of factories and aerodromes and the erection of big works necessary for the equipment and maintenance of the Services. In knocking round the West of Scotland at least I find large numbers, not of big builders, but of men who have been effective builders and have done work in the localities in an efficient way, worried about where they will be in the months not very far ahead. At this moment they are under-employed, running round doing little repairs and things of that description. I am sure that the material position is not half as bad as the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Works try to make out. I also do not believe that there has been any real expenditure of brain in exploring how far alternative methods and materials—materials that are in good supply—can be used. I think that very easily an organisation could be developed that could start giving us a decent trickle of houses now, a trickle that could increase into a stream as the general situation might become easier, a stream that would be ready to become a flood when hostilities are concluded. Then for the first time Scotland would be getting into a position to begin to tackle the housing problem in an effective way.
  I do not know how other Members from industrial cities are concerned. This Bill attempts to cope only with the rural position. I represent an industrial constituency, but I have many friends and contacts in rural areas, and I get letters from serving soldiers asking me to use my influence to get them houses. Imagine a soldier writing to me from the Middle East or from some other scene of operations asking that I should endeavour to get him a house because he and his wife and five children are living in a single room, and when he comes home on leave the two older children have to leave the house so

  1699
  that room can be found for him. That is disgraceful. I have had a letter from a tuberculosis mother who wants an additional room so that the children do not have to sleep in the same apartment as herself. These are only two samples picked out of hundreds.
  Mr. Speaker: This Bill does not refer to houses which require additional rooms but to houses which have three rooms.
  Mr. Maxton: They are like castles in Spain; they are imaginary houses.
  Mr. Speaker: The houses must contain at least three apartments.
  Mr. Maxton: They are the new ones, and they are to take the place of houses which are occupied by agricultural workers on farms, owner-occupiers of small farms, statutory small tenants, small landholders, and so on, who are to-day living in unsatisfactory conditions and not in three rooms. The Bill is an attempt to get in rural Scotland a certain standard of decent housing to replace a whole lot of insanitary, insufficient accommodation that is now overcrowded. We are opposing the Measure and will vote for its rejection in the Lobby because, on the experience of the Act that this Bill is extending, the provisions are not sufficient to produce houses and the provisions in existing conditions are still inadequate to cope with the situation. I was citing these cases merely to indicate to Members for English constituencies something of the nature of the horrible position in which Scottish housing, rural and urban, is in and has been in and will continue to be in unless we can force the Government to produce something better than the legislation which is proposed to-day.
  Mr. McKie: Unlike the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and in a measure the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), I do not rise to oppose the Measure. I hope, however, that the Under-Secretary will take note of several of the points which have been made by these two hon. Members. The hon. Member for East Fife made an ingenious speech, full of debating points, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that I think he rather overdid it. He arraigned the Scottish Office, as we all should if we thought there had been a
  1700
  dereliction of duty or a neglect of the affairs they had in hand. The hon. Member, as far as I caught the gist of his speech, complained, as did the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that the Bill merely maintains the status quo so far as Scottish housing problems are concerned. Of course it does. While I should be the last man to advocate the maintenance of the status quo, I do not see, having regard to house building difficulties at the moment, how the Scottish Office can do otherwise than they are doing.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Member tell me how many houses have been built on his estate?
  Mr. McKie: None at all. The existing legislation had been in operation for only just over a year, I think, before the outbreak of the war. I had obtained estimates for two houses under the Act of 1938 and they came more or less to the figure quoted by the hon. Member for East Fife, £460. I hope the hon. Member will take that as a token of my own good faith and intentions in the matter.
  Mr. Maxton: Two estimates but no houses.
  Mr. McKie: That is an interruption which is rather unworthy of my hon. Friend. There were no houses because of the difficulties imposed by the war. I will admit right away that the amount of the estimate did rather astonish me, even in those days. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said some four or five weeks ago that pounds, shillings and pence are only symbols now, a statement for which he was taken to task in the admirable wireless speech of the Prime Minister on Sunday. While I do not agree that pounds, shillings and pence are merely symbols, I will say, and I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton must agree with me, that the war has entirely altered our ideas of monetary values. The ideas current before 3rd September, 1939, no longer exist. Therefore we have to approach this problem—I see that your eye is upon me, Mr. Speaker, and I realise from what your predecessor said that I shall not be entitled to speak upon all that was omitted from the Act of 1938, but since the Debate has taken a somewhat wider turn, I thought you might perhaps allow me to comment briefly upon the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton

  1701
  and the hon. Member for East Fife, and I was merely backing up in part what has been said by the hon. Member for East Fife in calling attention to the deplorable state of housing in rural Scotland. Perhaps in my own constituency, the county in which I have lived all my life, conditions are not so bad, though heaven knows they are bad enough, as in some other parts of the country, especially in the kind of mixed constituency which my hon. Friend represents. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be able to lift the curtain a little in regard to the Government's intentions for the future. A lot has been said about landlords' difficulties, and I was very glad to hear the applause which came from such an unexpected quarter. When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton applauding I said to myself, "This is a case of Saul being among the prophets."
  Mr. Maxton: If ever I applauded the landowners of Scotland, it must have been in a fit of very serious mental aberration.
  Mr. McKie: I do not think anyone in this House can accuse the hon. Member for Bridgeton of ever being in that condition; but perhaps I have been overstating it. It was when the hon. Member for East Fife was calling attention to the sums which landowners would be required to pay—£460 in times of peace had gone up to £900 or £1,000 to-day; that caused my hon. Friend to applaud. I now understand why. It was because he knew that owing to the ridiculous ramshackle structure we still support, it was impossible for housing conditions to be put right by landlords. But this is only by the way. Despite the advice and comments and criticisms which have come from both the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I still think the Government have a right to bring in this Bill to ask us to prolong an existing Act of Parliament, but I sincerely hope that it is merely an earnest of what they intend to do in the future, and that landowners will be put in a position to deal with the wants of the biggest section of the agricultural community. There are three sections——
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to rise, because I thought the hon. Member was going into the whole question of agricultural policy.
  Mr. McKie: No, Sir, with very great respect, I was going to say that of the three sections of the agricultural community, who are all affected by this Bill, upon the landlords, who are the smallest category, will fall the greatest financial burden. The other two sections are the tenant farmers and the agricultural workers, the last-named being the biggest and by far the most deserving section—I hope that will satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton—and they have to live under the appalling conditions which were outlined, though only mildly outlined, by the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Member for Bridgeton. Of course, the hon. Member for Bridgeton does not speak at first hand of the rural areas. He knows what the conditions are in Bridgeton, and they are just as bad in the rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be better if the hon. Member addressed me and not the hon. Member for Bridgeton.
  Mr. McKie: With great respect, I did not mean to give the impression that I was not addressing you, Sir. It was because of his asides that I turned to him. I was saying that among the three sections in agriculture the entire financial burden of this Bill falls upon the landlords. I want to see in Scotland a fair adjustment among these three sections of the community. Although in the last few months rural matters have been discussed from time to time, and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has drawn attention to landlords' liabilities and obligations, we do not often hear anything said about landlords, and I think it is imperative that the Under-Secretary should keep this question very much under consideration. Let me say, speaking solely so far as Scotland is concerned, that the landlord is a rentier, and I hope that I shall not be guilty of an unparliamentary expression when I say that is a term which stinks in the nostrils of the community, but we have been told by spokesmen of the Labour party that it would not be their immediate intention if they were installed in office to do away with him.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. McKie: Therefore we have to visualise a state of affairs obtaining after the war in which the landlords will still

  1703
  be responsible for their estates and will have to continue to assume the obligations which they have had up to now. That is the point I want to impress upon the Under-Secretary, and that is the point which I thought won applause from the hon. Member for Bridgeton, though no doubt I was wrong. We all agree that the deplorable state of rural housing in Scotland is in no way met by the prolongation of the Act, and if the Under-Secretary can lift the curtain even an inch and tell us that the Government are really awake to the conditions of rural housing, I am sure that will meet with general approval.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: After the entertaining and penetrating speech of my hon. Friend, very little more remains to be said on that side of the subject. I want to ask two questions, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). Speaking for a constituency which is at any rate 50 per cent. rural, I would like to know whether we in Scotland, where housing is so much worse, are to get comparable treatment with England on this burning question and, if not, why not? As to the second question, the Under-Secretary of State will remember that not very long ago he paid a visit to Fenwick to inspect some pre-fabricated houses, which I think he commended for the countryside. Is anything further to be done about that matter? Those are points which need answering, because it is clear from the Bill that we shall not get any houses in the rural areas of Scotland in the next three years. It is a little difficult to see why Parliamentary time should be taken up in introducing the Bill at all, except almost as a matter of form. I would remind the Minister that we have not yet had a statement on this matter. I have to bring a deputation to the Secretary of State next week because of the appalling conditions of squatters in Kilmarnock. Are not we to have some clear-cut policy? We need a little more than an explanation of the Bill—which is, after all, on the cover—and a little more indication of what the policy is in Scotland. If the Minister will tell us that, we shall be a little more enlightened about the Bill.
  Sir Henry Fildes: I should like to associate myself with the remarks
  1704
  that have been made about the inadequacy of this Measure. What we want is houses, but it is evident that Scotland has arrived at the most deplorable condition to be found in any part of Britain. We recognise the efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland and his very admirable Joint Under-Secretaries, but the result has been totally inadequate. I would welcome some suggestion from the Joint Under-Secretary of State who is to reply that he will call a committee together to see how far the small builders in Scotland can help to relieve this dreadful situation. I have in my possession a letter written by a soldier. He mentions a case in which 15 people are living in one small house—a wife and four children in each of three rooms. It is now 1943, and there is no sign that we are about to improve that state of affairs. We all recognise the difficulties, but really if we have come to a point where, after three years of war, this situation is going from bad to worse, we are no friends of the Government if we merely say that this state of affairs is inevitable. It is disgraceful.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is not a Bill under which the general housing conditions of Scotland can be discussed.
  Sir H. Fildes: If it is not a Bill under which the general housing conditions of Scotland can be discussed, all I can say is that it is a very great pity that the Bill has not been produced in a form that would allow us to bring before this House the dreadful housing conditions under which our Scottish citizens are living.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I do not know how far I may—in fact I dare not—traverse the wide open spaces of Debate which we have so far witnessed, and I must stick to the somewhat narrow road which we are continuing in this Bill into the bigger future. The remark for which I was most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) was his reference to the fact that he appreciates my difficulties. There are certain difficulties in replying, because we have covered a great deal of ground in this Debate and I fear that I might be out of Order if I attempted to reply to some of the observations which have been made.
  At the start let us not be confused about this Measure. It is nothing but a war-time

  1705
  Measure, carrying on for a specific period, a limited thing. There has been some confusion. I do not think it is fair to compare a limited Measure of this nature to the big plans that are being made or are under way. Whether I dare go beyond that point I do not know, but I would first like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) who clearly recognised the limited nature of the Measure and gave it a welcome. He did not expect tremendous things from it, because he recognised those limitations. Even my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) welcomed the Bill at one stage of his remarks. I was not sure whether he was welcoming it or repelling it on the whole, but at one stage he recognised that the Bill made a limited contribution. I take it that something is better than nothing. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who interrupted me, is one who would rather have no loaf at all, than a slice of bread, even though it should only be a thin slice. That seems to me to be illogical and does not at all square with the view that housing conditions are deplorable.
  Mr. Maxton: My position is this. This legislation creates the illusion that something is being done for Scotland, therefore we should be better without it.
  Mr. Chapman: Something is being done for Scottish rural housing in this Bill. The figure given of houses completed is 381 but that does not cover the whole picture. Apart from the houses completed, there are 201 under construction at the present moment. A total of 691 houses approved indicates the progress that would have been made had not the war supervened. They would be completed but for problems connected with building materials and labour. We should have received quite a useful amount of help from this Measure and I therefore submit that even if the Measure is not on a large scale it is of some help. It is carrying us on until we can do the really big thing. There is a rural housing advisory committee which is investigating housing matters including rural housing, and things like alternative building materials, methods of construction and so on, in association with the Burt Committee. In fact, there is a great deal of preparation going on for the big progress which we desire to see and into
  1706
  which I hope the narrow path that we are traversing to-day will broaden.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for East Fife will forgive me if I say that I was in some difficulty at times in following precisely what he wanted in the Bill, until, finally, he said that he would oppose it unless he received a satisfactory reply. I think that if he examines the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that his statements were sometimes mutually contradictory. Therefore I have some difficulty in replying to him. When he twitted my hon. Friend with having changed the opinions which he held in peace-time, I wondered whether there was any hon. Member in this House who could put his hand on his heart and say that he has not experienced any change of opinion, in regard to any single thing, since he came into this House.
  Mr. Maxton: Oh yes, there is one, anyway.
  Mr. Chapman: I am very glad. I bow in all humility and repeat that I am very glad to hear it. Another point raised by my hon. Friend was whether the grant was to be increased. That was replied to and the answer is, "No." To increase it under war-time conditions might prove to be two-edged. While we desire to get all the improved houses we can under war-time conditions, we do not want to raise false hopes which we know cannot be met. If an increase of grant were held out, we might get such a flood of demands that we could not possibly meet them and the Measure would become a dead letter in operation. What the future may hold is another matter and what the housing committee may recommend on this point I do not know. Neither would it be proper for me to anticipate. Therefore no hope can be held out of an increase in the grant now.
  Mr. Snadden: I apologise for interrupting but I think everyone knows that the 1938 Act was, more or less, a failure because of the inadequacy of the grant. Surely if the powers are being extended, the grant must also be extended because it is quite impossible for people to build houses at to-day's costs on the existing grant. That is where I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). Is it definite Government policy that the grant remains as it stands?
  Mr. Chapman: I would point out the powers we are seeking to have extended in this Bill, are due to expire. Therefore, the immediate need is to carry forward these powers. What happens when these powers are renewed, is a matter for consideration. I am not closing the door on this matter at all, but I am not prepared to commit my right hon. Friend. I merely say that what my hon. Friend has said, together with what other hon. Members have said, will be noted in relation to the efficacy of the Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife concentrated mainly on the point, and expressed a desire which we all share, that we should tackle this problem of rural housing in real earnest. Let me assure him that despite anything that has been said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of us most earnestly desire that the blots in rural housing—do not let us pretend it is all bad, for it is not—shall be wiped out. We are very sincere and very keen about that. After all, the hon. Member for Bridgeton recognised that there may be, what could be called slums in the country as well as in the cities and towns. I can assure him that, taking that long-term view, we shall not rest in the matter.
  I do not agree with hon. Members who say that this Measure has been a complete failure in the past. It has brought relief to quite a number of homes in the sense of improved conditions, and if it is not as great as we think it should be, let us remember that this is all assistance given to private owners and that owners of many other houses will have improved them without that grant. Let us not imagine that no house is being improved save with this particular assistance. The hon. Member for Bridgeton opposes the Bill on principle. It is difficult to see, as I said earlier, how he squares that point of view with his denunciation of the housing conditions in our countryside. It would certainly have been my own view, and I have taken a good deal of interest in housing, on the back benches as well as in office, that the housing position is such that I would do almost anything to get houses for the people. Whether that is a right principle or a wrong one, I have seen so much deplorable housing that it has weighed with me most deeply. Therefore, I beg of the hon. Member not to despise even this Measure. I suggest that here are
  1708
  some people who are going to be helped by this limited Bill.
  We do not pretend that it will stimulate housing. In wartime there are profound limitations. I venture to suggest that if we were in the piping days of peace my right hon. Friend might be bringing forward a different Measure.
  Mr. Maxton: The previous Measure was brought forward in the piping days of peace.
  Mr. Chapman: Yes, the original Act, but I am dealing with the limited sphere of this particular Bill. I should not be in Order, I think, in discussing the whole Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway stressed what I have already mentioned, the problem of the building difficulties. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) shared the anxiety of the House that our rural housing problems should be tackled earnestly and vigorously at the earliest possible moment. That is certainly the determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) asked me whether we were receiving comparable treatment with England. I am not quite sure what he had in mind specifically on that point.
  Mr. Lindsay: I simply had in mind the announced programme of house-building in England.
  Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because there we are in some difficulty, as the allocation of that housing to Scotland does not come within the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. Lindsay: All I want to know is whether this is part of the greater attack on the problem. No reference was made to that point so far as I know?
  Mr. Chapman: No, Sir; this is specifically a wartime Measure. The really big plans are being thought out. This is something we are doing under wartime conditions.
  Mr. Lindsay: But other plans are under way?
  Mr. Chapman: Yes, plans are being worked on.
  Mr. Maxton: There is a committee?
  Mr. Chapman: The Housing Advisory Committee is going into these plans and

  1709
  preparing them. It has been announced that a large number of houses are required. I can assure the hon. Member that a great deal is being done on that subject. The second point my hon. Friend raised was the question of alternative building materials and forms of building. I will just repeat was I said earlier that the Burt Committee, which is a United Kingdom Committee, is sitting on this subject and investigating all sorts of alternative materials and construction, including pre-fabrication.
  Mr. Lindsay: Is the Advisory Committee for Scotland also doing so?
  Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir. I have endeavoured to deal with most of the points raised. I trust I have satisfied the hon. Member for East Fife that we are not being slackers in this matter. I do not dare hope that the hon. Member for Bridgeton will reconsider his position, though I trust that he will, because we desire, if we possibly can, to have this Measure, although it is limited, passed without a Division.
  Mr. Muff: The Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland has given to the House a most convincing case why we should reject this apology for a Bill which could be termed a "Crumbs for Lazarus" Bill. As I understand, it is a continuation of a Bill which was originally introduced, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has observed, in 1938. Now the hon. Gentleman comes along with a puny infant and asks this House to administer some oxygen to keep it alive because, as he states most candidly, if we do give the Bill a Second Reading the most this House and Scotland can expect is some sort of committee. The Bill is for the housing of the rural population in Scotland. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland cannot

  Division No. 10.

