Sitting of 13 December 1944

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ALLIED NATIONALS, GERMANY (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans are being made by U.N.R.R.A. for the repatriation from Germany of citizens of France, Belgium and other Allied Nations, who were deported and forced to work in German factories and mines.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): During the military period responsibility for the repatriation of nationals of the United Nations deported to Germany in the course of the war rests with the military authorities who, in consultation with the Allied Governments concerned, have been making detailed plans for this purpose. I understand that U.N.R.R.A. has been closely collaborating in the formulation and completion of these plans. U.N.R.R.A. is, moreover, in constant consultation with the Governments of our Allies on the whole problem of displaced persons, and the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia have formally requested the Administration to assist the repatriation of their nationals in Germany.
  Mr. Driberg: Since, during the period of hostilities, it is obviously impossible for more than a small proportion of these millions to be repatriated, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that plans for the further period are really adequate? Could he possibly circulate an outline of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Eden: I will consider whether I can give more information, but agreement has been reached recently, on this complicated business, between S.H.A.E.F. and U.N.R.R.A., and it seems to be a good agreement.
  Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the Government of the U.S.S.R. have not yet given any permission for delegations or supplies to U.N.R.R.A. to pass through Soviet territory? Cannot a decision on that point be expedited?
  Mr. Eden: I cannot answer for the Soviet Government, as the hon. Lady will realise. She asks whether a decision cannot be expedited. It is for them to do that, but the hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that they have not made known their views.

  U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES, FRANCE
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reluctance of the French to ask for the services of U.N.R.R.A., he will arrange for the supplies available for them and which they urgently require in Normandy to be put at the disposal of the French Government direct in that area.
  Mr. Eden: The provision and importation of relief supplies into France is at present the responsibility of the Supreme Allied Commander, who, in the discharge of it, acts in close consultation with the French Provisional Government. The French Provisional Government would, therefore, doubtless take up direct with the Supreme Allied Commander any special relief supply problems of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that supplies are very urgently required in Normandy, which is literally our sphere, and will he make representations to the Supreme Allied Commander in order to get in supplies at the earliest moment, before the real winter breaks?
  Mr. Eden: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by our sphere of influence. The position is that delivery of these supplies is a matter for the French Provisional Government to take up with the Supreme Commander. It is for them to take it up with them, and not for us.
  Miss Ward: Is it not a fact that normally, so far as civil affairs are concerned, this is under the British sector, and will not my right hon. Friend take some responsibility for making representations that action should take place?
  Mr. Eden: The position is as I have just stated in the answer. I read to the House:
  "The provision and importation of relief supplies into France is at present the responsibility of the Supreme Allied Commander, who, in the discharge of it, acts in close consultation with the French Provisional Government. …"
  Sir Irving Albery: Is it not to be regretted that the Allied Commander-in-Chief should be worried over questions of relief supplies?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Acrodrome Site (Purchase)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the area of land which has been purchased by his Department for an aerodrome, the place name of which has been communicated to him; how much was paid for this land; and who were the previous owners.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Approximately 1,600 acres have been requisitioned for this airfield. Purchase has so far been restricted to a very few small properties at a total cost of £10,650, although other negotiations are in progress. The land is divided between 35 ownerships, particulars of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

    Air Training Corps (Travelling Expenses)
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, owing to the high cost of travelling of officers and civilian instructors to the A.T.C. between their homes and their units, the efficiency of the A.T.C. training is being handicapped and if payment of such proper expenses may therefore be authorised in future.
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I am not aware that the existing travelling regulations react unfavourably on the efficiency of the Air Training Corps. The regulations are in line with those of the Sea Cadet Corps and the Army Cadet Force.

    West Indians (Home Leave)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give an undertaking that West Indian members of aircrews who have served for more than three years in Britain or Europe will be allowed leave in the West Indies before they are posted to the Far East.
    Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, but every effort would be made to give home leave in the circumstances described by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the number concerned is very small—perhaps about mo—and that it should, therefore, not be very difficult? It would mean a great deal to these men if they could get away for a time from this climate of ours.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I think my answer covers the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but if he has any particular case in mind I hope he will let me know about it.

    Discharge Notifications (Wounded Men)
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for Air why, when officers and other ranks in the Service are invalided out of the R.A.F. as a result of wounds, no mention is made in the letter notifying the person of his discharge that it is a result of wounds received in action; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt among those invalided out as a result of wounds that the reason is defined as ill-health.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this point. I agree that the expression "ill-health" is inappropriate, and I am considering the adoption of alternative wording. I do not, however, consider it would be desirable to differentiate in this matter between invaliding due to wounds received in action and invaliding due to other causes such as flying accidents.
    Mr. De Chair: While I thank my right hon. Friend for undertaking to review this matter, will he bear in mind in doing so that there is a good deal of ill-feeling in the Service that wounds are put in the same category as minor illnesses and other things not comparable to flying accidents?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I think my hon. Friend is putting his case too high in saying

    1211
    that. This description has been in force for 20 years, and I have no evidence of widespread or deep-seated dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, I agree that the wording can be improved, and I am going to try and do that.