  AYES.

  Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

  Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

  Cary, R. A.

  Agnew, Comdr. P. G.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Cazalet, Col. V. A.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'd., W.)

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Apsley, Lady

  Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)

  Cobb, Captain E. C.

  Assheton, R.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham E.)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Brass, Capt. Sir W.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Barr, J.

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

  Burden, T. W.

  Daggar, G.

  Beaumont, Maj. Ht. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)

  Cadogan, Major Sir E.

  Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)

  Beechman, N. A.

  Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeevil)

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  promise a single brick, to bring a single house to those people in Scotland.
  Mr. Chapman: I said that materials and labour were limited, not that they were non-existent.
  Mr. Muff: The fault of the Joint Under-Secretary is that he has no vision, but he is backed by a docile bloc from across the Border—I include the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—who are ready to assent to any proposal which comes from Edinburgh. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton will have a Division, I will gladly tell with him.
  Mr. Maxton: We are going to have a Division.
  Mr. Muff: I am obliged to the hon. Member. It is high time that hon. Members from Scotland took a little more notice of their English colleagues, and had a little more flesh and blood and guts in them. I suppose that the big battalions behind the Under-Secretary will give the Bill its Second Reading. If the hon. Member would only consult Members from just over the Border—I will not mention England——
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better confine himself to Scotland.
  Mr. Muff: I am going to sit down. But I wish that the Scottish people and the Press of Scotland would realise how they are served in this House. So long as we have Bills like the Rural Depopulation Bill—which is what it amounts to—which I call the "Crumbs for Lazarus Bill," Scotland is going to be as badly served in future.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 9.

  Dobbie, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)

  Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

  Leach, W.

  Selley, H. R.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Leonard, W.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Etherton, Ralph

  Lipson, D. L.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

  Somerset, T.

  Foot, D. M.

  Locker-Lampion, Commander O. S.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Frankel, D.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mabane, W.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Furness, Major S. N.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Storey, S.

  Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

  McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Gates, Major E. E.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mack, J. D.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gibbins, J.

  McKie, J. H.

  Summers, G. S.

  Gledhill, G.

  Makins, Brig-Gen. Sir E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Glyn, Sir R. G. C.

  Mander, G. le M.

  Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Martin, J. H.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Mathers, G.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Thorne, W.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)

  Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)

  Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Gunston, Major Sir D. W.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

  Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

  Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Nunn, W.

  Walker, J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Hewlett, T. H.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Waterhouse, Capt. C.

  Hill, Prof. A. V.

  Pearson, A.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)

  Holdsworth, H.

  Petherick, Major M.

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Horabin, T. L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Westwood, J.

  Hughes, R. M.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Price, M. P.

  White, H. (Derby, N.E.)

  Hunter, T.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

  Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

  Pym, L. R.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)

  Radford, E. A.

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Willink, H. U.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

  Jennings, R.

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)

  Woodburn, A.

  Jewson, P. W.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  John, W.

  Rickards, G. W.

  Wootton-Davies, J. H.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g & C'km'n)

  Riley, B.

  Wragg, H.

  Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

  Roberts, W.

  Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Robertson, D. (Streatham)

  York, Major C.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Kimball, Major L.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Mr. Boulton and Captain

  Salt, E. W.

  McEwen.

  NOES.

  Buchanan, G.

  McGovern, J.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  MacLaren, A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Muff, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Mr. Maxton and Mr. Stephen.

  Bill read accordingly a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Captain McEwen.]

  HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the time within which applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, may be made to local authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may become payable under Section eight of the said Act of 1938

  1713
  by reason of any extension of the time within which applications for assistance must be made to local authorities in order that their power to give assistance under the said Act of 1938 may be exercisable."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Westwood.]
  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]
  Mr. Bellenger: I wish to put a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that on the Second Reading of this Bill it is not possible for hon. Members to put any points at all and that this stage is purely formal, as in the case of the First Reading of Bills. If that is so, would you kindly inform me, and possibly other hon. Members in a similar position, why it is not possible at this stage to raise points of general interest on a Bill which extends the Army and Air Force Act, and whether this procedure applies to the Third Reading?
  Mr. Speaker: It always has been the custom that on the Second Reading of this Bill nothing whatever can be raised. No questions of administration or disagreement with any other provision can possibly be raised on this Bill, but it is always open to hon. Members to raise anything they like on the Committee stage, when both new Clauses and Amendments can be moved. The Second Reading always has been, and is, an entirely formal procedure.
  Mr. Bellenger: Does that apply to the Third Reading also?
  Mr. Speaker: The same applies to the Third Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day [Captain McEwen.]

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Nationality of Married Women.)
    (1) No woman who is a British subject shall, by reason only of her marriage to an alien after the commencement of this Act, lose her British nationality.
    (2) At any time after the commencement of this Act any woman who was a British subject and lost her British nationality before such commencement by reason only of her marriage to an alien shall be at liberty to apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of resumption of British nationality.
    (3) The marriage after the commencement of this Act of a woman who is not a British subject at the date of such marriage to a man who is then a British subject, shall not confer on such woman British nationality.
    (4) A woman, notwithstanding marriage, shall be competent to apply for and receive the grant of a certificate of naturalisation under the same conditions as a man.—[Colonel Cazalet.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Colonel Cazalet: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I do not intend to repeat the speech I made on the Second Reading of this Bill, advocating in some detail the various points in this new Clause. All I would like to say is that I think it gives the Government an opportunity of implementing their acknowledged policy in regard to the question of married women. Subsection (1), if I may briefly explain, gives a woman the same rights as a man in this country as regards nationality. If it was accepted, a woman's nationality would not in the future be regarded as a by-product of marriage; it would be something that belongs to her by right. That is in accord with modern-day sentiment towards the equal treatment of the sexes in matters of this kind. Sub-section (2) concerns British women who are married to aliens and gives to them the same rights already accorded to British women married to enemy aliens. Hon. Members who were not present during the Second Reading Debate may not realise the anomaly that exists to-day. British women who are enemy aliens have the right to go to the Home Secretary and ask for a return of their British nationality. The anomaly is that what is accorded to the wives of enemy aliens is not granted to the wives of friendly aliens, and this Clause would set that matter right.
    In this particular matter Australia and New Zealand have already passed legislation which accords their own women who have married aliens full rights of

    1715
    citizenship within the Dominions, and I hope the Government will not use that old and specious argument that they cannot do anything about this matter because they do not want to move more quickly than the Dominions. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of this Clause make it necessary for any woman who marries a British subject to qualify before she receives the full benefits and advantages of citizenship. This matter has been before the House on various occasions. I think it was an abuse of the rights of British citizenship, and here is an opportunity to set it right. I have no great hopes of being able to convince the Government that they should accept all the provisions of this Clause, and although I do not intend to press it to a Division, I trust they will remember the way we co-operated on the Second Reading, that they will recognise the general feeling in all parts of the Committee and that they will hold out some future hope that at an early date they will take an opportunity of remedying a real grievance.
    Mrs. Tate: I beg to second the Motion.
    I would like to endorse all that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) has said, except, of course, that I cannot agree with him when he says that the giving of equality to women is the modern trend. I have not noticed that trend myself, and I merely ask for this Clause on the ground of ordinary justice to women, as justice is one of the things for which we are supposed to be fighting in this war. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by arguing the case, which has been argued very fully and of which the Government are well aware. I hope we shall have a full explanation from the Government, who I fear do not intend to accept the Clause, as to why this extremely anomalous position should be continued. I had a letter from a woman only to-day, a woman married to a friendly alien serving in our Forces, who explained to me that her husband, although a foreigner, can move about this country without let or hindrance, while she, a British subject before her marriage, born and bred in this country, has to register whenever she moves from one place to another. That is an undignified and undesirable position for an Englishwoman to find herself in, and I think it is quite as
    1716
    undesirable that a foreign woman should be able, as has been done in the past, to claim British citizenship merely on the payment of a small sum to a man when she is married to him and whom she probably never sees again.
    Commander Agnew: I hope the Government will not accept this new Clause. So far as the moral issue is concerned and the arrangements relatively between this country and the Dominions, the Government are reinforced by the presence on the Treasury Bench of one of the Law officers of the Crown, who, no doubt, will deal most satisfactorily with the juridical aspect of this question. I want to oppose it on other grounds. I feel that when a man or woman marries a foreigner the desirable thing is that the two of them should hold the same nationality after marriage, not a different nationality and certainly not a dual nationality. If people hold a dual nationality, that is virtually an anomaly on the whole principle of nationality itself, and to my mind it cannot in any way assist towards better relations either between the two individuals who make the marriage or between the Governments to whom they owe allegiance. Therefore, I hope the principle will be maintained that when a woman marries an alien she does so prepared to enter into the way of life of the foreign country of which she is to become a national.
    Mrs. Tate: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that a British woman married to an enemy alien can regain her British citizenship? Is he suggesting that when a British woman marries a German she should entirely take his nationality, his way of thought and his interests in the unity of their marriage? Does he believe that unity can be obtained by such a course?
    Commander Agnew: I am grateful for that interruption, because I was about to say that in the Debate on the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, which Parliament passed a few years ago, the very case which my hon. Friend has described to the Committee was dealt with. That is to say, that if a woman married an alien whose country should become at war with this country she should have the option of regaining at once her British nationality. I agree that in that case the law should stand, but

    1717
    my hon. Friend and her Friends want to go further than that. They want women to have the best of both worlds, to be able to dodge about between one country and another to see which they like best after marriage. If this new Clause were to be accepted, it would be disruptive of the whole family principle and the idea of the family unit being a unit which forms a component of nationalities and States themselves.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) and the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), I dealt with this matter in my speech in the Second Reading Debate, and I do not propose to repeat what I said then. The hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) does not seem to realise that the principle which it is sought to introduce into the Bill exists at the present time in the United States of America and that his suggestion that the adoption of this principle would be subversive of the whole marriage tie is not in the least borne out by what has happened in America.
    Commander Agnew: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that America has not got the complication—and also, of course, the great privilege—of a great Imperial situation to deal with as we have, and even if she had, I do not hold out the United States of America as the model which everyone else has to follow in every way, great country as I recognise them to be.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Of course, the question of our Imperial position is a very important one, but it has nothing to do with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, which was that ipso facto the change in the law proposed in the new Clause would be subversive of the marriage tie. I was pointing out that that would not be the case, and that an important country like the United States has adopted that principle and there has not been that effect there. Obviously, it would not have that effect here. It is much more likely to be subversive of the marriage relationship if a woman loses her nationality on marriage and thereby is under constraint, which she is at the present time owing to the fact that her natural loyality and the obsolete law of the country are at variance, the law of
    1718
    the country being obsolete because it is not in accord with modern conceptions concerning the independent rights of women.
    I wish to put a question to the Government. It is some 12 years since the Government of the day made their announcement of Government policy on this matter. That pronouncement was that in principle the Government favoured this change. They said then, and they have said since, that the difficulty of implementing that pledge is the one to which the hon. and gallant Member referred just now, that we are part of an Empire and obviously it is very desirable we should act as an Empire in unity in this matter, and that one part of the Empire should not go one way and another part another way. It was said in the Second Reading Debate that those parts of the Empire which resisted the change the last time the question was raised were still against it. In the Second Reading Debate, the Attorney-General was unable to give a reply when I asked what was the latest occasion when those parts of the Empire which disapproved of the change had been consulted. I hope that between then and now the Government have had time to refresh their minds with regard to these facts, and further, I hope they will be able to make a definite pronouncement of a new kind to-day.
    It is clear that in the past there has been a division on this matter in different parts of the Empire. Australia and New Zealand have been pressing for this reform to be carried through; in fact they have adopted an ingenious method of getting the effects of this reform, as far as the present period is concerned, without actually carrying it into practice and without upsetting the unity of the Empire in the matter. On the other hand, Canada and South Africa, the last time they were consulted, were against the change. In the Second Reading Debate I asked the Attorney-General whether the Government had, within the last two or three years, made any fresh approach to South Africa and Canada to see whether, with the march of events, those two parts of the self-governing Empire had changed their opinion and would no longer be an obstacle to the reform. I ask again whether any recent approach has been made to those parts of the self-governing Empire, and if it has not, will the Government undertake, within the next few

    1719
    weeks, to make a further approach to those parts of the Empire to see whether unanimity on this question cannot now be arrived at? Of course, this will not satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne, because he is against the principle, but the Government have said that they are in favour of the change but are held up by the divergence of opinion in different parts of the Empire. If that be the case, what is there to prevent them from making a fresh approach to those Dominions? I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether they will now give an undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that a fresh approach will be made to South Africa and Canada to see whether the views which the Government have professed to hold on this matter cannot be now brought into effect.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I very much hope the Government will respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It seems to me that the only argument against the principle of this new Clause is that it would not be appropriate in this Bill. Behind that argument, of course, there is the consideration that we must wait until we get complete agreement among the Dominions. But we have been waiting for so long, and there is no sign that any strong effort has been made to get a united decision by the Dominions and this country on this really important issue. Its importance is that it affects the status of womanhood. I think there will be general agreement on all sides of the Committee that we want to remove any vestiges that remain in our laws of treating women as inherently inferior to men and preventing them from sharing to the full the civic rights than men enjoy. Therefore, I very much hope the Government will make clear their approval of the principle of the new Clause, whatever may be their decision as to the appropriate place for it. I hope also they will make it clear that they will consult the Dominions once more and urge that there should be a united decision on this point. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) is not here, because he would have spoken about an Amendment to Sub-section (3) of this Clause in his name
    1720
    and mine which I think is an improvement in one respect, in that it makes it clearer that there would not be dual nationality in the case of a woman who is not a British subject at the time of her marriage and decides to have the nationality of her husband. In that case, in opting for British nationality upon her marriage she would have to renounce her previous nationality, and I think that would in some measure meet the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I resemble the right hon. Gentleman opposite in two respects. In the first place, I prefer the word "Empire" to "Commonwealth," and, secondly, I should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the speeches to which we have just listened. They seem to me to be examples of the typical modern heresy of taking something for granted, with a great appearance of moral and intellectual superiority, and then supposing that that is the end of the argument. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this or that was more consonant with modern conceptions. But which of us knows what are modern conceptions and what are not? We are continually told what everyone wants or what everyone thinks. The right hon. Gentleman's views of what are modern conceptions and mine differ, it may be, very considerably, and no argument is to be founded upon that assumption, nor is it really anything but a piece of chronological provincialism to assume that the conceptions of your own generation are necessarily better than those of an earlier one; indeed, when the conceptions of one generation run counter to all others, there is a certain presumption in favour of the older conception. I find it a little difficult also to follow the argument that, if the Government accepted this principle 12 years ago, that is conclusive. That is a strange doctrine to be heard in the House of Commons, particularly from a Front Bench, and I hope the House will pay no attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to contravene my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) by saying there really was not such an important issue, as he put it, going to the root of family life and so on. He was immediately confuted by his ally below the Gangway, who said this was a most important matter because it went to the whole root of the question of the status

    1721
    of women and who raised the whole question-begging stuff of those people who think women distinguishable from men being necessarily disposed to impute inferiority to one or other of the parties. That kind of assumption has been current long enough, and it is high time we ceased to pay attention to it.
    It seems to me that there are really only two questions before us, one the question of the interest of States in women who marry foreigners, particularly the interest of this State as involved in British women marrying foreigners, and the second part of the question, to which I attach as much importance as the hon. Lady, what could be done to increase the chances of happiness and diminish the chances of unhappiness of the women concerned; and, if the two things run counter to each other, clearly it is our business to give more weight to the first consideration than to the second. In my judgment, the two things do not run counter to each other. I do not believe the assumption that by reducing the stakes of a game you necessarily make the game easier to play. Some games have to be like cricket, where the whole thing depends upon the first ball, and if you do wrong you are out. In my judgment—and that does not matter, but it is the judgment of the immense majority of mankind since the world began—matrimony is one of those adventures. It is one of the most perilous adventures upon which a man can enter, and I am credibly informed, and I rationally believe, that it is even more perilous for women. It does not follow that you make it less perilous by making it easier to enter upon it. On the balance of the two considerations about the interests of the women involved, I should have no hesitation in betting, although I never count myself certain of winning, that on the Day of Judgment when we ask St. Peter about it he will say that this is an extremely perilous adventure. Relations with foreigners are also extremely perilous adventures. When you do the two things simultaneously, you get a sort of geometrical progression of peril. I feel little doubt that if we could cast up the accounts at the end, it would be said that there is less risk of human unhappiness, on the whole, in the law as now proposed by the Government, that is to say, that the woman has to face the fact and say, "I
    1722
    want this man and I am prepared to face the perils, inconveniences and disadvantages of losing my British nationality." On the whole there will be less unhappiness from a compulsion to face that fact than there will be by trying to make that fact appear smaller. You really reduce the effect very little and deceive more than you mitigate. I had another argument of great force and power, but I think perhaps I have said enough to make clear my general view in this matter.
    Mr. Woods: After the Committee has listened to the hon. Member's dissertation on things ancient and modern, and on the question whether St. Peter and not this Committee would have to decide, we can come back to the problem before us. I appeal to the Government to take into consideration the human aspect of this problem and to adopt the proposal that has been made, as a wartime measure at any rate. There are women who have married friendly aliens, now living in this country. Their position is difficult, and if the Government can do nothing else, they might make some special arrangements whereby these women can be treated, for the time being, as British subjects. I hope that they will make provision of that kind, if they cannot go any further.
    Mr. Lipson: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) quite properly suggested that we should apply the test of where the advantage to the State lay in coming to a decision on this matter. I want to ask the Attorney-General what is the opinion of the Government in this matter. Is it in the interest of the State that when a British woman marries a foreigner, she should lose her British nationality, whereas when a foreign woman marries an Englishman, she should acquire British nationality? Will he also tell us clearly whether the Government approve the principle of which, we are told, the Government of 12 years ago approved? It would help some of us to come to a decision if we knew that the Government still accepts the principle of the Amendment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): We have had an interesting discussion on a question that always arouses great interest