    Station (Accommodation and Sanitation)
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the accommodation and sanitation at a certain R.A.F. station, of which he has been informed; and if he will take immediate steps to improve its amenities.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Certain improvements at the station referred to were recently authorised, and I understand that the work is well in hand. I am, however, looking into the matter further and will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

    Jet-Propelled Aircraft (Enemy Losses)
    Sir Oliver Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of jet-propelled enemy aircraft that have now been destroyed by the R.A.F.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that for security reasons it would be premature to publish this information.

    Education Officers
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Air on what ground are education officers in the R.A.F. given lower rank than chaplains in the same units, education officers ranking as flight-lieutenants while chaplains of equivalent service rank as squadron-leaders.
    Sir A. Sinclair: The R.A.F. ranks of education officers vary from pilot officer to air commodore, according to their civilian gradings and/or their length of service. The honorary ranks held by chaplains vary from squadron leader to air commodore, mainly according to length of service. The duties discharged by these two Services are not comparable, and I am not aware that the differences between the R.A.F. ranks accorded to them have, in practice, given rise to any difficulties.
    Miss Rathbone: Is not this likely to cause some discontent among education officers?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think so; I think it is fair as between the two. The
    1212
    hon. Lady must remember that chaplains, as a rule, enter the Service at a much older age.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Would it not be much better to give them a title which defines their job? Why not call them "sky pilots," as they are commonly called?

  TRANSPORT PLANES (CONTINENTAL PASSENGER TRAFFIC)
  Mr. Treeasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are a large number of A.T.A. medium transport aeroplanes, available for continental traffic, not being made full use of at the present time; and if he will make these available for passenger traffic.
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): A certain number of transport aircraft within the A.T.A. organisation are capable of being used for continental traffic. Such traffic is controlled, however, by the appropriate military authority and the A.T.A. operates in this respect only as and when called upon by that authority to meet a requirement in respect of military cargoes or official passengers. The A.T.A. is not organised or equipped for the carriage of ordinary traffic.
  Mr. Tree: In view of the acute shortage of transport planes, as described by the Home Secretary in an Adjournment Debate last week, would it not be possible to make use of more of these planes until more transport planes are available?
  Sir S. Cripps: That is a question which would have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, who is responsible for Transport Command.
  Mr. Tree: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjourment at the first opportunity.

  BRITISH WAR EFFORT (FILM)
  Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Information if he will consider making a film illustrating the White Paper on the British war effort and arrange for its distribution in the Empire and throughout the world.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Yes, Sir. A film on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend will be made and preparatory work has begun.
  Captain Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for its distribution not only in this country but also throughout the Empire, and especially in the United States?
  Mr. Thurtle: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we will arrange for the widest possible distribution.

  OVERSEA FORCES (CHRISTMAS PARCELS)
  Mr. Petherickasked the Postmaster-General whether he will raise the ban on sending cakes to members of His Majesty's forces serving overseas during the Christmas period.
  The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. The circumstances which led to prohibiting the export of foodstuffs still remain, and, in any case, the latest date of posting for Christmas parcels overseas has now passed.
  Mr. Petherick: Is the right. hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I first applied to the Minister of Food, then to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, then to the Under-Secretary for Food and finally to him again, and that I am getting rather giddy?

  HOUSING

    Bomb Damage Repairs
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Minister of Works whether Servicemen returning to civil life with their homes requiring second stage repairs will be given priority in this respect.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Sandys): Local authorities are carrying out these repairs according to a systematic plan. The grant of priorities to large classes would slow down the general rate of progress. Special treatment is, however, given in individual cases of hardship, including those of ex-Servicemen.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter in view of the fact that it is the general policy
    1214
    to give special consideration to the ex-Serviceman, so that when he returns to his home he may have priority in the final repair to his house and thereby give him a home instead of merely a shelter? The number involved at any one time would not be great.
    Mr. Sandys: Of course we all have sympathy with the case of the ex-Serviceman. These houses are mostly being done one after another in a row, and leap-frogging from one street to another interrupts the flow of work. By and large the best policy is to get the job as a whole done as quickly as possible.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Works whether he will have inquiries made as to the progress of the work being done on bomb-damaged houses in a locality of which he has been informed, with a view to hastening the repairs.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lack of supervision and the refusal of many of the men to do a fair day's work, on homes which have been badly bombed in this district and are now open to the elements, is a public scandal; and what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Sandys: What I am going to do is what my hon. Friend has suggested, to make inquiries and let him know.
    Mr. Henry Brookeasked the Minister of Works whether he can give an assurance that a householder in the London area, who is able to do repair or maintenance work to his home himself, can do it without being obliged to obtain a licence, even though the cost of the work if done by paid labour might exceed £10.
    Mr. Sandys: The value of a householder's own labour is not taken into account in assessing the cost of any work carried out by him.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works whether he has issued, or will issue, a circular drawing the attention of local authorities and builders engaged in the permanent repair of Georgian windows damaged by blast to the importance of restoring the glazing-bars.
    Mr. Sandys: When the time comes to carry out permanent repairs, windows will, of course, be reinstated in their original style.
    Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that some of these windows have been already repaired without the glazing bars?
    Mr. Sandys: We have not yet reached the stage of permanent repairs. At the moment we have to get the immediate job done as quickly as possible. Putting in additional bars in the windows would hold up the work.

    Requisitioned Flats (Release)
    Commander King-Hallasked the Minister of Works whether he has any further statement to make concerning the release by his Department of the 253 small flats, each with a kitchen and bathroom, of the location of which he has been informed by letter.
    Mr. Sandys: Some 80 of these flats have been released for the housing of bombed-out families. The remainder cannot be released as they are occupied as offices by Government staffs for whom suitable alternative accommodation is not at present available.
    Commander King-Hall: What use is being made of the 170 small bathrooms and kitchens by these Government servants? In view of the shortage of accommodation, is it not a great waste to have all these small flats used in this way?
    Mr. Sandys: Many of these kitchens are being used for filing and stores. I agree that this is not an ideal way of using these flats, particularly since they are very suitable for bombed-out families. I am looking into the question of alternative accommodation.

    Brick and Tile Production
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Minister of Works what steps he has taken to arrange for the release of the necessary skilled labour concerned with the reopening and maximum production of brick and tile works in readiness for building work.
    Mr. Sandys: Having regard to the stocks at present available there is no immediate need to expand the output of the brick industry. However, arrangements are being made for increasing the labour force as soon as this becomes necessary. The large consumption of tiles for bomb damage repair has made it necessary to step up the output. Subject to essential military requirements, arrange-
    1216
    ments have been made for the immediate release from the Forces and industry of all men, other than those serving overseas, who can be identified as skilled tile makers.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it the case that so far no houses are being built of the old flint out of which the House of Commons was built? Could it not be used for building houses?
    Mr. Sandys: That is going a long way from the Question on the Paper.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Accident, Portland
    Mr. Loganasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now inform the House of the result of the inquiry regarding loss of naval ratings at Portland Harbour; and if the Government have yet decided the amount of compensation to be paid to the parents of deceased naval rating Peter Traynor.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): These ratings entered a tank in which rusting action had taken place causing the absorption of oxygen from the atmosphere, and the cause of death was asphyxiation. Hundreds of these tanks had previously been entered without any untoward results, but the Admiralty are not satisfied that adequate precautions were taken. Compensation will be paid to the relatives, apart from any claim they may have under the War Pensions Regulations, and negotiations will shortly be opened with a view to a settlement on a fair and proper basis.
    Mr. Logan: Then I can take it that, as the case I have cited is considered entitled to compensation, relatives of other ratings are included?
    Mr. Alexander: I think my answer implies that in the cases of those who lost their lives.

    Pier (Re-opening)
    Mr. Channonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give a favourable reply to the appeal of a certain town council, of whose name he has been informed, for the release of their pier.
    Mr. Alexander: I regret that it is still impossible to meet the desire of the local authorities in this matter. My hon.

    1217
    Friend may rest assured that the Admiralty will give permission for the pier to be re-opened to the public as soon as the state of the war makes this practicable.
    Mr. Channon: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to release the pier as soon as possible?
    Mr. Alexander: I think I said that.

    Iceland (Rate of Exchange)
    Mr. Magnayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that men serving in the R.N. receive 26 kroner in exchange for an English £ in Iceland, whilst sailors in the Merchant Navy receive 44 kroner; and if he will explain why this is.
    Mr. Alexander: There is no difference between the official rate of exchange in Iceland far men of the Royal Navy and men of the Merchant Navy. If my hon. Friend knows of any specific case in which a rate higher than the official rate has been used, perhaps he will let my right hon. Friend, the Minister of War Transport, have details to enable him to make inquiries.
    Mr. Magnay: I have the information from my own nephew, so there is no doubt about it.
    Mr. Alexander: The information should be sent to the Minister.

    Discharge Notifications (Wounded Men)
    Mr. De Chairasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, when officers and other ranks in the Service are invalided out of the Royal Navy as a result of wounds, no mention is made in the letter notifying the person of his discharge that it is a result of wounds received in action; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt among those invalided out as a result of wounds that the reason is defined as ill-health.
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir, the Admiralty Letter sent to officers invalided from the Royal Navy as the result of wounds does not state that they are being invalided on account of ill-health. It informs them of the result of the medical survey on the question of their fitness for further Naval service. Any officer receiving wounds will have been issued with a Hurt Certificate which he can produce, should it be necessary for him after leaving the Ser-
    1218
    vice to certify this fact. It is not considered appropriate that the invaliding letter referred to should be substituted for this certificate. Ratings invalided for wounds not only receive a Hurt Certificate, but have a notation of the wound made on the Service Certificate—K.R. 606 (2).

    Sea Cadets
    Mr. Lindsayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total number of Sea Cadets allowed; how many are at present enrolled; and how many were enrolled 12 months ago.
    Mr. Alexander: The total number of Sea Cadets allowed is 50,000. There are at present 43,000 enrolled. Twelve months ago there were 41,300 enrolled.

  MALAYA (JAPANESE LANGUAGE)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the extent to which the Japanese have introduced the Japanese language as a compulsory school subject in Malaya; and with what results.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I regret that the only information I have came from Japanese sources upon which of course we can place no reliance. These reports speak of the encouragement of the Japanese language, the setting up of Japanese Language centres, the graduation of students in Japanese and the formation of study groups. I have no knowledge of the results.