    1723
    among hon. Members, and the Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General indicated on the Second Reading of the Bill, are by no means unsympathetic to the object which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) has in mind. We are, however, very much more conscious of an issue which is even more important, and that is the maintenance of the common status of British subjects throughout the British Empire. It was Lord Palmerston, I think, unless my history is very much at fault, who at the end of a Cabinet discussion said, "Well, gentlemen, it does not matter much what we say so long as we all say the same thing." I would not say that it does not matter whether our law should stand as it is at present or whether our law should be as the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham desires it to be; it is a matter of great importance; but it is not anything like comparable in importance to the maintenance of a common British status throughout the British Empire. It would indeed be a disaster if those who represent His Majesty's Government or one of the Dominion Governments in foreign countries had, before they intervened on behalf of some British subject in distress, to inquire what sort of a British subject he was.
    Colonel Cazalet: South Africa has never accepted the Convention, and I think Southern Ireland also takes an entirely independent view.
    Mr. Peake: That, I think, is rather beside the point, which is that the maintenance of the common status is a matter of supreme importance. If hon. Members look at the Amendment, they will see that it falls into two parts. I do not want to be critical of the Amendment in detail, but the first two Sub-sections are intended to prevent the loss of British nationality by the marriage of a British woman to an alien and to provide for a woman who has married an alien to regain her British nationality. The third and fourth Sub-sections deal with the obverse of the picture, the alien woman who acquires British nationality by marriage to a British subject, and as regards such women, my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal is that if they have already so acquired British nationality they shall not lose it, but that they shall
    1724
    not acquire it by marriage in the future. To that extent the Amendment does not deal with the point which so much worries my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), that in the past alien women have acquired British nationality by virtue of marriage to British subjects.
    My hon. and gallant Friend raised this matter in a Bill, I think, 15 years ago, but the scope of the grievance which then existed has been very much narrowed. In the first place, we have the provision, to which he has himself referred, that if you are married to an alien of enemy nationality you have the right under the Act of 1914 to apply to regain your British nationality. Since the outbreak of war something like 2,000 certificates have been granted to women who were formerly British under that provision. In the second place, there is the Act of 1933, which provided that it was only where, by marriage, the British woman acquired a foreign nationality, that she lost her British nationality. As hon. Members know, in the case of marriage, for example, to an American citizen, there is no acquisition of American nationality and therefore no corresponding loss of British nationality. The same thing applies to marriages to French citizens since the year 1938. Moreover, the Act of 1933 limited the extent of this grievance in one other case, and that is where the husband acquires foreign nationality by naturalisation.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Subsequent to the marriage.
    Mr. Peake: Yes. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) spoke, I think, too emphatically during the Second Reading Debate when she talked about a British woman being punished and penalised by loss of nationality on marriage. At the present time, if her marriage is to an alien of enemy nationality, a British woman can immediately re-acquire British nationality; on the other hand, if she marries into some other nationality, it is more than probable that she will be married to a person of Allied nationality. Perhaps it is rather hard, therefore, to describe as punishment and penalisation the acquisition, say, of Polish or Czech nationality at the present time.
    I know that by narrowing the scope of a grievance you very often make those

    1725
    who suffer from it feel it more acutely. I have been asked whether the Government still stand by that oft-quoted declaration made in 1931 at Geneva, on behalf of His Majesty's Government when Lord Samuel was Home Secretary. That declaration is subject, of course, to the alterations which were made in nationality law in 1933, but I would remind hon. Members that that declaration is always quoted by supporters of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham, without the addendum then attached to it, to the effect that His Majesty's Government could take no action in this matter without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The British Government attach supreme importance to the concurrence of the self-governing Dominions in any changes which may be made.
    Reference has been made to the legislation in the direction, though not to the full extent here proposed by my hon. Friend, which has been undertaken in Australia and New Zealand. It has been made clear in the Debate that although a woman in Australia, by marriage to an alien, becomes herself an alien, Australian domestic legislation provides for her retaining the rights and obligations, so long as she remains in Australia, of a British subject. That legislation does not go the whole way which my hon. and gallant Friend wants to go, but part of the way, and it is often quoted as an indication that Australia and New Zealand, who have adopted similar legislation, are prepared to go further down this road than are His Majesty's Government. I would just like to draw attention to this rather important fact which occurred in Australia only last month; that is, that the Australian Government, faced with the possible peril of invasion, have had to modify the Act to which my hon. Friend referred, by some emergency regulations. They now have a regulation which provides that a declaration made by a woman, that is, a declaration that she desires to retain the rights and obligations of a British subject in Australia under Section 18a of the Nationality Act, shall be of no effect unless registered, and that registration of the declaration may be refused or cancelled at the direction of the Minister for the Interior. [Interruption.] That was in January, 1943. Hon. Members will see that in the midst of this great
    1726
    struggle, faced with the perils with which Australia is faced at the present time, it has been thought fit to adopt some modification of the Nationality Act which they passed a few years ago.
    As regard the main question, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), whether His Majesty's Government had made, or would make, further approaches to the Dominion Governments upon this question at this stage, this matter was very fully discussed at the Imperial Conference in 1937. We are precluded, of course, from going behind the publication of the findings of the Conference, and I can give no indication to the House of the respective attitudes adopted by the various Dominions. But this matter having been discussed in 1937, and there having been a failure to arrive at any agreement upon further measures, I hardly think His Majesty's Government could have been expected, in the period that intervened between that Conference and the outbreak of war, to make further written approaches to His Majesty's Dominions. Since the war the action recently taken by the Australian Government to which I have referred does not seem to indicate that there would be any possibility of an advance at the present time in the direction which my hon. Friend desires. But I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make this statement to the House. My right hon. Friend, being by no means unsympathetic to the proposal contained in my hon. Friend's Amendment, in consultation with the Dominions Secretary, will be anxious to take any opportunity that may occur for further consultation with the Dominions, and he will be on the look-out for any suitable occasion of seeking a way round the difficulties which prevent further action on the lines which my hon. Friend desires.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  FRENCH NORTH AFRICA (POLITICAL PRISONERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Mr. John Dugdale: I wish to raise the question of political prisoners in North Africa. I realise that it is a very delicate subject. I realise fully that our men are fighting side by side with Americans and Frenchmen in North Africa, and I would be horrified if any words of mine were to do anything to make their task more difficult. I would like to say at the outset that I know, as indeed we all know here, that North Africa is ruled by France, ruled by General Giraud, and not by us. Any remarks that I make will be made, if I may do so, to General Giraud through the Under-Secretary. What is the position to-day? The latest figures that we have of prisoners were given on 10th February in a reply by the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Members for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). He said that 903 prisoners had been released and that 5,407 were still detained on that date. But on 23rd February there appeared an article in "The Times" newspaper which I would like to quote, because the figures contained therein were somewhat different from those given by the Foreign Secretary:
  "The weight of evidence, including that which comes from official French sources, goes to show that on November 8th there were between 9,500 and 10,000 political prisoners and refugees detained in North Africa. General Bergeret was correct in saying that 1,300 had since been released. Thus, in fact, the figures remaining must be somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000."
  Why this discrepancy between the two sets of figures? I think it arises from the fact that the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman dealt only with those people actually detained in prison camps, and not with those people who because they had resisted arrest were placed in civil and military prisons rather than in prison camps. I understood that a distinction is made and those people who resist arrest are placed in prisons, and not in prison camps. Who are these men? Every one of them, to the best of my knowledge, is an anti-Fascist. Some have national representatives who can speak for them. Many have no national representatives. Included among these are Austrians, Germans, Hungarians and Italians, all of whom have proved in actual combat that they are anti-Fascist, willing to do their utmost to drive Fascism from Europe.
  I come to the important question of how they are treated. I wish to give the
  1728
  House some information that I have obtained to-day from a man who was himself in one of the prison camps and who vouches for the accuracy of this information. The information, as far as I can tell—and I say it, naturally, with reserve—is accurate up to 15th January this year. I refer to the camp at Djelfa. In this camp there are in the neighbourhood of 1,500 people, living under canvas in the desert, without even elementary sanitation. Typhus is frequent. Large numbers of young men between 20 and 30 are said to be getting tuberculosis. There is no medical treatment for these men. There is no exemption from work even for the sick. Instead, anybody reporting sick gets 10 to 20 days in the cells, on bread and water for three days with a hot meal on the fourth. The prisoners are sent to dungeons in Fort Cavacelli, and are often, so the report says, actually horsewhipped naked, in front of other prisoners.
  It being the hour appointed for the Interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]
  Mr. Dugdale: These reports may or may not be true—I hope sincerely that they are not true—but the only possible way of answering them is for an adequate inspection of these camps to be made, and it is for that that I would ask first of all. I shall no doubt be told that the Inter-Allied Commission has in fact inspected them. I gather from information recently given by the Lord Privy Seal that in a recent tour four camps, with 1,200 people in them, were visited, and if the figures I gave of the total number of people were anything like remotely correct, this is only a very small proportion of the people in the camps. I ask, first, that the Inter-Allied Commission might be increased in numbers if it cannot do its work with sufficient speed, or, alternatively, that it might be possible for General Giraud to allow a small party of Members of Parliament to visit one or two of these prisons which the Inter-Allied Commission is itself unable to visit at present.
  The real remedy for this, however, does not lie in better conditions for the men in the prisons, but in their release. Where would these men go? I submit

  1729
  that nine-tenths of them would probably go to the Armed Forces. Many of them are most experienced in fighting and would be exceedingly useful in the North African campaign. They are needed to help defend France to-day. I would appeal to the American people and say to them, "Your sons to-day are fighting on French soil. Are they to be deprived of the help of 3,000 or 4,000 political prisoners who to-day are awaiting the word to come to their aid? These men, formed into a brigade, might give very useful service indeed in the conflict that is now raging in North Africa." Finally, I would appeal to General Giraud himself, and I would say, "We lay no claim to any kind of jurisdiction over your territory. We do not even want to put undue pressure upon you. It is wholly your territory, but our men are to-day fighting side by side with yours at this moment to defend this territory. These men do not like to know that there are thousands of men who might be fighting on their side but who instead are standing behind prison bars. It is not nice for our men to know that." In the name of the great friendship that there is between our two peoples and in the name of all for which France and ourselves are fighting, I would say to General Giraud, "Release these men."
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): Certainly I have no complaint at all about the very moderate terms of the speech which has just been made by my hon. Friend on this very difficult question. Nevertheless, I am sorry that he has raised this question again to-day, and I am sorry for more than one reason. In the first place, there is very little that I can add to what has been stated in this House by my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend just now was, in fact, under some misapprehension when he said that the last statement that my right hon. Friend made was on 10th February or some such date.
  Mr. Dugdale: I think it was the last date on which he gave any figures.
  Mr. Law: That is what I understood my hon. Friend to say, but in fact it is not the case. The last statement made by my right hon. Friend was on 3rd March, when he gave very full figures, which differed materially from those quoted by my hon. Friend just now. When he made his statement on 3rd March my right hon. Friend said that between 5,000
  1730
  and 6,000 political prisoners were still in detention, of whom some 700 were French, some 3,000 Spanish and some 2,000 of other nationalities. He said at the same time that some 1,300 had at that time been released. The hon. Member made a point just now about the distinction between prison camps and military prisons. I do not think that distinction is a particularly valid one, because so far as we know there are no political prisoners detained in military prisons, although there may be one or two so-called political prisoners who are detained for criminal offences.
  Since my right hon. Friend made his statement that day we have had a report from the Joint Commission. That Commission has so far visited four of these camps, and although it is quite true that they have not made very swift progress, I think that in all the circumstances they have not done badly. As I have said, they have visited four camps, and the hon. Member can rest assured that my right hon. Friend has impressed upon the Resident Minister the importance he attaches to the work of the Joint Commission.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the particular camp I mentioned be given high priority on the list of camps it is proposed to visit?
  Mr. Law: I will see that that point is considered. The reports to which I referred show that there have been further releases since my right hon. Friend made his statement on 3rd March. I have not the exact figure, but I am informed that it probably runs into some hundreds. The reports give a good deal of information about the conditions in the camps which have been visited. These camps, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, cover 1,300 prisoners. About a half of those 1,300 were Spanish nationals. The report of the Joint Commission shows that the great majority of prisoners are not in camps at all; they are working in local industries at local rates of pay; they live in the town in the locality, and there is no restraint whatever on their movements. At one camp a number of these so-called prisoners told the Commission that they were very satisfied indeed with the conditions in which they were living and hoped that they would not be moved, so that some prisoners at any rate do hot take the same view of their unhappy lot as the hon. Member did, with so much eloquence.

  1731
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear mote than once in this House that His Majesty's Government do attach importance to the release of political prisoners in North Africa and that they do look forward to the complete restoration of political liberties there. As I said, I have no complaint about the tone of the hon. Member's remarks, but I think we ought to ask ourselves in this House whether we are likely to further the objectives that we have in view by lecturing, in a Very elevated and perhaps rather high-handed manner, the local authorities in French North Africa. I think we might consider what would be the position if the Chamber of Deputies were still in existence and if members of the Chamber of Deputies were to have animated debates from time to time the whole purpose of which was to instruct the Home Secretary upon the administration of Regulation 18B. I am not sure that the reaction would be very favourable even among those of us who disliked the administration of that Regulation by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member made a suggestion that perhaps three or four Members of Parliament might go out to North Africa and inspect those camps. To go back to the simile which I have been drawing, I wonder whether we would really welcome three or four French Members of Parliament going round our prisons or visiting the Isle of Man and making a report back in Paris. I do not think the reaction from this House would be entirely favourable, and I do not think we would be the more likely to make amendments to our present procedure. I should think that what applies to us would probably apply also to Frenchmen.
  The hon. Member pointed out that he realised that French North Africa was not British territory. It is very important to remember that. Sometimes we are apt to speak as though French North Africa were a British Colony, or at any rate an American Colony, and to forget altogether that it is an integral part of France. We have to remember, too, what we went to North Africa to do. We did not really go to North Africa in order to release 5,000 or 6,000 political prisoners. That is incidental. We went to North Africa as part of a highly important military operation of which, as the Prime Minister reminded us earlier to-day, the issue is still in doubt. We went to North Africa not
  1732
  to occupy the country, as the Germans occupied France or Poland, but to bring them freedom, to bring them the opportunity to manage their own affairs. I would suggest to the hon. Member that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot go to a country and say we are bringing them freedom and at the same time compel them by force to pursue the particular line of policy that we would like them to pursue. My hon. Friend himself was careful—and I was grateful to him for it—to point out that he was not threatening General Giraud with a big stick. He was using perfectly reasonable arguments. I am very glad he pointed that out, but I do not think that in all our discussions here that has always been made absolutely clear. Sometimes I think we have given the impression that we are trying by force to compel the French authorities in North Africa to follow a particular line of policy. That, of course, is not the case, and it would be quite improper for His Majesty's Government to advocate a policy of that kind.
  I would ask the House to get this matter into its right perspective. It is perfectly proper that we should all have our opinions on this matter and should express them. I think, however, that sometimes we should do well to remember that while we are talking here our fellow countrymen are dying, and while we are giving our opinions they are giving their lives. It would be an impertinence for me to say what the Eighth Army or the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy are fighting for, but I feel pretty sure in my mind that the Eighth Army is not locked in this bitter struggle on the Mareth Line at this moment in order that political prisoners may be released to-day rather than to-morrow or this week or month rather than the next. The hon. Member drew a picture of the sufferings of these political prisoners which does not conform with the reports that we receive from the Joint Commission, but, even if it were true that the political prisoners have to live in the desert and do not have proper sanitation and so on, we might remember that the Eighth Army does not have too easy a time of it at the moment either.
  I have said that my right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the release of these political prisoners. He has impressed that more than once on the Minister Resident, and the Minister

  1733
  Resident has taken every opportunity of impressing it upon the Joint Commission. But we must keep these things in their proper perspective, and to imply, as some hon. Members sometimes do—the hon. Member himself certainly did not—that unless we can get these prisoners released immediately the whole war is lost and everything we are fighting for is lost, is really, to my way of thinking, a ridiculous exaggeration. Since I got up I have received a report on the particular camp to which the hon. Member referred. The report is not very full, but it is sufficiently full to indicate that the picture he gave the House of the conditions was very much exaggerated and that they are not anything like as bad as they were painted. We have every reason to believe that the situation in respect of political prisoners and other matters is developing fairly quickly and in the direction in which we should like to see it develop. We have every reason to hope that that process will continue. The House is familiar with the speech which General Giraud made some time ago and is aware that General de Gaulle has said he hopes to get into touch with General Giraud in the near future. I trust hon. Members will be satisfied that a great deal of progress is in fact being made, progress in the right direction. I hope they will be satisfied that it is a problem which can best be left to Frenchmen to solve and that intervention on our part and initiative from this side are not likely to help that process but rather to hinder it.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I did not intend to say a word in this Debate, but I have been drawn to my feet because I was a little disquieted by some of the remarks of the Under-Secretary. We welcome very much the statements which have been made on behalf of the Government with regard to the release of prisoners in North Africa, and we recognise that the Foreign Secretary and the British Government have made efforts to get the prisoners released bat that the matter is not under their direct control. We did, however, land in North Africa in November, and this is now March. A special representative was sent out in December, and I do not think we are unreasonable or that the hon. Member who raised this matter in a very mild form is unreasonable in questioning a little whether the representa-
  1734
  tions which have been made or the action which has been taken are as vigorous or energetic as they might be. Some of the arguments which the Under-Secretary advanced surprised me very much. I do not think it is reasonable to compare this case with the possibility of the Chamber of Deputies looking into conditions in the Isle of Man. We have not collaborated with Germany at any stage of the war. But I do not pursue that matter any further, because I do not want to enter into controversy.
  We are in North Africa not merely to fight Germans but to free Frenchmen and to free democrats. When we go into Europe we shall go there to do the same things. There will be many prisoners in France and other countries and we must free them, unless we are to betray the principles for which we are fighting and the peoples who have been fighting for us. It may be necessary in this matter to take time and I will try to avoid saying anything which will make it more difficult. But the patience of some of us who have watched these events may fray rather thin. We do not consider that this is a subject for which we have not some responsibility. If we go into a territory by force, we have some responsibility for what the government in that country does, a government which exists as a result of the good will, to put it no higher than that, of an invading army. I cannot but think that the Allied Forces in North Africa are in a position in which they can enforce, to a large extent, any civil matters if they have the will to do it.
  Mr. G. Strauss: We all agree that some steps have been taken in the right direction in North Africa in the release of prisoners and there is no doubt that quite a large number have been released. The process, however, seems to be taking a very long time and we are perfectly justified in complaining that further steps have not been taken. We are well aware of the difficulties and nobody wants to be unreasonable. With the battles which are raging not very far away, this matter cannot take first priority. Nevertheless, the Allied Forces have been in Tunisia for quite a long time now, and right at the beginning requests were made by President Roosevelt that the laws affecting anti-Axis activities should be revoked, and, as far as I remember, there was a specific request that all those who were in prison because

  1735
  of anti-Axis activities should be released. I think the Under-Secretary would agree that what progress has been made has been very largely as a result of the requests—I use the word "requests" rather than pressure—coming from this country and the United States. Inevitably the people in Algeria and Morocco and the government there are concerned with public opinion over here. If they are not they ought to be, and I think that any action which can be taken by the Government, fortified if possible by this House, in order to speed the process which is occurring in North Africa to-day is desirable, and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should complain that we have raised this matter.
  What strikes one as particularly inadequate is the inspection of the camps by the Mixed Commission. We are told that it is one of their duties. We know from the stories of people who have come here that conditions in some camps are very bad indeed. Even after all these months, only the camps of about one-fifth of the prisoners have been examined at all, and I cannot understand why more steps have not been taken. It cannot be so difficult to go to these camps in Algeria and Morocco to see what is happening, and I hope something will be done in that matter. The right hon. Member looked at this matter from a broad angle and rather complained that the British, American and other Allied troops fighting in Tunisia are not fighting to release the political prisoners now in internment camps in Algeria.
  Mr. Law: I did not say that. I said that I could not conceive that they were fighting in order that these prisoners should be released to-day rather than to-morrow, or this week rather than next week.
  Mr. Strauss: Plainly not, but the Allied troops are fighting for two purposes: one to defeat the Axis, and the other in order that the principles of the Atlantic Charter should be implemented in all countries which Allied Forces occupy.
  Mr. Law: By winning the war.
  Mr. Strauss: This is territory which Allied Forces have occupied for some time, and one does expect that the authorities will make all reasonable haste to see that those principles are implemented in this territory. I disagree completely with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this is a French affair and that we must leave it to the French who are responsible. It is not true at all. The Allied Nations are responsible for the Atlantic Charter and its principles. What happens in any territory that is wrested from the Axis and occupied by the Allied Forces, is an interest of this country, the United States and Soviet Russia. It is not an interest of the French administration in those countries alone. I disagree completely with the right hon. Gentleman there.
  There is only one more point I wish to raise. What happens in North Africa is bound to have an enormous effect on public opinion in Europe. When people in Europe, who have been persecuted by the Axis, understand that these prisoners in North Africa are to be liberated by the Allied troops immediately, it will mean that when Allied troops arrive in their territory they will have a greater desire to support the United Nations than they would otherwise have. Many of these prisoners are International brigaders, who were fighting the Axis years before this country was doing so, and they are friends of the United Nations. Their speedy release in North Africa is bound to have an effect on the European situation, when the invasion of Europe takes place. For all those reasons I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take what action he can in this matter to hasten the release of these people and to see that they are properly treated. It is our affair as well as a French affair, and I am sure that the desire of the whole House is that my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Americans, should do what he can in this direction in the occupied regions of North Africa.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  SEED POTATOES (TRANSPORT)
  SEED POTATOES (TRANSPORT)
  TEACHING PROFESSION (GIRL STUDENTS)
  TEACHING PROFESSION (GIRL STUDENTS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Court-Martial (Sentence)
  Court-Martial (Sentence)
  Pension Applications (Time Limit)
  Pension Applications (Time Limit)
  Palestinian Volunteers
  Palestinian Volunteers
  Postal Facilities, North Africa
  Postal Facilities, North Africa
  EUROPEAN POST-WAR RECON- STRUCTION (EX-SERVICE PER- SONNEL)
  EUROPEAN POST-WAR RECON- STRUCTION (EX-SERVICE PER- SONNEL)
  SERVICE MEMBERS OF PARLI- AMENT (LEAVE)
  SERVICE MEMBERS OF PARLI- AMENT (LEAVE)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old Age Pensions
  Old Age Pensions
  Air-raid Shelters, Outlay (Income Tax)
  Air-raid Shelters, Outlay (Income Tax)
  Service Entertainments (Cost)
  Service Entertainments (Cost)
  Road Fund
  Road Fund
  TUBE SHELTER ACCIDENT INQUIRY (REPORT)
  TUBE SHELTER ACCIDENT INQUIRY (REPORT)
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Work Directions, Northern Ireland (Appeals)
  Work Directions, Northern Ireland (Appeals)
  Lumber Camp (Welfare Arrangements)
  Lumber Camp (Welfare Arrangements)
  Lincoln District Man-Power Board
  Lincoln District Man-Power Board
  SIERRA LEONE (MR. WALLACE JOHNSON)
  SIERRA LEONE (MR. WALLACE JOHNSON)
WEST INDIES
  Development Schemes (Controller)
  Development Schemes (Controller)
  Technicians (Training)
  Technicians (Training)
  NORTH AFRICA (POLITICAL INTERNEES)
  NORTH AFRICA (POLITICAL INTERNEES)
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Distribution, Scotland
  Distribution, Scotland
  Premises, Winchester (Food Officer's Visit)
  Premises, Winchester (Food Officer's Visit)
  Meat Manufactures (Advisory Committee)
  Meat Manufactures (Advisory Committee)
  Biscuit Factories
  Biscuit Factories
  Bread Sales (Reduction)
  Bread Sales (Reduction)
  Milk Sales
  Milk Sales
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OVERDRAFTS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OVERDRAFTS)
  MEDICAL SERVICES
  MEDICAL SERVICES
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (MR. G. D. H. COLE)
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (MR. G. D. H. COLE)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Bren Gun (Royalties)
  Bren Gun (Royalties)
  Cotton Controller
  Cotton Controller
Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting and that the Order for the Third Reading of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAR AT SEA.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to draw attention to the war at sea; to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to secure unity of Command in the Atlantic for the defence of shipping; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches attach importance to the Motion which I have put on the Paper on my own behalf and on theirs, as they consider that this matter ought to be discussed by your Lordships, and I propose to make a few observations with regard to it. Anyone who introduces a Motion drawing attention to the war at sea, however, should first refer to the able conduct and efficiency of the officers and ratings of the Royal Navy, and to the fortitude and heroism of the men of the
864
Mercantile Marine. Any doubts or questions that I may venture to utter will refer only to the higher direction of the war, and not to the personnel engaged in this bitter struggle on the oceans. It is only right, moreover, that we should pay tribute to the splendid help which we are getting from our smaller Allies—the Poles, the Free French, the Norwegians, the Greeks, the Dutch and so on. They are giving us very great help indeed.
With regard to our greater naval Allies, I am sure that your Lordships would like to congratulate the United States Navy on their very successful and well-conducted campaign in the South Pacific, and on the number of very satisfying victories which they have won over the common Japanese foe. I am sure that your Lordships will await with great interest more details about the notable night action fought on November 12 and 14 off the Solomon Islands by a squadron of the United States Navy, which I think will be found to be one of the most remarkable battles in this or any other war. It was fought at night, with battleships and other warships on both sides. Under these very testing conditions—and a night action is most difficult to conduct—a smashing defeat was inflicted on the Japanese, who suffered very heavy losses, as compared with the comparatively slight losses, in spite of the fierceness of the battle, of our American friends. As to our other great naval Ally, the Russian Navy, the great achievements of the Red Army have, I am afraid, slightly overshadowed the no less important operations conducted by the Red Navy in the Arctic, the Baltic and the Black Sea. They have shown brilliant seamanship and high technical efficiency, and I know that the officers and ratings of our own Fleet recognize these qualities very fully and welcome them.
One cannot discuss the campaign at sea without referring to the attacks on our commerce, particularly by submarines. I gave notice to the noble Lord who replies for the Admiralty in your Lordships' House that I intended to ask him a very direct question, which I know that he will answer with complete frankness. The question is whether, in the arrangements for combating the submarine attack, the Royal Navy and the Admiralty are receiving first priority for all the labour, materials and weapons which they require.

865
I do not mean equal priority, but first priority. On behalf of my noble friends I venture to press this because in the discussions in another place on both the Naval and the Air Estimates the First Lord and the Secretary of State for Air were somewhat vague on the question. Your Lordships are always franker and more honest than, some people in another place, and I am sure the noble Lord will give all the satisfaction he can on this matter. But equal priority, I repeat, is not enough, because unless the Navy have first priority we are not fully recognizing and acting on the principle that our victory in this war will be impossible without control of the ocean routes.
In this connexion there has been a lot of muddled and loose thinking, a lot of vague and inaccurate talk about naval power and air power—as if the two were in opposition or rivalry. Both those terms are inaccurate: what we ought to concentrate upon is sea power. The confusion arises out of thinking and talking of the weapons, and not of the ends for which the weapons are employed. It does not matter whether you control your sea routes by galleons propelled by oars, or by sailing ships, or by steam-driven ironclads, or by submarines, or by aircraft: the point is that you must control your sea routes, and a confederation of Powers separated by the ocean, as we are, and particularly an Island Power like ourselves, is ruined if we cannot do that. I fear that the failure to recognize that, and the implication which flowed from it at the beginning of the war, has led to much of our present trouble.
This confusion of talk is apparent too on the other side of the North Sea. It seems to have led to a lot of loose and inaccurate thinking in Berchtesgaden as well as in Chequers, in Whitehall and also in the Wilhelmstrasse. The Nazis, and particularly the Fascists of Italy, thought that the air weapon was all that was required. Obviously the air weapon and the surface warship are complementary, and they must both be used for the same purpose. The Nazis, unfortunately, found out their mistake first—that I think is quite obvious—and they have, from early on in the war, and especially since the fall of France and the survival of this country as a belligerent given first priority to the building and commissioning of submarines.
866
We have only recently given—if we have given—first priority to the counter-measures. The result is that there is a shortage of escorts and hunting craft, and by escorts and hunting craft I mean vessels that float through the air or float on the surface of the sea.
This is a very annoying situation in which we find ourselves. At present our whole war effort may be thwarted—by what? By 200 submarines—that is the maximum: I do not think anyone would claim a higher figure—200 submarines at sea at a time, manned by 12,000 Nazis, a great many of whom to-day are landsmen, and seasick at that—because there has been a falling off in the submarine crews. They have not had enough sailors for the purpose, and they have sent these young Nazis to sea. They are quite useless. They have key men, trained submarine officers and men, for the important positions in their crews. But are we going to be ruined by 12,000 Nazis and 200 submarines? We have only to state the problem to find the answer. Of course we are not, with our resources, and our aptitude, and our traditions, and our skill at sea. And yet on March 20—only four days ago—the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hudson, who of course knows what he is talking about, because he is fully informed, made this statement in speaking to the farmers of Cambridgeshire:
"The shipping position is more serious now than at any period of the war."
That is a very weighty statement, and a terrible indictment of the higher direction of the war.
Fortunately, there are certain assets which we have. The technical progress of aircraft, as your Lordships are aware, has been far more marked, and indeed revolutionary, than has the technical progress of the submarine. The submarines used in this war are not a great technical advance on the submarines used in the last war. That is a fact. The attempts to make a larger submarine of about 500 tons have been failures. They are too clumsy and too slow in submerging. It is true the present German U-boats have thicker plating to withstand depth charges, but their speeds are much the same. All this talk of very high speed submarines, so far, is just talk. We may have revolutionary advances, and we must not bank on the present technical

867
limits, but so far the German submarines have only about the surface speed of the submarines of the last war—20 or 21 knots. Before the last war we had submarines, the steam-driven K class, which had a speed of 25 knots on the surface, and nothing has yet appeared from the German shipyards to equal that. And when they submerge they still have the same limitations—slow speed, only 7 or 8 knots, practically blind, and very vulnerable.
Those are the submarines. They really have not made great technical progress, despite all the researches and efforts of the scientists of all the naval Powers. On the other hand, they have an advantage in the system of radiolocation which we developed and, as your Lordships know, very generously gave to the French Navy. After the fall of France the traitors of Vichy gave, or sold, the system to the Germans, and now they are using it for locating our convoys at sea. That is the only real technical advantage the submarines have over the submarines of the last war. On the other hand we have the Asdic system—there is no secret about this; it has been spoken of and published—which enables submarines to be located below the surface by surface ships, and that is a great advantage. The other development is that so many submarines have been built as a result of this German concentration on building submarines that they are now able to operate in flotillas or packs, and that presents a rather difficult problem when you have not enough escorts for fully guarding your convoys.
How do the submarines attack a convoy? To begin with, the submarine is really a torpedo boat which can submerge, and if she can, she operates on the surface. The convoys, proceed at 7, 8, or 9 knots, and the submarines, finding them by radiolocation or informed of their positions by radio from their own stations or their own aircraft, try to get ahead, which, with their superior speed on the surface, they can do. They try to get right out of range of the escort, and then attack either at dusk or at dawn, but in the night, also, on the surface. They always operate on the surface if they can. Every submarine officer will bear me out there. The way to circumvent them is to make them dive. If you can force them under water their speed then becomes only the speed of the convoy, and
868
the convoy alters course and they are finished. If you can keep them under water, they can never get into a fighting position again. When you send a fleet of battleships to sea—the Home Fleet goes to sea—or a convoy of troopships, you provide enough escorts to form a distance screen and a close screen, and you have aircraft as well. The result is that you make the submarines dive, and they cannot do much damage.
What is the remedy? The remedy is more escorts, and the provision of these takes time. They are being turned out very fast in this country and in the United States, but I suggest that there should be a greater diversion of four-engined bombers to naval purposes. We certainly ought to divert Lancasters or, if we cannot afford Lancasters, then when more Lancasters come into service, we can divert Stirlings, and as many Flying Fortresses and Liberators as we can persuade the Americans to release. That raises a sad question. There are people—the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is one of them—who declare that bombing attack alone on Germany can win the war.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: When have I ever said that? I ask for an answer. Also the noble Lord said he spoke for his friends. Which friends? Does he speak for the Labour Party or only some of the members who sit on the Front Bench? Is it the Labour Party, or only one or two?
LORD STRABOLGI: I have no reason to suppose I am not speaking for the Labour Party in this matter. If the noble Viscount has never said that, I immediately withdraw. He did not say it, but there is, as he knows, a school which believes that bombing alone will win the war. There is no need to get excited about this; it is only a friendly discussion. This school declares that bombing alone will win the war. That may be so; I do not know; it has never been tried properly. There is a doubt; but what is absolutely certain is that if we lose control of the sea routes, not only can we not win the war, but we shall inevitably lose it. There is no doubt whatever about that. Unless this attack on shipping is defeated, all our plans are brought to ruin. Therefore, if it comes to a choice, I do not think there can be