  KENYA

    Economic Survey
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps are now being taken to institute the organised and comprehensive economic survey of Kenya Colony, referred to by the Governor in opening the 1944 Session of the Legislative Council; and whether he can give particulars of the arrangements which are being undertaken.
    Colonel Stanley: I have not so far received details of the steps which are being taken, and will ask the Governor for a report.

    Information Rooms
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has now been decided to establish any more information rooms, apart from those mentioned in his reply of 28th September.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. Three more information rooms have been established in Kenya, at Kiambu, Embu and Nyeri.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do everything possible to expedite the establishment of as many of these rooms as possible in the shortest possible time?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, they seem to be proving extremely successful.

  UGANDA

    Detained Maltese British Subjects
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the result of the review of the cases of Maltese British subjects interned in Uganda which he promised in July last to institute; and whether, if it is necessary that some should continue to be interned, they may now be transferred to a healthier and more temperate locality.
    Colonel Stanley: When these case were reviewed, the advisory committee recommended that all the Maltese British subjects still detained in Uganda should be released, and the Governors have accepted this advice. Arrangements are being made for their repatriation to Malta.

    Internment Camps
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to close down one of the internment camps in Uganda; and whether preference will be given to retaining the camp at Bombo rather than that at Entebbe, in view of the unsuitability of Entebbe on grounds of health as a place of prolonged internment.
    Colonel Stanley: On account of the shortage of staff and the need to use the Bombo cantonment for Government servants engaged on urgent and essential work in connection with active land survey and the development of rural water supplies, it has been found necessary to close down this internment camp. Sixty-
    1220
    eight internees and detainees are to be repatriated and the rest transferred to Entebbe. The medical authorities consider that the health conditions at Entebbe are slightly better than those at Bombo.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is considerable trouble caused by lake flies at Entebbe and that health conditions in the camp there have given ground for concern; and will he therefore look into the position at Entebbe again, with a view to the possible transfer of the camp to some other place?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, but this is the medical advice that I have.

  GIBRALTAR EVACUEES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Sir Hugh O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present prospects of sending home to Gibraltar the evacuees who are now in camps in Northern Ireland.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the position of Gibraltar evacuees at present in Ulster; and will he arrange for them either to be sent home or to be given proper conditions of life befitting citizens of the Empire.
  Colonel Stanley: I have a great deal of sympathy with these evacuees from Gibraltar and am most anxious that they should be enabled to return home as soon as possible. About half of those who left the Colony in 1940, when the evacuation was originally ordered, have now gone back. The substantial difficulty, as regards the remainder, is the extremely heavy pressure on the available accommodation in the limited and congested area of this small Colony. I am considering how this situation can best be dealt with, but I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a definite statement.
  As regards the accommodation occupied by the evacuees in Northern Ireland, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is answering a question to-morrow and as the responsible Department in this matter is his Ministry, my hon. Friend will perhaps be content to await his statement.
  Sir H. O'Neill: As the conditions are not satisfactory in the camps, would it be possible to send these Gibraltar evacuees to North Africa, where there must be a lot of more suitable camps and where the climate is much better?
  Colonel Stanley: I am considering these things, but North Africa is not under the control of His Majesty's Government.
  Miss Ward: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend explain how these conditions could ever have been allowed to arise?
  Colonel Stanley: I do not know what conditions my hon. Friend means. These people had to be evacuated because of war circumstances, and the difficulty is to get them back to this congested area. I think she will agree with me that putting a quart back into a pint pot is one of the most difficult things one can ever do.
  Sir Douglas Thomson: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend say what numbers have returned to Gibraltar?

  ARMED FORCES (CIVIL COURT SENTENCES, MALTA)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to use his powers under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act to transfer to a prison in the United Kingdom members of the British fighting forces sentenced to imprisonment by a Maltese civil court.
  Colonel Stanley: The question of removal to the United Kingdom under the Act is considered in each case according to the circumstances. Certain changes have been made in the administrative arrangements under the Act which will facilitate removal in appropriate cases and I am asking the Governor of Malta to review all cases both of Servicemen and others, in which the question of removal might arise.

  CHICAGO AIR CONFERENCE
  Mr. Perkinsasked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of debating the Chicago Conference before the Air Estimates are before the House in the spring.
  Sir Oliver Simmondsasked the Prime Minister in what manner it is pro-
  1222
  posed to report to the House upon the proceedings and conclusions of the Chicago Air Conference.
  Mr. Eden: I have been asked to reply. The form in which the proceedings and conclusions of the Chicago Air Conference will be brought to the notice of the House and the question of debating them can conveniently be considered when the Minister for Civil Aviation returns from North America. Meanwhile, I have taken note of the inquiries by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Perkins: Will the Debate take place in this House or in another place where the Minister is?
  Mr. Eden: There will have to be a Debate in this House, whatever happens in another place.
  Sir O. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend consider with the Minister when he comes back having a White Paper on this matter, because it is complicated and very urgent?
  Mr. Eden: I will consider that.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  Mr. Craik Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders; and whether it is intended to give effect to these recommendations, including the suggested amendment of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
  Mr. Eden: Careful consideration is being given to the Report, but it is too soon to say what conclusions are likely to be reached.
  Mr. Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend able to say anything about the Rules Publication Act, to which the Home Secretary has promised to bring in an amending Bill?
  Mr. Eden: I am afraid not at present because I understand that this proposal may involve legislation.
  Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend forgotten the definite promise which the Home Secretary gave us when he had that slip-up last summer?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government never forget their promises.