869
any real argument as to where first priority should go. I believe that if more long-distance, shore based aircraft are diverted to naval purposes—this can be easily done—you will do a very great deal to defeat the attack. You cannot have these large aircraft engaged in bombing German dockyards one week and on anti-submarine patrol or escort work the next week. That is impossible. They need special instruments, specially trained crews—that is very important—also depth charges instead of bombs, and camions instead of machine guns. Therefore they must be specialized. We have got to grasp this nettle and realize that we have to divert more of the four-engined machines which are coming along on both sides of the Atlantic to naval purposes. As soon as we can—I presume we are doing this—we should have more aircraft earners to operate in the central sections of the ocean which are out of effective range of shore bases.
The next question to which I wish to refer—and this I have put in the Motion—is unity of Command. One advantage which Admiral Doenitz, now the chief pilot of the Nazi cause, has is that he has complete control of all the forces operating against us in the Atlantic. His own surface vessels, his own aircraft, his own submarines and any Italian submarines which pass the Pillars of Hercules, all come under his complete unified control, or that of his staff, whereas, as we have learnt from questions and answers in this House, the campaign against Germany in the Atlantic—I am speaking only of the Atlantic, which is the critical ocean—is being operated by two separate Commands, geographically separated. We shall be told that there is liaison, and that my friend Admiral Stark is sitting in on the Anti-U-boat Committee here, and that sort of thing, and that Admiral Sir Percy Noble is in Washington in a similar capacity. That is not the same thing as one Combined Staff, conducting the whole campaign in the Atlantic Ocean, the vital ocean, against the enemy. Until we have that I am afraid we are under a handicap.
The other matter to which I must refer—I believe my noble friend Lord Winster has some particular points to make on this—is with regard to the Anti-Submarine Committee. I consider that this Anti-Submarine Committee, composed as it is of busy men, all with full-time jobs,
870
is an absurdity: I can find no other word for it. This Committee, which ought to be sitting under the chairmanship of a suitable person giving his full time and thought to it, is actually presided over by the Prime Minister, with all his other diversions, including now, if you please, the Leadership of the House of Commons. He is Chairman of the Anti-Submarine Committee, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who has a whole-time job as Minister of Aircraft Production—Lord Beaverbrook will bear this out—is Deputy Chairman. Then there are the professional and political heads of the Air Ministry and the Admiralty. They have whole-time jobs as well, and so have the other members. The only officer with direct submarine experience is Sir Max Horton, who is called away from his Western Command duties for consultation. That is really Alice in Wonderland. It is not business at all. Such a Committee should be in constant session. I must also say this. I do not want to take up too much time, but one of our troubles is the geographical worsening of our position since the Germans overran Western Europe, and established bases on the Atlantic. We all know that. It is put forward quite justifiably as an alibi by the Government. They are perfectly justified in using that argument, but if my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook wishes an additional argument for the Second Front, there it is. The sooner we invade Western Europe, the sooner we may hope to recapture the submarine bases on the Atlantic and establish our own bases and aerodromes on the Continent for the defence of our vital shipping.
Lastly I gave notice to my noble friend, the spokesman of the Government, that I intended to ask whether reconsideration has been given to the eight or ten years' old project of floating aerodromes for the central Atlantic areas. This project was worked technically, scientifically, and even commercially some eight years ago in the United States. There are no technical difficulties at all in having a large floating aerodrome—none whatever. The plan was defeated in America only because the Isolationists did not want any landing places for aircraft nearer to the American Continent. Otherwise it was all ready to be put into operation. A floating aerodrome can be made of concrete, so that not much steel is used, and it can be made torpedo-proof and practic-

871
ally bomb-proof, at any rate immune from heavy bomb damage. I believe it would be extremely useful at the present time. I understand from the experts in concrete to whom I put the problem that it would take six months to construct. Well, the Prime Minister talks quite comfortably of the war lasting into 1944 or 1945, so it might be worth while seriously considering it. It may have been reconsidered, but if it has not been I would ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty to send for the papers and look into it. I beg to move.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am well aware that I have not the qualifications to take part in a naval debate which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi possesses, and I do not make any pretence to speak with authority in this matter. Still it happens that I once had some experience, though only a very slight experience, of one phase of the U-boat war and that was during the last unpleasantness with Germany in the year 1916. When there was a shortage of King's Messengers I volunteered to take Dispatches for the Foreign Office to Malta and to Athens. I went on board the P. & O. boat at Tilbury and went round by the Bay and down the Mediterranean. The start of our voyage was rather depressing because, coming round the North Foreland and into the Straits, we saw wrecks and masts sticking out of the water, and things of that kind. I well remember a conversation during the first night at dinner. Somehow it got on to the subject of sharks, and someone remarked that a large number of sharks had recently been seen in the Mediterranean. A rather talkative lady at the Captain's table said "Oh, do tell me, Captain, why so many sharks have come into the Mediterranean." "Because," replied the Captain rather shortly, "the sharks get such a lot of good things to eat there." Well, that cast rather a gloom over the rest of the dinner and it was not a very auspicious start for my voyage.
I will not weary your Lordships any further with the story of my adventures on that trip. There were a good many enemy submarines operating in the Mediterranean. We had several alarms and I spent several uncomfortable hours on the boat deck, suitably attired for immersion, wearing warm clothing and a lifebelt. It
872
happened that both ships on which I travelled were subsequently torpedoed, but I was lucky to get through to the Piraeus. I mention this because I learnt from that what it was to experience what I call that very unpleasant periscope sensation when, to the untrained eye of the landsman, almost any small object on the surface of the water seems to take the form of the periscope of a U-boat; when, for example, a bottle floating on the water may give rise in the mind of the landsman to feelings of acute alarm. Indeed if I might adapt a phrase of Dr. Johnson to conditions of modern war, I would say that it concentrates the mind wonderfully when at any minute a man may be torpedoed and sent to the bottom of the sea. So my sympathies are all with those who go down to the sea in ships in these trying times, particularly with the men of the Merchant Service and crews of the escort vessels. Sometimes I think that we who sit in comparative safety at home do not appreciate as we ought to do the courage and endurance of these brave men who now, for month after month and year after year, have been facing the deadly peril of this U-boat war.
I would like to say one word about the organization that exists to deal with this menace. In a letter which I wrote recently to The Times I pointed out that General Smuts, when he was over here last time, had advocated the appointment of, I think he called it, an authoritative special Supreme Staff to deal with this U-boat war. I expressed the hope that one Minister would be appointed to deal with this and that he would have a staff drawn from the best men in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force Coastal Command and so forth. It seemed to me there would be many advantages in such an arrangement. In the first place I quite agree with what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, that it should be a whole-time job of the Minister, who should be the best man we can get; and if the Minister, as was contemplated I think by General Smuts, was given plenary powers he would be able quickly to obtain the weapons, equipment and so forth that he wanted from the Service and Supply Departments. Further, he would have the advantage that he would be able to plan ahead. I do not think that in this sea war we have planned sufficiently far in advance. We ought to plan now for 1944 and 1945. It is only by planning well

873
ahead that we shall ever catch up with this U-boat menace. However, the Prime Minister did not think fit to adopt General Smuts's suggestion. Instead a new Cabinet Committee was appointed and that Committee was to take over from the Atlantic Committee.
It would be rather interesting to know in what respect this new Committee differs from its predecessor, the Atlantic Committee. Judging from the number of times the Atlantic Committee met—I think I am right in saying it was eighteen times in twenty months—it does not appear to have been unduly overworked. Now we have learnt from answers given in this House that the present Committee meets regularly once a week, but that general and systematic control of anti-U-boat war rests with the Admiralty. We have also been told lately that the Government have set to work in earnest to tackle this U-boat menace and that the Admiralty now have first priority for the equipment and weapons they require. In passing, I should like to point out that I believe it is highly probable, if the Admiralty had had these priorities eighteen months or even twelve months ago, we should not have found ourselves in the serious situation in which we are placed to-day.
It is rather interesting to note the different opinions that Ministers have expressed about this U-boat menace. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on February 11, was in a rather optimistic vein. He said: "We are holding our own, and more than holding our own" and described anyone who thought differently from him on this point as suffering from patriotic jitters. I think that was the term he used. I think he must include in this indictment some of the members of his own Government. I believe the First Lord of the Admiralty at least has always taken a serious view, and several times lately when he has spoken in public he has said that he took a very serious view of the situation. I also think that in fairness to him we should say that he was the first member of the War Cabinet to call attention to how serious this state of things was. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking last week, said that the shipping position was the most serious which we had ever been
874
faced, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies spoke in somewhat similar terms. On Monday I read this from New York in the morning Press:
"Hitler's U-boat spring offensive has begun. Eight more cargo ships have been announced as lost in the Western Atlantic within the past seven days. All indications here are that the U-packs are sinking as many ships this month as they have ever done in any previous comparable period. Their successes are a subject of grave concern in America."
From that it would appear that if we are holding our own the U-boats are also holding their own.
I pass from that to another point which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, dealt with and that is the question of a unified Command. I entirely agree with what he said on that point. As he has dealt with it I will not say very much, but I would point out one or two facts. I have not the same dislike of Committees that pervades the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook. Perhaps "dislike" is a mild term to use. I think Committees have their uses in preparation for war, but in actual warfare, in campaigning on land or fighting on sea, I do not think Committees are of very much use. The Battle of El Alamein, for example, was not won by a Committee nor was the Battle of Cape Matapan won by a Committee. I do not imagine that the convoy action in the Bismarck sea, perhaps the most remarkable victory gained in this war, was won by a Committee. Yet we are fighting this war with a combination of Committees, Conferences and Councils. I submit that that is not sound strategy, and is not giving the best chance of success to the splendid fighting material we and the Americans have in the Atlantic at the present time. I have already expressed my great admiration for the men of our Services and I also have great admiration for the officers. I think we have splendid officers. Sir Max Horton, at present commanding the Western Approaches, is an example. Men of that type would be admirably qualified to fill the post of Commander-in-Chief in the Atlantic. If Americans preferred it, I believe our men would be willing to serve under American command, and equally I think Americans would be willing to serve under British command. The position is too serious and the stakes are too great to allow questions of Agriculture, speaking last week, said that the shipping position was the most serious with which we had ever been of prestige and precedent to prevent the unified Command which is so badly needed being established.

875
There is one other point. I suggest that more of the best modern and fastest destroyers should be used for convoy work. Speed, I am aware, is not everything in this kind of warfare, but it is a great asset, I believe, in holding our lifeline across the Atlantic. More of our best and fastest destroyers should be made available. The last point I would touch on is that of co-operation between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Here I am aware that I am treading on rather delicate ground. Those of us who attend regularly the debates here know what kind of co-operation exists between representatives of the Services in your Lordships' House. It could hardly, I think, be described as brotherly love, though I believe it is the case that happier relations do exist a little lower down in the ranks of the respective Services. Nevertheless, there may be a spirit of rivalry between them which does not make co-operation easy to obtain. As we all know, aircraft plays a more and more important part in every phase of this war. That applies to the submarine war, as to other forms of warfare. Assistance from the Royal Air Force is absolutely indispensable. It is essential that there should be the closest co-operation between these two Services to deal with the U-boat war.
I have only one further observation to make in conclusion. I do not believe that in this U-boat war there is any short cut to success. We sometimes read in the newspapers of wonderful inventions and wonderful appliances. I do not believe that such things exist. There are certain new inventions, I believe, being tried out and there are certain older inventions like the helicopter being adapted for the purpose. These may all give good results, but it is by a combination of all the weapons and devices you possess, by bombing factories in Germany, by bombing U-boat bases, by attacking the U-boats in the sea lanes on their way to and from Atlantic ports, by more auxiliary aircraft carriers, by faster destroyers and escort ships, by the use of more aircraft and closer co-operation between the air and sea forces, and I would add by thorough training of the crews of escort vessels—it is only by a combination of all these and similar methods that the U-boat menace can be held in check.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise with a certain amount of trepidation to address your Lordships because on the last occasion I was reproved for talking too often. As, however, the noble Lord who admonished me is not in his place I will refrain from any fire I might have had ready for him. In addressing your Lordships on this subject I am not concerned with any question of Command between the Services. I am going to endeavour to deal with principles and not personalities, and I will say this for myself, that if you have a properly organized unified Command I do not care whether a British or American officer, sailor or airman is in command, provided you give him a proper Staff. By that I mean a Staff that is representative of the interests concerned, and one that is sufficient in numbers. The principal members of it should, if possible, be chosen by the man who is going to be at the head of it. Moreover, he should not be interfered with by numerous authorities who are not fully cognizant of the situation. Having chosen your man, you must make up your minds to trust him. Give him the tools and let him carry on. Possibly the most valuable result of the visit of General Smuts to this country has been the increased attention that it has fixed upon the U-boat menace. The Conference recently held in Washington seems to show that the remedy suggested in this country of the reshuffling of a Cabinet Committee did not meet the case. I am not sure that this present discussion is not rather academic because the Conferences in Washington were about a unified Command. It is easy to be wise after the event; but I would point out that there were many people in this country who were wise before the event and who urged continually that we were following false gods and were being untrue to an old and well tried principle of British strategy, that our first object in war must always be to obtain the command of sea communications. By neglecting to do this thing early in this war we failed to build our house upon a rock, and it is now a bit rickety and we have to make haste to underpin it.
In a speech in this House recently which, if I may presume to say so, was a most valuable contribution which I regret having missed hearing, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pressed the necessity of a Great General Staff which the development of a third Service had made abso-

877
lutely necessary. If I may I will quote to jour Lordships one passage from that speech. He said:
"If we had a Great General Staff, which in time would have men belonging primarily to one or other of the three Services, but trained in the technique and the specialities of the others, we should have what we have not got at the moment—aeronautical knowledge in the Army and aeronautical knowledge in the Navy strong enough to balance the aeronautical knowledge of the Air Staff itself. They would then be one Staff. Until we get that, I submit that we have no prospects of getting a really satisfactory arrangement."
I heartily concur in that. I take it that it is from officers who have had that experience that we should draw those to take command of a combined effort. I had always believed that the Imperial Defence College; an institution with which I understand my noble friend Lord Hankey had much to do, had sought to impress that view on those who are trained there, but apparently after leaving, and when they have made progress in the Service, they forget it.
Had such a Great General Staff been brought into existence, I believe that you would have avoided much of the wrangling which has gone on between the Services, and which is unavoidable as long as they work in watertight compartments. If those concerned knew that these questions had been considered by a body of capable men representing all the interests involved, there would be much less reason and ground for discontent and decisions would be accepted more readily. But more important still, you would have avoided many of the shortcomings in cooperation that undoubtedly existed at the beginning of the war, because all these problems would have been considered in unison beforehand. The Navy would have known what assistance it wanted from the Air Force and what the Air Force could do for them and so on, while the Army would have known what it wanted from both and what both could do.
There is of course a cheap sneer often used against those who are no longer serving, but who interest themselves in these matters, that they are obsolete and out of touch and have no right to express their opinions. I would suggest to those who get out of quandaries by using this suggestion to escape from answering awkward questions, that young serving officers who cannot give vent to their views themselves, often go to their older friends in
878
order to get them to express their feelings for them. This question of a unified Command in the Atlantic has been troubling many officers afloat for a long time. They feel that their efforts are not being used to the best advantage, and there is a very strong opinion that more offensive methods are required if the U-boat is to be defeated; that the mere safe conduct of convoys is not enough, but that more aggressive action is required in the direction of many striking forces being used to act offensively against these pests without being tied to a convoy. Where those on the shelf are likely to go astray is that they do not know what the Admiralty are doing, or perhaps I should say, would like to do. That is perfectly true, and naval officers are very ready to trust the Naval Staff, and believe that if they were given a free hand all would be well. They sometimes feel that somehow the recommendations of the Naval Staff are not sympathetically considered or given the weight that they deserve. They feel that the views expressed sometimes get to the top at the Admiralty and there they stop, for they are not received with the same welcome as views from other sources. All that would be overcome if you had the views of the three Services not wrangled over, but presented as a finished and fully-considered article.
It is not my intention to criticize our present war arrangements. They have been gradually built up as the war progresses. Necessity is the mother of invention, but it is quite certain that, whatever our arrangements may have achieved, arrangements for close cooperation between the three Services are not yet all they might be. The very communiqués show this. The smallest incidents seem to arouse a competition for credit by the Ministry or Ministries concerned. You get a trivial episode in the war presented to the public as though a Ministry was trying to claim credit for its own Service. The other day a German steamer, a raider, was sunk by a cruiser. The raider had been first sighted by an aeroplane which had summoned the cruiser. The cruiser came up and naturally the German ship was sunk. But it was thought necessary for three different Ministries to make this announcement because, I suppose, it was thought that if one did it, it might get too much credit. Well, are we all fighting the same war or are we not? Surely we are all fighting the

879
same war, and we need not be jealous. Would it not be better if all these announcements came from some source which could give all credit to those concerned without conveying any idea of rivalry?
Some years ago I applied to the Admiralty for permission to read a paper at the Royal United Services Institution entitled "A plea for a Combined Staff." In that paper was a paragraph which pictured the three Chiefs of Staff leaving their respective Ministries for a Chiefs of Staff meeting, each accompanied to the door by his deputy urging him, directly or indirectly as the case may be, not to allow himself to be done in by the other damned Service—the Army, Navy or Air Force, as the case may be. I was refused permission to read that paper, and that particular paragraph was marked with three notes in red and had big exclamation marks against it. In my view one of the greatest of the many services my noble friend Lord Trenchard has rendered the country was when he made public the views on the Chiefs of Staff Committee, of which of course he had almost unrivalled knowledge. I am one of those who believe that the formation of a Special Staff to conduct combined operations should never have been necessary. Every British operation is to a greater or less extent a combined operation. I am, however, very glad it was formed, for it may prove a valuable foundation basis upon which to build a Great General Staff. If there is really need for another organization apart from the existing Admiralty, to conduct Britain's war at sea, it is surely a tremendous indictment of what we have been doing and of our organization during the last three years. But better late than never.
Let us hope that for goodness' sake when this unified Command is set up it will be on sound lines. I would say that it is no use to appoint and create a Command and then to refuse to listen to its representations. In a question of life or death—and the defeat of the U-boat comes under that heading very nearly—if more and faster corvettes, more modern and therefore better keeping destroyers, or more aircraft are required, they should be found until the crisis is surmounted. The only valid reason at all to prevent them being provided is that they do not
880
exist. If they do not exist they should be produced, and meanwhile the best possible substitutes should be provided. We cannot afford to lose the Battle of the Atlantic; and if you cannot be strong on all fronts, you should see to it that you are strong enough on the front which matters most and where defeat would mean disaster. Raiding the enemy's rear and destroying his bases is not new strategy at all. It is a very old device and kept within bounds it is most valuable. But it should not be allowed to draw away forces and leave the decisive front too weak. Let me remind your Lordships of the cavalry raids of the American Civil War. What devastation and disruption they caused in the rear of the Federal Army. Yet the battle of Gettysburg was lost because Stuart—who had won much renown for these raids—was absent on one of them at a critical time. With the failure at Gettysburg virtually ended the hope of a Confederate victory.
I believe that our raiding of enemy bases and production centres has been overdone, and that too great a proportion of our available strength has been devoted to it. I further believe that had we had a real Combined Staff in the first place, this would have been avoided and the danger which now threatens would have been provided against. It is the weakness inherent in division which allows too much weight being given to one view or the other, and until we can substitute loyalty to the whole cause for loyalty to a Service or a Department, we shall be continually taking a wrong turn and having to halt even if not having actually to retrace our steps. It is because I believe that to be true on the grand scale that I wish to see the same system employed in the Battle of the Atlantic and a unified Command established to avert the danger that there exists.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I feel that I should apologize to my noble friend who opened this debate because I was not present to hear his speech, but I had a business engagement which prevented me attending earlier. Although I am very intensely interested in the whole question of the war at sea, and especially in the anti-U-boat campaign, I do not feel that this is the moment to say very much.

881
Since the subject was last debated publicly in this House, very great progress has undoubtedly been made, even if it is rather belated. Most of the points pressed for in this House have now been met. For example, on the big question of principle, we are now informed that the Government put the U-boat first in their thoughts, and they give the demands of anti-U-boat warfare first priority. Escort ships, corvettes, are being built in enormous numbers in this country, in the United Stales and in Canada. Canada has made a very remarkable effort in shipbuilding in this war. These vessels receive first priority, and emphasis is given to their construction as compared with merchant ships. All this seems to me perfectly sound and wise. Apart from escort ships, merchant ships have first priority, for a ship which is not sunk is better than a new ship, as I ventured to point out to your Lordships as long ago as July 2.
Then there is the question of air cooperation. That is now officially recognized as a major factor in anti-U-boat warfare. The Fleet Air Arm is being equipped with more up-to-date machines, and a helicopter is in the offing and I believe that, given time, it may prove to be a very important weapon. The Secretary of State for Air has announced that Coastal Command is to be improved to a point where there will be no time by day or night when air cover cannot be provided for the North Atlantic routes. There is to be a steady increase in the number of aircraft allotted to trade protection, and large numbers will be forthcoming during the year. All that is very much to the good. There is one point with regard to Coastal Command, however, about which I should like to be reassured. I have not been able to discover from any of the statements made that first priority is given to the allocation of aircraft to Coastal Command. On July 21 pointed out that the only big reserve of any kind for anti-U-boat warfare lay in the bombers of the Air Force, because escort ships take so long to build; and, in urging priority for anti-U-boat warfare, I pressed that this first priority should extend to the immediate allocation of aircraft of proper types and fitted, of course, with scientific apparatus. Had that been done, I believe that our position to-day would have been less disadvantageous than it is.
882
I feel bound to raise the point, because on March 10 the First Lord, in another place, was driven under pressure into the admission that, notwithstanding the fact that the position had improved, he could not say that we had all that we need. Considering that anti-U-boat warfare is first in the Government's thoughts and has first priority, that aircraft are admitted to be a major factor in anti-U-boat warfare, and that large numbers of aircraft of large size were available quite a time ago, I submit that that admission is a serious one; the more so because aircraft, to my mind, with their immense speed, are essentially the weapon of the offensive. They are not the only weapon of the offensive, of course, but, seeing that escort ships are so small, and therefore limited in their offensive possibilities, aircraft are tremendously important for the offensive. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield, who I am very glad to see is going to reply once again, will be able to give us some reassurance on that point.
I come now to another direction in which progress has been made, and that is air bombardment. There have been a number of air bombardments since the beginning of this year—two on Bremen (including the attack two days ago by the Americans on Vegesack), three on Hamburg, four on Wilhelmshaven (including the American day attack on Monday last), no fewer than nine on Lorient, including several day attacks, three on St. Nazaire, including one the night before last, and one on Brest. That is a total of twenty-two attacks this year, which is almost half the total number of attacks which have been made on all targets in Germany and the occupied countries from this country this year. There have been only one or two in Italy this year. The proportion of attacks on ports was lower in March, until a day or two ago, as compared with other attacks, but I feel sure that there are good reasons for that—the weather and so on—and I have not such a one-track mind that I do not see the advantage of a great many other forms of attack; but I should like to be reassured, if possible, that these attacks on ports still claim a high priority in the selection of targets.
Another good point is that the sinkings of ships of the United Nations are reported to have been lower in December, January and February, but during March

883
there have been some very uncomfortable stories. The Germans have made some very large claims. I know it is said that their claims are always exaggerated, but I have noticed that there is generally some foundation for them, and these claims have been to some extent confirmed by an official statement in America. It looks, therefore, as though the greater effort which we were expecting the enemy to make this year has already begun. Yet another good feature is the waking up of public opinion. The very high level of the speeches in another place was most impressive, but I was sorry to see that a late speaker—I hope that I am not out of order in saying this—did say that the Benches had been very empty for a large part of the time.
Nevertheless, the Press have been absolutely first-rate to my mind in the handling of this rather delicate and difficult question. The publicity given to the subject of U-boat warfare has very much improved, and that publicity and the information that is given—the very full information, after all, as to the position and as to the incidents of the great battle that is going on—will help, I think, to steady public opinion rather than otherwise. I am not going to trench into the question of publication of losses because that would take me too long. I was very glad to see news about the Anti-U-boat Conference in Washington. That again was admirable. I was one of those who had hoped that out of it would come some kind of unified Command and Staff, but so far we hear nothing of the kind.
That brings me to what was said by my noble and gallant friend Lord Cork. It would be very difficult for me at short notice to traverse all his ground. I think he began on the Imperial Defence College, with which I was concerned, and which I played some part in founding and helping along its way. I am quite sure that that College has justified itself absolutely to the full. I can assure your Lordships that a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff Committee has no relation to the kind of account that my noble and gallant friend gave. I have worked with it for a great many years.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I hope my noble friend will not think that I was criticizing the Imperial Defence College, but those who went to it seemed
884
rather to fall off in their ideas as to a General Staff when they got higher up.
LORD HANKEY: With all deference to my noble and gallant friend, I do not think that is the case. The Chiefs of Staff Committee and the bodies that work under it, which nowadays are composed entirely, I believe, of people who have been through the Imperial Defence College, have always worked very well together. It is really very rare that any differences arise of the sort that your Lordships have heard discussed here in rather a cheerful atmosphere and sometimes rather an angry atmosphere; that sort of thing practically never occurs. The mass of the work that is done there is the steady work of building up plans, of working them out in detail, of extending them from plans into preparations, and so forth. They really are most orderly bodies, and they work most admirably. I have acted as secretary of the Chiefs of Staff Committee for many years under my noble and gallant friend Lord Trenchard's Chairmanship, and also under Lord Milne. They get through a tremendous amount of business. I am sure my noble friend would agree there. There were certain questions, and there are bound to be certain questions—I go so far as to say that there ought to be certain questions—which have to be thrashed out, and those questions may have to be decided eventually by somebody else if they cannot reach agreement, as is the case on almost any subject.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt? My point is that in most cases they were not referred to other people for decision in my time.
LORD HANKEY: Well, a great many were referred. I myself was mixed up with one matter that went to somebody else, and that was the famous Balfour Committee in, I think, 1923, on the question of the Fleet Air Arm. The Committee found themselves confronted with immensely strong arguments on either side. It was really a very near thing, and I thought that they were certainly going to decide in accord with what became the eventual decision in Lord Chatfield's time, the decision to put the Fleet Air Arm entirely under the Navy. But towards-the end of the inquiry they visited some the carriers and some of the aerodromes where the two Services worked together

885
When they got away from Whitehall they found a completely different atmosphere. There was no quarrelling, they were a lot of good fellows up against hard and difficult problems, and helping one another for all they were worth. And that so influenced the Committee that I think I should not be wrong in saying that that was the decisive factor which brought them down on the side of the Report which is popular with my noble friend on my right (Lord Trenchard) and unpopular with my noble friend on my left (Lord Cork). But I do think the co-operation between the Services in the field all through the Libyan campaign has been very close indeed. I know from personal experience that it is very close indeed right through the Cabinet Office from top to bottom, from the Chiefs of Staff down to the lowest grade of sub-committee that works under them. There are not these incessant quarrels, and they work together because they have worked together at the Imperial Defence College.
I am afraid that has been a diversion. Now I am coming very near the end. I am not one of those who believe for one moment that the Government are complacent to-day. I am quite convinced that the Government realize, probably more strongly than any of us because they know the facts, how very serious the situation is. It is not the present complacency that troubles me, it is the past complacency, which has brought us to a rather serious pass. After all, say what you will, the conduct of this anti-U-boat war has been our great failure. It has been the only matter in which we have had almost continuous failure. We have had our ups, we have had our downs in it, but, broadly speaking, at the end of each year we have been worse off than we were at the end of the year before. Anything that we do now does not, I am afraid, much affect this year, 1943. Nothing in the way of escort ships will do it. The only way in which we can affect the situation now is with aircraft, and that is why I have pressed that so very strongly. My apprehension is that we have not looked ahead enough in the last year and that the enemy will always be one lap ahead, as he has been up to now and as he actually is today.
In any ordinary campaign when a commander is dogged with persistent failure he is relieved. That is why I for one
886
would like to see some changes or, at any rate, some readjustments in the higher control of this U-boat matter, with unity of Command and rather more delegation of responsibility. I should like to see a whole-time Anti-U-boat Warfare Minister to keep all the Departments concerned up to the mark, and to jolly them along, and, above all, to lay out the future on such a grand scale that it leaves a margin. I think also we ought to have, if possible, an Allied Commander-in-Chief, but at any rate I should like to see a British Commander-in-Chief. There is a good deal of over-concentration in the higher levels of Government and in the Anti-Submarine Committee in particular. This is not the occasion to pursue that subject, but an opportunity may arise when my noble friend Lord Elibank's Motion comes before the House.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, this debate on the conduct of the war at sea takes place against the background of that announcement of our warship losses which was made to your Lordships quite recently. That announcement was a very valuable reminder to ourselves and to the world of the scale of our naval effort. When I was listening to that announcement one figure particularly rested in my mind, and that was the figure of 156 trawlers which had been lost. The trawlers are very game little ships, and the men who go to sea in them are some of the finest seamen you can find round our shores. That figure of 156 trawlers lost does indeed tell us that the trawlers and trawler men will take a very high place in the roll of naval honour when it comes to be written. That announcement of losses elicited a very noble tribute from America, from the New York Times, two-lines of which I venture to quote:
"They are sacrifices offered by Britain to keep the enemy from her shores and from ours. Our warships go further, with greater-hope of victory, than they could have done if the British Fleet had not held the sea lanes bravely for two tragic years alone."
That is a very fine tribute indeed from America. We in turn recognize, I am sure, the tremendous naval effort of the United States at this moment and the impressive sweep and drive of her naval plans—the planning of a five-ocean Navy to be completed by 1945, and the authorization of nearly six million tons of warship construction in the past few years. It is a gigantic naval effort which

887
the United States is making at this moment.
There is another point about these losses which occurred to me. It is very interesting to dissect from this list the losses which have been incurred on the Murmansk convoy route. If you were to add to this list of warships lost on that route, the losses of merchant ships we have already incurred there—in one convoy we lost 34 out of 38—and put these figures against the background of the hardships endured and the fortitude required, then, whatever may be the rights and wrongs on the Second Front controversy, nobody could deny the magnitude of the naval effort which has been made for Russia and which the Navy is proud to have made.
On the general issue of the war at sea it is agreed that the Naval Estimates had the roughest passage through another place this year of any of the three Service Estimates. The atmosphere was rather chilly and antagonistic, and there was a universal note of criticism and apprehension running through the speeches. These qualities were well exemplified in the speech of the cool and cautious Admiral Beamish, who said:
"I hope public anger, anxiety, and criticism will arise in consequence of what we have heard to-day."
The anxiety centres round two main issues—the conduct of the anti-U-boat campaign and the Fleet Air Arm. There are two factors common to both. The first is that America has very largely got us out of the jam in each instance, and the second is that the troubles have come from faulty initial ideas and from subsequent failure to look ahead and profit by the experience of the war. This has been specially noticeable as regards the U-boat. The Admiralty prepared to protect shipping on a series of quite erroneous assumptions. They discounted attack from the air, they entirely failed to foresee the interlocking of the air and sea weapons in the protection of shipping, they discounted the menace of the U-boat. The Parliamentary spokesman, introducing the Naval Estimates of 1939, said that the menace of the U-boat would not be so serious as it was in the last war. The Admiralty completely overrated the powers of the Asdic. They told shipowners that we would get through on the basis of the slow ship in convoy, and all
888
their strategic plans and preparations were laid down around these faulty ideas. Worse still, so were their programmes. Their programmes were based on these faulty ideas. They have had a very rude awakening. They have now found themselves carried away on the swift current of their own wrong assumptions. As shock has succeeded shock, we have watched them trying to strike out to get out of this current, to get ashore and on to firm ground. It is extremely difficult to recover from such initial mistakes. Programmes, materials, labour, tools, equipment, all were budgeted for in accordance with these false assumptions. Because the Admiralty discounted the U-boat, they made no proper provision for escort ships. Those they built were far too few and far too slow. A very large proportion of shipping sailed independently as late as 1942, and millions of tons were sunk because they had no protection. Your Lordships may not be aware that convoy only exists in the North Atlantic. Except for troopships, convoy is very sketchy in the South Atlantic, where we have had heavy losses. There was no provision for fast ships, and consequently the whole marine engine industry in this country was affected. Why has it taken three years to discern that a 19-knot U-boat can fight a 10-knot corvette? By 1940 it was quite evident that the U-boat was fast and powerful and that the attack would be world-wide. A drive for numerous fast escort ships was obviously necessary. On the other hand, the Admiralty were content with small numbers of single-screw 16-knot corvettes.
We know that in bad weather in the Atlantic the escort sloop is one of the first ships to fall behind in the convoy. As long ago as 1940 it was quite evident that the U-boat would be mainly attacking on the surface, and that after they had exposed themselves by firing their torpedoes there was no need whatever for them to submerge and expose themselves to depth charges, because with their Diesel engines they could at once proceed at their maximum speed of 16, 18 or 20 knots while the coal-driven corvettes would require time to work up to their maximum speed. You cannot touch a 19-knot U-boat with a 10-knot corvette. Officers at sea appreciate these extremely simple facts, but they are not sure whether the Admiralty does. It is