  KING'S BADGE
  Major C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the possibility of extending the award of the King's Badge to all those honourably discharged from His Majesty's Forces whether they are in receipt of a disability pension or not.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The badge is given as a mark of distinction for those disabled as a result of war service in the Navy, Army and Air Force, the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleet, the Home Guard, the Police, the National Fire Service and Civil Defence. To extend it to everyone honourably discharged from these Services would completely alter its purpose, and it is not proposed to make this change.
  Major Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people who have served with distinction for four or more years in one of the Armed Forces, who are discharged owing to some disability, not necessarily attributable to the war, and that they have nothing to show for their service when they get back to civilian life?
  Mr. Eden: That is another question. This badge has been designed for a particular purpose as a mark for those who have been disabled in the war, and it would be a mistake to extend it.
  Mr. Driberg: But is there anything specially honourable about attributability?
  Mr. Eden: I should have to think that one out.

  LATIN-AMERICAN TRADE (VISCOUNT HALIFAX'S SPEECH)
  Sir O. Simmondsasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a recent speech by Viscount Halifax, in Chicago, which must have the effect of undermining any export effort we may make in Latin-America; and whether this statement represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Eden: I have seen the text of Lord Halifax's speech. The remarks to which my hon. Friend refers have been taken
  1224
  out of their context. They did not constitute a statement of fact or policy, but were an illustration of the type of charge and counter-charge between British and American exporters which it is our task to remove.
  Sir O. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that the effect of those words has been seriously to discourage our efforts in Latin America and to give the United States representatives an opening to which the facts do not entitle them?
  Mr. Eden: If my hon. Friend would read the whole of the text of this speech I do not think he could possibly come to that conclusion. What Lord Halifax did was to put the arguments on the American side and the criticisms on our side; he was merely stating the problem and not stating policy.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend make a full text of the speech available?
  Mr. Eden: I will gladly lay a full copy in the Library and if I have them I will send copies to my hon. Friends who have asked questions.

  GREECE (GERMANS AND BULGARIANS)
  Captain Bullockasked the Prime Minister what information he has as to the number of German and Bulgarian subjects discovered among the E.L.A.S. forces in Greece.
  Mr. Eden: There have been reports that Germans and Bulgarians are serving with the E.L.A.S. Forces, but I have no statement to make at present.
  Mr. Dugdale: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make inquiries, will he also inquire into the numbers of those serving in the E.D.E.S. forces?
  Mr. Eden: I answered the Question with reserve on purpose because I do not want to say anything to make things more difficult.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the information at the Foreign Office of the same character as that which existed when the Government could not find out whether Germans and Italians were in Spain?

  FUEL RESEARCH
  Mr. Saltasked the Lord President of the Council what is the present position with regard to the co-ordination of coal utilisation research; whether the Joint Standing Committee on Research, of which Sir Harold Hartley is chairman, is the appropriate body to undertake such co-ordination; how many meetings this committee has held; and whether it is proposed to issue a report.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Lord President. The Standing Consultative Conference on Fuel Research was set up expressly to promote the co-ordination of all aspects of fuel research, including coal utilisation. It is composed of representatives of the Government organisations and industrial Research Associations concerned. The Conference itself has held two meetings and a number of meetings of its Committees have been held. It is not proposed, at this stage, to issue any report.
  Mr. Saltasked the Lord President of the Council whether he can now make arrangements to provide that the Fuel Research Station, Greenwich, should undertake the testing of coal-using appliances of all kinds.
  Major Lloyd George: Testing of many types of fuel using appliances is already undertaken by the Fuel Research Station. The facilities for testing domestic appliances are being expanded.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES (PATENT INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT)
  Sir Alfred Beitasked the Minister of Production whether any restrictions in connection with commercial exploitation or advertising were imposed and agreed upon between His Majesty's Government and the U.S. Government at the times when plans and drawings of British inventions or mechanical and scientific devices were offered to the U.S.A. with the object of furthering the war effort by manufacture in that country.
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper No. 6392 of 1942, known as the Patent Interchange Agreement.
  Sir A. Beit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been statements in the Press to the effect that exploitation of this sort was taking place, and could he make it clear that certain safeguards were entered into?
  Mr. Lyttelton: If my hon. Friend studies that paper he will see that safe-guards are provided. If there is any evidence that it has been abused, I shall be glad to look into it.

  TIMBER (POST-WAR IMPORTS)
  Mr. Jewsonasked the Minister of Production whether he can now make a statement as to the adequacy of arrangements for the import of timber after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the necessity for increasing supplies of imported timber after the European war is fully recognised and that all practicable steps to that end are being taken.
  Mr. Price: Have any conversations taken place with Russia on this matter, and could the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the result has been satisfactory?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I could not give any account of the actual negotiations. We have received some timber from Russia in our return convoys.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Supply if it is intended to bring about the maximum efficiency in the steel industry, the maximum output at the minimum of costs and in the price of steel; and what steps are being taken to apply this policy.
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir; the Government are fully alive to the importance of the highest efficiency in steel production and the lowest possible costs and prices, and are giving active consideration to the best methods by which these objects may be achieved.
    Mr. Smith: Does that mean that an investigation is being made into the position of the steel industry with a view to