889
likely to upset the confidence of the officers of the Fleet in the administration of the Admiralty when they find these simple facts are not appreciated.
Now there is repentance. At long last we were told in the debates on the Naval Estimates that emphasis is to be laid on Escort ships. The fruits of repentance will take a considerable time to mature. We shall be ready to fight the war of 1941 in 1944. When shall we be ready to tight the war of 1945? New factors are always coming in. If the U-boat attack reaches a climax in the next six months we have, got to meet it, not on a basis of good intentions, but with inadequate resources due to the mistakes made two years ago. The mistakes which are being made to-day will similarly find us out in 1945. Assuming that the next six months are the critical ones—and we are told there may be anything up to six hundred U-boats at sea during this coming six months—what can we do? There seem to me to be only four possibilities at this late date and I put them in this way. Can any ships suitable for escort working in other theatres be brought to the vital theatre from elsewhere? Can the provision of long-range aircraft to close the "gap" in the Atlantic be speeded up, or existing aircraft be adapted for that duty? Is the allocation of o bombers between Coastal Command and Bomber Command the right one? And is the administration of the anti-U-boat campaign the best?
As regards bringing ships home from other theatres of war to the vital theatre, the answer would be certainly "Yes" if we had in the past developed the torpedo plane and the dive bomber so that they could control narrow waters instead of our having to call upon warships to exercise the control of narrow waters. Aircraft are more suitable for that duty than the warships at present engaged upon it. Provision of long-range aircraft—I should say that that offers great possibilities; probably that is our best hope of speeding up efforts to meet the attack during the next six months. The allocation of bombers between Coastal and Bomber Command—that I think is the vital matter. Nothing that I say is any criticism of or reflection upon Bomber Command. I have the highest admiration for Air Marshal Harris and for the work which he is doing. I believe that
890
the bombing of Germany is having a really tremendous effect. I have no doubt whatever that the attacks on buildings and bases are very valuable, but in this respect let me call your attention to the case of Malta. Malta, I suppose, has been more attacked and more bombed than any other place in the world. It is a most important and a most vulnerable target, but it has never ceased to function as a submarine base. Let us look at one instance of what happened there. The main machine shop in Malta dockyard was hit by three 2,000 lb. bombs and by two 250 lb. bombs. The roof was blown clean off, and a certain number of machines were wrecked, but that machine shop continued to function under canvas hoarding. Let us take a fact like that into account when we are trying to estimate the damage to U-boat bases.
It seems to me that this question of the allocation of bombers between Coastal Command and Bomber Command is a matter that should be decided by the Commander-in-Chief Western Approaches and the Anti-U-boat Committee. There are presumably a certain number of bombers available for allocation to either Coastal Command or Bomber Command. Incidentally the fact that these two Commands cannot have all the bombers they want seems to be rather a reflection on the work of the Minister of Aircraft Production especially. The Minister told us that the production of bombers was considerably in excess of what it had been, yet neither of these Commands can get the bombers it wants. I should imagine that the scientists engaged in operational research should be able to inform the Anti-U-boat Committee as to how these bombers can be best employed to give the best results against the U-boat. That is not a matter for quarrelling between one Command and another or one Service and another. It seems to me to be a matter of operational research, and surely the War Cabinet should decide it in accordance with facts.
Then we have heard to-day about the question of a Supreme Staff for a unified Command. Those are very attractive ideas. If combined operations require a separate Staff of very, very large if not swollen numbers, one is rather puzzled to know why the anti-U-boat campaign similarly does not deserve a Combined Staff. I should want to hear a great

891
many more details and arguments about what is proposed before I make up my mind. If a whole-time Minister is to take this work, what will be his relations as regards the Admiralty? That would require a bit of disentangling. Where would the headquarters of this Staff and Commander-in-chief be? Would America and Canada agree with these proposals? If you have a unified Command will the Commander-in-chief have command over the anti-U-boat operations in the Mediterranean or the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, or is it only intended there should be a Commander-in-chief for anti-U-boat work in the Atlantic? I should imagine that at the present moment the Commander-in-Chief Western Approaches has probably got something like 90 per cent. of the U-boat campaign in his charge.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not the American.
LORD WINSTER: I should say he has 90 per cent. but that is an estimate. I am open to argument, but I should say taking the campaign in the Atlantic that the Commander-in-Chief Western Approaches has probably something like 90 per cent. under his control.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not the American.
LORD WINSTER: Well, that is my opinion, I may not be right. But we have excellent men on each side of the Atlantic. We have Admiral Sir Max Horton at the Western Approaches and Admiral Sir Percy Noble doing such remarkably successful co-ordination work with the American authorities. It would be very interesting to know what they say about this question of a unified Command and a Supreme Staff. Do they recommend it? I recognize that so far the U-boat has had the best of it. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has pointed out quite clearly and properly that each year their results have improved and so perhaps it looks as if new machinery is required. But personally I always prefer changing men to changing machinery. These are old and not new problems. When things are not going well in wartime there is always a tendency to blame machinery but wars are fought by men and St. Vincent was right when he said, "Men not measures." We want to get
892
speed into this affair. Committees have an innate tendency to avoid decisions. I think it is probably far more the question of changing men than of changing machinery.
In respect of this U-boat campaign one thing I would urge very strongly is that those who make speeches on the subject should speak with one voice and not confuse the public as they do at the present moment. Melbourne was quite right when he said: "It does not matter what we say provided we all say the same thing." At the present time, however, although the Prime Minister certainly uttered some warning, he spoke very optimistically. Then we have Admiral Snagge, who said:
"I can reveal that the problem of the menace of the U-boat is on the point of being solved, if it has not actually been solved already. I cannot say more at present."
Colonel Knox immediately counters with this:
"There is nothing in the situation justifying any sanguine hope of an early end of the U-boat menace. It is still very grave."
Then Headquarters of the Anti-Submarine Command of the United States says:
"Submarine warfare may be at a turning point. The number of Axis submarines destroyed has been high."
On top of that we have Admiral Noble, who said that U-boats would probably grow bolder and more menacing. People should not regard the outlook with optimism because the danger was still great. The Prime Minister says that we are one and a quarter million tons up on losses; and Sir Arthur Salter is reported as saying that the situation could be called grave and anxious because building was not gaining sufficiently against losses.
All these conflicting voices make the public give up trying to understand the situation. The truth is, in spite of everything that has been said, it was a fatal error to give up publishing figures of our sinkings and U-boat losses. I think the refusal to publish these figures of sinkings and U-boat losses was decided upon because, in the one case, the authorities wanted to hide bad news and, in the other case, to cover unjustifiable Admiralty optimism. I believe the public are confused by this mixture of contradictory statements. I would urgently recommend that the matter should be reconsidered and that the Government should face up boldly to the situation and recognize that

893
if they publish these figures there will be no need for this mixture of warnings and optimism and misleading statements.
I have only one thing to say in conclusion. I have certainly been critical about the past and I am not certain if the existing measures are the best possible, but I entirely agree with what has been said to-day that complacency no longer exists. I recognize and pay tribute to the need of greater urgency. I realize that at last many necessary things are being done and I think that anti-U-boat measures are being given priority. The Conference at Washington was more authoritative than the other Conferences and the new Committee is at any rate better in that it at least meets every week instead of eighteen times in twenty months. I feel that there is a greater sense of urgency in the handling of the matter. But the lesson of the past is that we must keep up pressure on the authorities in the present and in the future. We shall get through but we shall get heavy blows. We are facing the greatest challenge since 1917 and from now on our full naval strength is going to be challenged by the U-boat campaign. The German Navy is not fighting the Royal Navy. It is fighting the Merchant Navy. That is the challenge that we have to face and there is the call for the greatest urgency and the greatest energy in this matter.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I had not intended to speak this afternoon and I hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous in what I am about to say. In view, however, of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, in which he spoke about a Combined Staff—with most of what he said I agree—I would like to point out that, in your Lordships' House, we have no Minister of Defence to deal with this subject. It is the noble Lord who speaks for the Admiralty who will reply to the debate. This debate, however, has dealt with more than one Service. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he will represent to the Government—I regret that I have not had time to mention this to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—that as there is no Minister of Defence here, the Leader of the House should find time, if possible, to reply when these most important questions come up for discussion. You cannot deal with only one Service in such debates and I think
894
it would help to bring the Services together if such an arrangement were made.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, as was to be expected, in view of the terms of the noble Lord's Motion, we have had a most interesting debate, and so long as your Lordships continue to share the public view, and I am sure you will, that there is no more vital interest in our ability to wage war than the maintenance of our sea communications, I am quite certain we shall have debates as interesting as the present one. It is one thing to seek information upon as wide a subject as the war at sea, but it is quite a different thing to give that information. The noble Lord who moves the Motion will, I am sure, be the first to appreciate that the wicket on which he and I have been playing is much more suited to him who bowls the questions than to him who, for the time, wields the Government bat.
Though I shall do my best to satisfy the noble Lord and others who have taken part in this debate, I think it will be realized that in speaking for the Government on matters of this kind in which such vital issues are raised, and where a slip may have the most serious consequences to those carrying on the war at sea, the Government spokesman must of necessity speak with discretion and circumspection. My task is made none the easier by some of the remarks which have fallen from various lips during the latter part of the discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, complains that representatives of the Government or others in position of authority, fail to speak with one voice. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, although I understand he has no intention of being discourteous to me and I did not take his remarks as being discourteous, complains that another voice than mine should have replied to the debate. In face of all that I can but do my best and this I will do.
Now I would answer some of the questions put to me by various noble Lords who have spoken. I will take first, if I may, those questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Before doing so, however, I would like to associate myself, as the Admiralty spokesman in this House, with those tributes which he paid to the men of the Royal

895
Navy, the men of the Merchant Navy and those gallant seamen joined with us in the common struggle who represent our great and smaller Allies. I am quite certain that the noble Lord's remarks will be read with the greatest of pleasure by all to whom they were addressed. The first question which he put to me was: Are we receiving first priority for the Navy's needs? I think it is well known that for the purpose of combating the U-boat menace the very highest priority is accorded to the Admiralty for the weapons and equipment which they need. Merchant shipbuilding and naval shipbuilding have first priority, and within the naval programme the construction of escort vessels has priority over other forms of construction. So I can answer the noble Lord's question in the affirmative. The point about aircraft I will deal with later.
Lord Strabolgi referred to the Minister of Agriculture's statement, at Cambridge on March 20, in the course of which the Minister said that the shipping situation was now more serious than it had been at any time in the war. I read that speech and I took the Minister of Agriculture's point to be this: that in view of the fact that the U-boat war was being waged as hard as ever by the enemy, and that there are likely to be still further calls upon our shipping in the near future in consequence of measures which may be taken to invade the Continent of Europe, there would of necessity be less shipping available for the importation of food, and feeding stuffs required by the agricultural industry, and that an increased effort was therefore, required on the part of the agricultural industry. I do not think there is anything more significant than that in the speech of the Minister.
The noble Lord referred to the question of the allocation of aircraft for the anti-U-boat campaign. Several other noble Lords, including Lord Hankey, raised the same point, and it may be convenient if at o this stage I deal with that particular issue. Lord Hankey asked me to say whether or not the Admiralty have first priority for the long-range aircraft required for the purpose of patrolling the distant spaces of the Atlantic Ocean. If he will allow me to say so, he answered his question himself, for he went on to say that he had read some remarks made by my right honourable friend the First
896
Lord of the Admiralty, in another place, in the course of which the First Lord said that he could not say that the Navy had all it needed. My Lords, that is so. It is however true that the number of long-range heavy aircraft allocated to Coastal Command for the use of the Navy has increased, and is steadily increasing. But mere provision of aircraft is by no means the whole story. These aircraft have to be equipped with anti-submarine devices; their crews have to be trained for the work which will be demanded of them over the wide ocean spaces; bases have to be constructed from which these heavy aircraft can operate; and so, as I say, there is more in this question that the mere provision of aircraft. But, as the First Lord has said, and as I repeat to-day, we are getting these machines in increasing, and steadily increasing, quantities.
Lord Strabolgi asked if I could give any information about a pre-war plan to construct an immobile seadrome in the Atlantic from which aircraft could operate for the protection of our sea routes. If I understood him correctly, he was inclined to view this proposal as one which did not contain what he called any technical difficulties. My information is not to that effect at all. Whether this particular structure were built of concrete or structural steel the question of constructing it, and of finding a site in which it could be constructed, is in itself a matter of great difficulty, not only in peace but more particularly in war. If you do not construct it as a single unit, you have got to build it in sections, then tow those sections out to where you are going to have your floating aerodrome, and there put them together. There are other difficulties connected with men and material and the time and labour required to construct such a seadrome. I can only tell the noble Lord that while, outwardly, the scheme does appear to have some attractive features, it has been very carefully considered, and on the whole the difficulties involved have been found to be such that it is really not practicable to proceed with the building at the present time.
Now may I turn to what I take to be the main point underlying to-day's discussion—that is the question of unity of Command in the Atlantic. At various times there have been four different proposals as to how this unity of Command should be achieved. The first proposal

897
was for an Inter-Allied Committee. The second was for a supreme Commander of submarine warfare. The third was for a Super-Commander-in-Chief for strategic control of all anti-U-boat resources in the Atlantic. The last proposal, the fourth, was that a whole time Minister for anti-U-boat warfare should be appointed in charge of the Anti-U-boat Committee which, is was suggested, should be in permanent session. I will, if I may, deal with each of these four proposals separately. The first one is really very closely related to the proposal made some months ago by Field-Marshal Smuts for the setting up of an Allied Anti-U-boat Staff. This proposal was answered by the Prime Minister in his statement in another place on December 15, when he announced the setting up of the Anti-U-boat Warfare Committee, and stated that the Field-Marshal had attended the Committee, had visited the Admiralty and had had conferences with the Staff and experts there, and, as a result, had authorized him, the Prime Minister, to say that he was satisfied with the character and efficiency of the system.
It is perhaps appropriate to observe here, however, that the recent Conference which took place in Washington does in fact form a very striking example of inter-Allied co-operation. This Conference, as your Lordships know, and as was announced in the Press last week, was recently held in Washington under the Chairmanship of Admiral E. J. King, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Fleet, and the purpose of it was the discussion of anti-U-boat warfare. This was one of a series of Conferences which have taken place and which will continue to be held for the purpose of advancing new and improving existing measures to defeat the U-boats. Your Lordships may remember that the communiqué announcing the termination of the Conference stated that:
"Complete agreement was reached on the policy to be pursued in the protection of Allied shipping in the Atlantic and on the best methods of employing Allied escort vessels, anti-submarine craft and aircraft in defeating the U-boat menace."
I think it will be agreed that for me to state in this debate in any sort of detail the decisions which were agreed upon at the Conference would be most unwise. The success of the measures to be adopted as a result of that Conference world not be enhanced if I were to present
898
a full description of them to the enemy within a few days of the Conference adjourning. I do not propose, therefore, to lift the veil of secrecy; but I should like to take this opportunity of saying that as a result of these deliberations, and thanks to the help and co-operation of our American Allies and of the Canadian authorities, not only the organization of convoys in the Atlantic but their protection on the sea and in the air will be further improved and simplified. As we gain experience from these innovations it will be desirable, no doubt, to take part in further confabulations, and certainly it is intended to continue working in the closest touch with the American and Canadian authorities, in a spirit of cordiality and good will.
The second proposal, that a supreme Commander of anti-submarine warfare be appointed, presumably envisages the institution of an Anti-U-boat Command exercised by a Flag Officer with powers analogous to the present powers of the Commanders-in-Chief who are in command of the various areas in which U-boats operate. Without overriding authority, it is difficult to see how such a Command could operate effectively; and in fact the demand for a supreme Commander of anti-submarine warfare, like the other proposals put forward to-day, overlooks the fact that U-boat warfare is only a part of the task of keeping open our sea communications. That is a point to which I shall return in a moment.
The third and most sweeping proposal of all is to appoint a Super-Commander-in-Chief to command all anti-U-boat resources in the Atlantic. This proposal and the suggestion that a Committee in charge of a special Minister should be in permanent session, were effectively answered by the concluding words of the Prime Minister's statement on December 15, which were as follows:
"There is no question of appointing a Naval Super-Commander-in-Chief under the Admiralty or a special Minister to deal with the anti-U-boat campaign. The war at sea is all one, and the Admiralty organization has been adapted by continual improvement and refinement to deal with it as a whole. It would be impossible to disentangle the anti-U-boat warfare or its control from the general organization, and I should not recommend any attempt to do so."
The defence of our shipping, of course, is a problem which involves far more than devising the most effective methods of dealing with the U-boat, immensely

899
important though they are. Besides the U-boat, we have to face the German, Italian and Japanese Battle Fleets, the minelayers, the E-boats and the commerce raiders. All these dangers must be met with our available resources applied on the scale and in the area where they contribute most to the keeping open of our sea communications. In other words, we must be able, through an infinitely flexible and fluid central organization, to strike a balance from day to day in allotting forces to meet all the dangers which threaten us.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his speech in this debate, and in an article which appeared in the Daily Express yesterday, mentioned Admiral Doenitz. If I may say so, he misinterprets the change which has taken place in Admiral Doenitz's Command. Rather would it appear that, after three years, Admiral Doenitz has found it necessary, in order to achieve the most complete co-ordination of all his forces for the prosecution of the U-boat campaign, to abandon his position as Commander-in-Chief of U-boat warfare and assume command of the whole German Navy, and thus of all German naval resources. Indeed, I take it as an implied compliment to our own measures of centralized direction that after over three years, the Germans have adopted the same methods as ourselves in order to try to achieve success. This is surely an endorsement of our methods rather than a criticism of them, and if we now attempt to establish a Super-Commander-in-Chief to control anti-U-boat resources we shall in fact be taking a retrograde step and playing into the hands of the enemy.
The question may still be asked whether centralized direction, at all events in the Atlantic, should not extend over the Fleets of all the Allied Forces involved. It must be remembered, however, that our relationship with our Allies is one of partners, and not of master and servant. The whole question of the machinery has just been thoroughly overhauled at Washington by representatives of the British, American and Canadian Staffs, and a solution has been reached in which we have the most complete confidence. I therefore come back to the Prime Minister's statement of December 15, in which he said that the war at sea was all one, and that he would not recommend any attempt to disentangle
900
the anti-U-boat warfare or its control from the general Admiralty organization. I am aware that the noble Lord is unable to subscribe to this contention, and continues to complain of the lack of a Combined General Staff working as a team, but I cannot help thinking that he forgets the fact that there is a Combined General Staff, in the sense that the supreme executive body, other than the Prime Minister and the President when they meet together as the heads of their two Governments, is the Combined Chiefs of Staff sitting in Washington. These officers have an ample staff of officers of both nations and of all the Services, and they survey the war as a whole. It is not true to say that there is no Combined Staff reviewing the war situation. On the contrary, there is this most responsible body, a body which has got the full facts and figures at its disposal and complete staffs to discharge its work.
The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on his return from Casa-blanca that "U-boat warfare takes first place in our thoughts … The British and American Governments have given the task of overcoming them (that is, the U-boats) first priority in all the plans." Whilst therefore, for the reasons which I have given, unity of Command in the sense envisaged by the noble Lord himself is not considered to be capable of practical application at present, I must make the point that complete agreement exists on the policy to be pursued in the protection of Allied shipping in the Atlantic and on the best methods of employing Allied escort vessels, anti-submarine craft and aircraft. Details of this policy, as I have said, I cannot disclose, but as I informed the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in answer to a question last week, the world is divided into strategical areas, and the nation responsible for each area has full operational control of all United Nations' surface and air forces in each area. I am aware that the noble Lord takes exception to these geographical divisions of responsibility. In the absence of a Super-Commander-in-Chief of U-boat Warfare there must be geographical divisions of responsibility, but—this is the point I hope he will observe—the agreements under which we work these strategic areas of responsibility do in fact result in unity of command in each strategic area.
There were one or two further points which bear on this subject, which were