    1227
    preparing a plan to ensure the maximum efficiency after the war?
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, we are conducting such an investigation.
    Mr. Craik Henderson: In arriving at minimum prices, is it not necessary to keep in view the price of coal?
    Sir A. Duncan: The price of coal must always be kept in mind as affecting the price of steel.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Supply the average rate of profit made in the steel industry; the average rate in the engineering industry; and the average rate of profit allowed under the Ministry's costed contracts.
    Sir A. Duncan: In the latest period for which complete figures are available, the average return in the heavy steel industry was 9.6 per cent. on employed capital. The corresponding figure for the whole of the industry, including alloys and highly finished products, was 11.1 per cent. Comparable figures for the engineering industry as such are not available. The average return currently earned on Ministry of Supply costed contracts is equivalent to 9.43 per cent. on employed capital.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Supply the average cost during the war years of structural steel in Britain and Australia at British prices; and the average amount of coal necessary to produce a ton of steel in Britain and in the U.S.A.
    Sir A. Duncan: Comparative basis prices for structural steel delivered in Australia and Great Britain are: Australia, 13 Australian pounds a ton, which at the present rate of exchange would yield £10 8s. sterling; Great Britain, £14 3s. a ton. The amount of coal required on the average to produce a ton of heavy steel in Great Britain, as compared with U.S.A., is in the ratio of 2 to 1½ the difference being mainly due to the higher grade ore available in the U.S.A.
    Mr. Smith: Does not this reply disclose a serious state of affairs, indicating that we are not using our coal to the best advantage in this country?
    Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, on the contrary. My reply relates entirely to the relativity of coal to ore.
    Sir Granville Gibson: Does it not indicate that coal has got to altogether too high a price?

    Iron Railings, Gloucestershire (Disposal)
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Minister of Supply whether all the iron railings removed from public and private premises in the county of Gloucester have now been used; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take to dispose of the remainder.
    Sir A. Duncan: The railings in question have gone into the steel works, except for 90 tons in a merchant's yard in Gloucester which are awaiting the necessary labour to prepare the material for melting. Steps are being taken to obtain the labour required.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Prosecution, Glasgow
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the firm of Smith Bros., Glasgow, supplied meat to the value of £1,500 to a firm of restaurateurs in Glasgow without a permit from the local food office; and if he will take steps to have this firm removed from the list of authorised meat traders.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I am aware of the case referred to by my hon. Friend. Inquiries, however, showed that the supposed firm of "Smith Brothers" did not in fact exist. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it within the knowledge of the Minister's Department that a firm was being covered up by the use of this name? What steps does he propose to take to proceed against the firm who actually supplied the stuff and were using "phoney" invoices?
    Colonel Llewellin: We cannot prove that the firm in question actually did supply the stuff. As the hon. Member knows, unfortunately the prosecution against the retailer failed. We do not, as a rule, revoke licences or put people out of business unless they have had a conviction in a court against them.
    Mr. McKinlay: In view of the unsatisfactory conclusion of this inquiry, will the Minister take power to impound documents in such cases, so that the originals cannot be destroyed between the inquiry and the case coming to court?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, if it is possible, as I know that documents mysteriously disappeared in this case.

    Linseed Oil Transactions (Prosecution)
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement with regard to black-market transactions in linseed oil now under investigation; and whether prosecutions are contemplated.
    Colonel Llewellin: While the investigations referred to by my hon. Friend are not yet complete, some of the persons concerned have already been brought before the court. The matter is, therefore, sub judice, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a statement.

    Milk Industry (Post-war Organisation)
    Mr. Woodsasked the Minister of Food (1) if having regard to the undertakings given by his predecessor in connection with the Perry Report further consideration is being given to the proposals of the milk industry in connection with the setting up of an independent Milk Industry Council, with the Statutory Milk Marketing Boards and a Milk Distributors' Board acting in an administrative capacity under the control of the Milk Industry Council;
    (2) whether, in the consideration of reconstruction proposals, attention has been given to the milk industry.
    Colonel Llewellin: No proposals have yet been submitted to me by the milk industry in regard to the post-war organisation of the industry, but I assure my hon. Friend that when such proposals are received they will be given careful consideration.
    Mr. Woods: In view of the undertaking given by his predecessor that some action would be taken, will the Minister now take the initiative himself, in a matter which is of so vital an importance to the health of the people?
    Colonel Llewellin: Of course, the question of how far the present methods of milk distribution will be continued will have to be considered at the appropriate time. There is another Ouestion on that subject on the Paper to-day.

    New Zealand Butter (Price)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Food why his Department has bought
    1230
    butter from New Zealand at a price above the normal wholesale price in New Zealand.
    Colonel Llewellin: I understand that in New Zealand, as in this country, the wholesale price of butter is reduced by subsidy in order to stabilise the cost of living.
    Sir H. Williams: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Debate on this subject in the New Zealand Parliament and if not will he obtain particulars of it?
    Colonel Llewellin: I will certainly look it up with interest.

    Servicemen's Children (Nutritive Foods)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food to what extent issues, free and at cheap rates, of milk, fruit juices and cod liver oil to children have declined since the increase in cash allowances to fighting men's children made many of them ineligible for free issues; what proportion of the increase in the cash allowance would be absorbed by a regular purchase of these foods; and whether he proposes any action to restore the consumption of these foods by fighting men's children to its old level.
    Colonel Llewellin: The reply to the first part of the Question is "nil, 15 per cent and 25 per cent. respectively," comparing August and September with the previous six month's average. The average weekly cost of the full allowance of milk, orange juice and cod liver oil is 1s. 6d. There is no evidence that families not entitled to free supplies cannot meet this expenditure.
    Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend answer the middle part of the Question? Does not a purchase absorb 50 per cent. of the increase in the cash allowance? Does he not think that the decline in the consumption of these vital foods is a serious matter on which he ought to consult the Treasury and the Service Departments to see whether consumption can be restored to its old level?
    Colonel Llewellin: It is not really 50 per cent., I am told, of the increase in the cash allowance.
    Mr. Keeling: What is it then?
    Colonel Llewellin: The additional cash allowance of a corporal or lower rank

    1231
    ranges from 3s. to 10s., together with 3s. for the first child, 4s. for the second and 5s. for each additional child.

    Ice Cream, Manufacture
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Food if he will outline the procedure to be adopted regarding the release of raw material for the production of ice cream; and whether his Ministry are able and intend to stipulate the quality of production.
    Colonel Llewellin: Manufacturers who were receiving allocations of controlled materials when the ban was imposed on the 1st October, 1942, were entitled to have their allowances restored as from 10th December last. In addition, skim roller powder is being allocated on the basis of fat entitlement. It is not my present intention to exercise control over the quality of production.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the procedure of this allocation completely rules out the small man in all parts of the country except London, and benefits only the big makers of ice cream? Is the Minister aware that he is definitely sending these small people into the black market for their milk?
    Colonel Llewellin: I know there is a problem there. The first thing we did was to restore the allocations as at the date when they were cut off, and then we based this extra roller skim milk on the fat allocation. I know that, as it has turned out, it has hit some people hard and I am going into that matter. My policy will be to be as fair as I can all round.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister prepared to receive representations from the hard-hit people?
    Colonel Llewellin: Officials of my Department are already meeting them.

    Milk Supplies (Priority)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Food whether, having regard to the necessity of ensuring adequate nutrition, the Government propose to continue priority supplies of milk to expectant mothers and children after the war; and if so, what steps is it proposed to take to allocate supplies to dairymen and to be assured that dairymen deliver the priority milk as authorised.
    Mr. Walter Greenasked the Minister of Food whether, having regard to priority needs, it is proposed to regulate the distribution of milk by means of a statutory milk distributors' organisation; and what steps it is proposed to take to regulate the activities of the Milk Marketing Board in connection with distribution.
    Colonel Llewellin: No change is contemplated in the present priority arrangements so long as cousumption of milk by the general public has to be restricted. It is as yet too early to say what changes if any may later be made in regard to milk distribution.
    Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this matter will be reviewed at the earliest opportunity?
    Colonel Llewellin: Before we can get over this difficult milk supply position, I do need some 350,000,000 gallons of additional liquid milk per annum. I do not say that we shall not make some alteration in distribution arrangements before we reach that figure, but it will be quite a considerable time.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that milk supply to soldiers in hospitals is already being cut down and that tuberculous cases cannot get enough milk? Does not the Minister think it is about time that he seriously considered putting more grain into cows and less into beer?
    Colonel Llewellin: My Noble Friend can rest assured that cows are the first priority for any feeding-stuffs, and that the full amount of feeding-stuffs is provided, so that we can get the maximum amount of liquid milk in this country. I have no information whatever that there is a shortage of milk in hospitals. In fact, the latest returns show that hospitals are getting more than they have ever had before.

    Turkeys, Northern Ireland
    Mr. Dermot Campbellasked the Minister of Food whether the restriction on the sending of turkeys by post by private individuals applies to such individuals throughout the United Kingdom or only to those in Northern Ireland.
    Colonel Llewellin: I have made an Order prohibiting, except under licence, the consignment and transport from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and the

    1233
    Isle of Man during the period 26th November, 1944, to 31st January, 1945, of gift parcels of poultry exceeding 7 lbs. gross weight. No corresponding restriction has been imposed on the consignment of poultry from other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Campbell: Does that mean that farmers in this country, who can receive visits, when they wish, from their relatives, can send them Christmas presents of turkeys, while farmers in Northern Ireland, who have not received visits from their relatives on this side during the last five years, are not permitted to do so?
    Colonel Llewellin: Any genuine gift of a turkey from Northern Ireland to a friend will get a licence. In fact, I am told that about 18,000 licences have already been given, but the position was really getting to the point that people were saying that the turkeys were gifts when they were really sales to people who wanted to sell them over here.