901
raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, which I should like to deal with. He told your Lordships that in his opinion the anti-U-boat campaign had been a failure, that it was the one issue upon which our organization had broken down. I think that is a somewhat sweeping and unjustifiable statement, if he will allow me to say so, in spite of the very friendly speech which he made. It is true that the U-boat menace is still a very great one, it is true that we have not yet swept the seas of these pests; but I think the noble Lord, in making that statement completely failed to remember the enormous responsibilities which have been laid at the door of the Admiralty from the very outbreak of the war. Had we not been burdened with the convoying of troops and stores to the Middle East, had we not been burdened with the responsibility of transporting that huge force to the coast of North Africa, the situation might have been very different.
Our resources in escort vessels are not limitless. Every time you call upon the Navy to transport vast quantities of men and material overseas it is inevitable that our resources, in escort vessels particularly, will be stretched; and the more you stretch those resources the fewer escort vessels you will be able to apply to any one particular responsibility. As I think Lord Strabolgi pointed out himself, quite correctly, you not only need escort vessels to escort your ships but you also need anti-submarine vessels to hunt the submarine, which is in turn hunting the convoys. The noble Earl, Lord Cork, I think it was, suggested that we should have what he calls striking forces—small groups of ships at sea to deal with these U-boat packs when they turn up. If do not disagree with him at all, but so long as you have not all the escort vessels which you require you will find that the organization of this sort of force is exceedingly difficult.
LORD HANKEY: My point was that the Government had lacked foresight in this matter. I suggest that the Government should have foreseen that there were going to be expeditions. I do not know that they could have foreseen every expedition, but there was one thing quite certain. From less than a year of the outbreak of war it was certain that the war would get into the Mediterranean. I remember perfectly well
902
the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, saying that to me when he was Chief of the Imperial General Staff quite early in the war.
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: I follow the noble Lord's point exactly, but considering that we started the war as weak as we did in escort vessels—and I do not think it is any use to try and apportion blame—it is remarkable that we have been able to scrape here and scrape there and find the escorts for these innumerable liabilities which have been placed upon our shoulders.
As I said, these are matters which are not very easy to deal with in Open Session. A great deal of information could be given to your Lordships which would add to my case which cannot be given for very obvious reasons, but I hope I have said enough to make your Lordships realize that the U-boat menace is a matter that is treated with the greatest possible sense of urgency, and that we shall not rest content until we have cleared from the oceans these U-boats, which are capable of doing inestimable damage to our shipping. But do not let it be forgotten that they are not the sole weapons which the enemy have to launch upon the seas. While we are responsible for defending our convoys against the U-boats we have to be looking over our shoulder all the time to see that the German Battle Fleet does not get out. Resources have to be held in reserve to meet that situation, and that is why, with all these complexities which face the Naval Staff, it is absolutely essential that the conduct of the war at sea should not be decentralized in respect of U-boats, but should be kept under central control, in order that the necessary flexibility should exist, and that forces can be moved from here to there according to the strategic demands of the moment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are very grateful to the noble Lord. He had no reason at all to apologize. As long as there is an Admiralty spokesman in your Lordships' House, in spite of what Lord Trenchard said, he is the man to deal with naval matters. I thought the batting of the noble Lord was very sound indeed. I also wish to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am very glad that Lord Hankey did not hear my speech,

903
because there must have been some telepathy between us. If he will be good enough to read in the Official Report tomorrow what I said, he will see that he did me the great honour of supporting my argument to a considerable extent, whereas if he had heard my speech I might have said something to annoy him in some way, and it would not have been so obvious. Might I suggest to my noble friend Lord Winster—he and I are completely agreed in our arguments—that he made one slip? He spoke of the United States getting us out of the jam in U-boat warfare. I think he meant by their tremendous output of merchant shipping, because when the United States came into the war their East Coast naval defences, for obvious reasons, were not at full pitch, and we had to get them out of a jam. That was another responsibility of the Navy, which was gladly shouldered, in sending help to the other side of the Atlantic.
I only want to add this. What the noble Lord said about priorities for shipbuilding and materials was entirely satisfactory, but with regard to priorities for the supply of the available planes—large four-engined heavy aeroplanes—there was still that element of doubt. I understand from him that the Admiralty is getting at the present moment all the aircraft it can use—that is, for which it has trained crews, specialized instruments, special long runways, etc., and large aerodromes. But I was not quite clear that the Admiralty is able to plan ahead knowing that it will be able to get all the long-distance aeroplanes for naval purposes it is able to use. I do not want to press the noble Lord on this point, because it is one of those matters which he must not discuss in any great detail; but there is a doubt there. My noble friend Lord Hankey was good enough to point out that the statement that we are limited at the moment, not so much by aeroplanes, but by instruments and trained crews, shows that there has not been sufficient planning ahead in the past. If a year ago we had worked out this scheme, this obstacle would not remain. I repeat that I am not quite certain as to whether the Admiralty is able to plan sufficiently far ahead, knowing it will get all the aeroplanes it can usefully employ. I shall read the noble Lord's speech with great attention to-morrow, and I hope to find
904
comfort in it. There is a tremendous output of big aeroplanes coming forward. Apart from our own and Canadian production, the figures of American production are very satisfactory—for February alone 5,500 aeroplanes, of which 65 per cent. were combat aeroplanes, presumably a substantial proportion of them bombers. Therefore, we are now getting substantial numbers of long-range heavy machines which could be easily adapted for naval purposes. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTRY SIGNPOSTS
EARL MANVERS EARL MANVERS had given Notice that he would call attention to troubles arising from the absence of guide posts in country districts; and also move for Papers. The noble Earl said, My Lords, I must apologize for being unable to address the House at the length or with the eloquence of the Privy Councillors to whom your Lordships listen with such pleasure. I am a backwoodsman, and I want to call attention to a matter which is causing grave trouble and inconvenience amongst the forests from which I come, and probably in other parts of the country also. I refer to the absence of guide posts. I am emboldened to raise this matter by the thought that the noble Lord, the Minister of Transport, is not wholly hostile to me, although whether he will allow as much to be said in this debate I do not know.
Your Lordships will remember the situation in June, 1940. When France was invaded by Germany there was a scare—a probably well-justified scare—that this country might also be invaded. Various orders for the removal of direction signs were issued about that time. The idea was that parachutists might drop from the clouds, might be ignorant of their whereabouts, and might derive great benefit from the sight of a wayside finger-post which would enable them to find their place on the maps with which they would no doubt be furnished. In war-time we all wish to be led by the military authorities, but the military authorities themselves, it seems to me, owe a counter duty to the civil population, not to be—I reject the word "pig-headed"; military authorities are never

905
pig-headed—but not to be obstinate, not to take the view that what they have once said is a law of the Medes and Persians which never can alter, however much circumstances may change. That circumstances have changed admits of no doubt.
I want to say nothing that may give valuable information to the enemy, but he is probably aware that our troops are somewhat snore victorious than they were at the time of Dunkirk and that this island might well prove a veritable hornet's nest to any uninvited visitors. Concessions have indeed been made in the matter of guide posts. In October last county surveyors were requested to reinstate the posts on main traffic routes in towns, provided these towns were not within twenty miles of the East Coast, and subject to the condition that the surveyors should be able to remove those posts again at short notice. But that plan referred only to built-up areas—areas in which drivers could in any case ask the way. It left the country road junctions entirely un-guide-posted except to travellers who were acquainted with the numbering on the secret military maps.
Various county councils and various branches of the Ministries of Information, Production, and Supply are keenly interested in the matter. Not unnaturally they do not wish their resolutions on the subject to be quoted; but I am informed that they regard it as one of major importance. A suggestion has been made that low posts, with sliding fingers, should be erected for the use of night lorry drivers who are wasting a good deal of time and petrol in trying to find factories in rural areas. My noble friend Lord Brocket has written to me. He is Chairman of the Land Union, and he has suggested that the guide posts should be erected immediately, but in case of emergency they should be reversed. That, he considers, would be more puzzling to the enemy than if there were no guide posts at all. That is a revolutionary proposal which I must admit had not occurred to me. But in either case, if any alteration to the guide posts were needed I think the Home Guard would be pleased to undertake the duty of doing what was necessary. I therefore hope that the Ministry of War Transport, in consultation with the Minister for Home Affairs, will lift the ban on country guide posts, remembering the old legal maxim Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex.
LORD MOTTISIONE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed you asked me to support him knowing my interest in this matter. I urged the abandonment of this plan of removing signposts long ago, and have not ceased to do so since. I am sure I interpret the views of everyone in this House when I say that after his very brief but brilliant speech the more we hear from the backwoods of old Sherwood Forest the better we shall be pleased. The noble Earl makes his points and sits down in a way to which we would all, I am sure, wish to pay tribute. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who is going to reply, is fighting a rearguard action. I think it is a shame the way the Government always put him into the Stalingrad and "hedgehog" places to fight these losing battles. I do not know what he is going to say, but I do know that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Government make no secret that they regard this taking away of the names from rural signposts as a moonbeam from the larger lunacy. It is indeed so.
In a few words I would say why I think so. I have pleaded this case previously, but now it has become much more acute. I would ask the noble Lord to tell this House and the country on what military grounds his Department did this extraordinary thing. We have been hearing a lot this afternoon about the U-boat war. Nothing that my noble friend who is to reply says, or the War Office says, can help the enemy at all. We citizens and the unfortunate people who have to travel at night on war purposes and cannot find their way, want to know why this policy is persisted in. I think I am entitled to ask on behalf of the public what is the military ground on which this is done. That is the first question. The second question I ask is this. Will he ascertain, as of course he can from the police of the United Kingdom, how much time, so far as the police know, and they have the figures, has been wasted and how many man-hours have been lost by lorries conveying vital war materials, referred to by my noble friend who moved this Motion, owing to the absence of signposts? I should like to ask also how much time has been lost by people taking the wrong road. I have some figures which I am furnishing to my noble friend from Hampshire, where

907
I live and where he lives. It is really deplorable.
I ask him to answer those two questions. Then I ask, in anticipation of the reply to the first, what can be the reason why a vast amount of time is lost and a vast amount of trouble is involved to so many people who lose their way because of the absence of signposts? To remove the signposts was a foolish thing to do unless it was really necessary. I am sure there is somebody somewhere in some Government Department—he is not a Fifth Columnist but he is an embodiment of Alice in Wonderland or the White Knight in Through the Looking Glass. I know in fact there is such a person, who says: "Whatever is said when the war comes to an end, nobody shall be able to say that anything I did contributed to the loss of the life of any man. Suppose some German parachutist looks at a signpost, sees upon it the words 'To Winchester' and gets to Winchester before he is caught by the Home Guard" (as caught, of course, he would be) "and shoots somebody, it would be said that the fault is mine. Therefore I say that signposts shall not be re-erected."
That is the attitude of mind of the people who said: "We will always carry our gas masks." It is very unlikely that the Germans would drop gas in a gale of wind; nevertheless millions of people in this country carry their gas masks in a gale of wind on the off chance that something might happen, wishing to make quite sure they run no risks. I hope my noble friend Lord Croft is amending what he was proposing to reply while he listens to what I am saying. Perhaps he will be able to say that the War Office do not take the view that they will not in any circumstances whatever run any risks. I hope he will not say: "We will continue to ask the children to go to school in their gas masks so that they can play football with them on the way," or "we will not allow brides to go to the altar without gas masks."
Any night anyone who likes to go round the countryside in England will find people engaged on war effort cursing and swearing because they cannot find their way owing to the signposts having been taken down. This is, as one of His Majesty's Ministers said to me, a moonbeam from the larger lunacy. We are grateful to Lord
908
Manvers for bringing forward this Motion. I hope the matter of which he complains will be put right now, and that we shall not have to wait till some extraordinary individual can advance some strange military reason why it would not be worth while to do what we ask should be done. So long as you continue to persist in this idea you cannot tell people that you have passed to the offensive. It cuts very deep. You cannot tell our Canadian soldiers and our United States friends, who are here in such large numbers, that we have got the offensive spirit when all the time you cannot help them to find their way about this small country of ours because of the lack of signposts. The things do not match. I quoted in this House a United States officer who said: "We simply cannot make these things square. You say you are passing to the offensive but you won't let me find my way through your country to go to fight the enemy."
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): Every soldier knows the sign from his map.
LORD MOTTISTONE: That is very interesting. So I suppose we are to say to the United States Higher Command and the rest of them: "Oh well, you see, we believe in the offensive spirit, but we cannot run any risks. You never can tell; a German might drop out of the sky, and if he knew the way he might go somewhere and helpless people might have to surrender to him. But you of course will have your map." No, that will not do. Let us boldly say: "Let 'em all come." I remember when I was in the Cabinet Mr. Asquith went on board a destroyer on a visit to the Fleet at Scapa Flow, the question of the fortifications being a topic for discussion at that time. There was written across the bridge of the destroyer, as some of your Lordships may remember, this quaint phrase: "Ut veniant omnes." Mr. Asquith was greatly amused, and said to the officer commanding the destroyer, "And what is that?" "Oh," said the Commander, "don't you know, Mr. Prime Minister? That is Latin." "What does it mean?" asked Mr. Asquith. "Why," said the Commander, "Let 'em all come." Should not that be our attitude here in this matter? Let us restore all the signposts. Let us put up the name quite clearly in every railway station. Let us abandon all

909
this inferiority complex and proclaim that we have passed from this perhaps necessary phase of timidity to the stage of confidence, courage and attack. I cordially support the noble Earl.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord raises in his Motion is one with which all of us have considerable sympathy. We should all like, if it were possible, to see road signs restored. It would obviously be for the greater convenience of the public generally, and would at the same time tend to avoid the very real loss of time and waste of material which results when vehicles take the wrong road. We cannot in these days afford any avoidable waste either of rubber, or of motor fuel, or, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone says, of time. For these reasons my noble friend the Minister of War Transport, for whom, in his unavoidable absence on business of national urgency, I am replying this afternoon, would naturally be only too glad if we could replace all the road signs, not only in the urban areas, but also in rural areas.
On the other hand, however, we must recognize that the matter which the noble Earl has raised this afternoon is one of those subjects where there is inevitably a conflict of national interests. For we must not only lake into account the convenience of the public in this case. There are also considerations of national security which must be borne in mind, and which, in war-time, must clearly predominate over all others. My noble friend will, I am sure, not desire that I shall go into detail about these areas while the peril is still with us. My noble friend Lord Mottistone wished to press me on this subject, but I think obviously I cannot give him in public those military reasons. I can, however, assure him that we have solid ground on which to make these decisions. When he tells us that, now we have passed to the offensive, we must no longer consider questions of defence as of great importance, must remind him that only two or three months ago he was telling us in eloquent speeches that we had not done enough for defence and that we were not sufficiently aware of the peril. I am sure he will agree, as a good soldier, that although we have seen encouraging factors
910
in the military situation, the war is by no means over and, as we have seen in many theatres of war, counter attacks follow attacks. Those who are wise are prepared for every emergency.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I intervene to say that my whole point is that you want to defeat the enemy by going for him, not that you should try to obfuscate him by attempting to prevent him knowing where he is? The offensive spirit demands that we should be armed, but it also demands that we should not be frightened.
LORD CROFT: I can assure my noble friend that there is no question of fright among the military leaders at this time. The whole world is impressed with the offensive spirit which dominates the British Army from top to bottom. From the point of view of public convenience, my noble friend the Minister of War Transport would be only too pleased to restore all road signs and guide posts. The Government have the matter under close examination and I hope that it will be possible very shortly to give a final decision. I am not in a position to do so to-day because the careful examination of the subject which is required is still proceeding. I should like, however, to assure the noble Earl who raised this question and the House that the Government are anxious to restore the guide posts in rural areas as soon as they are satisfied that this course can be adopted without prejudicing our national security. I may also add that the arguments which my noble friend used and the interesting suggestions which he made will certainly be conveyed to my noble friend.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I want to offer my most cordial thanks to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for his very powerful support, and I want to thank my noble friend Lord Croft for making the best reply he could in the circumstances. It is a reply which leaves me not altogether without encouragement. As it is guide posts I want and not Papers, I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
  CITY OF BRADFORD ORDER.

    RURAL DISTRICT OF PETWORTH ORDER.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be agreed to.
    Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA AND BURMA ORDER COMMITTEE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Resolution standing on the Paper in his name, that the Earl of Munster be added to the Committee.
Moved, That the Earl of Munster be added to the Committee.—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.