    Bacon Ration (Fat)
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Food if he has examined the rashers of solid bacon fat sent to him which a Streatham resident was compelled to accept from the South Suburban Co-operative Society as part of his ration; and will he take steps to stop this practice.
    Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes, Sir." In recent weeks a portion of the bacon issued to meet ration requirements has been fat bacon of this kind, which is good wholesome food. The alternative would have been to reduce the bacon ration.
    Mr. Robertson: Would it not be more correct to say that it is good wholesome fat? There is really no trace of bacon in it. Is the Minister aware that many people are refusing to accept this fat, with the result that the retailer has to give more fat to those people who are accepting it? Will he please examine the situation to see whether he can retain these fat bellies in cold storage as a reserve?
    Colonel Llewellin: Unfortunately, we were faced with the position either of reducing the bacon ration or making some of it up with this fat bacon. I take the view that it would be a bad thing, at any
    1234
    rate in the winter months, to reduce the bacon ration if it can be kept going as it is.
    Mr. Robertson: Has the Minister not missed the point, that there is a lot of fat going out masquerading as bacon?
    Colonel Llewellin: If I had not sent out that fat—and in fact a piece the hon. Member sent me had one streak of lean in it—I would not have had enough bacon to have kept the bacon ration going.

    Vegetable Sales (Weight)
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Minister of Food in how many cases his Department's costing director, who visited Covent Garden market on 7th December, discovered serious short weights in packages containing vegetables; is he aware that retailers are compelled to accept these packages without protest or go without supplies in future; and what action he proposes to take.
    Colonel Llewellin: The invoices concerned are not yet all available. I am, therefore, unable to say how far, if at all, the packages of vegetables investigated by the Director of Costings on 7th December fell short of the declared weights. With reference to the second half of my hon. Friend's Question, it is difficult for my Department to protect retailers if they will not provide information regarding breaches of Orders.
    Mr. Robertson: While fully appreciating the difficulty of the situation, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend seriously to tackle this problem, because his Director found 14 lbs. of earth in a package which should have contained 56 lbs. of carrots, and that is not an isolated case—it is quite usual—and if retailers protest they are penalised? There is a short market and they would not be supplied.
    Colonel Llewellin: It is quite true we weighed some packages, but we have not yet got the invoices to show my Director of Costings what weight the package was shown by the invoice as containing.
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the injustice done to retailers of vegetables, namely, cauliflowers which are sold by the grower with foliage and have to be trimmed by the retailer in order to comply with a food order, thereby reducing the weight very

    1235
    considerably; and if he will take action to rectify this unfair position.
    Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The Green Vegetables Maximum Prices Order provides allowances to the retailer designed to cover the average cost of trimming cauliflower to comply with the Order.
    Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that there is a difference of weight as between 6 ozs. and three-quarters of a lb. when the trimmings of some cauliflowers are removed? If I send him information will be look into this matter?
    Colonel Llewellin: Prices are as follow: The secondary wholesaler sells at 26s. 3d. a cwt. if untrimmed, and 34s. 3d. if trimmed, and the retailer sells at 56s.
    Mr. Higgs: That is not a reply to my Question. Will the Minister look into this matter further if I send him proof of the statement I have made?
    Colonel Llewellin: I shall certainly be very glad to look into any facts which my hon. Friend puts before me. I was only pointing out that there is a margin of 29s. 9d. between the wholesaler's price and the retailer's price.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Losses Through Negligence (Writing Off)
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what authority in the Colonial Service is empowered to sanction the write-off of public money, stamps or stores lost as a result of negligence by a public servant; and up to what amount or value.
    Colonel Stanley: Writing off losses due to the gross negligence of a public servant requires the authority of the Governor up to the amount of £25 of cash or stamps, and £50 of stores, and of the Secretary of State of amounts in excess of these. Where gross negligence is not involved, the limit of the Governor's authority is £100.
    Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that these limits were fixed a very long time ago, and in view of the grave responsibilities of Governors, would it not be a good idea to extend the limit to a higher figure?
    Colonel Stanley: They were not fixed a long time ago. Until the war there was
    1236
    no discretion on the part of the Governor at all. I will certainly look into the matter to see if there is a case for a further revision.

    Administrative Officers (Office Facilities)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if consideration is being given to the provision of shorthand secretaries, Dictaphones and radio telephony apparatus to provincial and district commissioners in the Colonial territories, in view of the increasing amount of office work required of them, so that they can discharge their paper work more expeditiously and not neglect visiting their territories.
    Colonel Stanley: Colonial Governments are fully alive to the importance of touring by administrative officers and are as anxious as I am that they should be relieved as much as possible of routine office work. The methods by which such relief should be secured are primarily for those Governments to decide, and I shall be glad to bring to their notice the particular suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

    Mass Education (Report)
    Wing-Commander Grant-Ferrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Report on Mass Education in the Colonies.
    Colonel Stanley: The far-reaching proposals made in this Report are still under consideration in most of the territories concerned. But in one, Sierra Leone, an experimental community education campaign on lines similar to those suggested in the Report has already been so successful that a grant has been made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote, for its extension to a wider area.
    Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: Will the Secretary of State consider this a matter of some urgency, as it is bound up with the question of the returning demobilised troops, who will be looking for educational facilities?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, I certainly regard it as a matter of great urgency but the hon. and gallant Member, with his recent experience, will know how terribly short of Colonial Service staff is nearly every Colony.

  PALESTINE (TERRORIST ACTIVITIES)
  Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken since Lord Moyne's murder to deal with terrorist activities in Palestine and neighbouring countries.
  Colonel Stanley: do not think it would be to the public interest to make a full statement on this matter. The Palestine Government has very full powers to deal with terrorism and these powers are being used. A large number of arrests have been made. But for their activities to be fully effective the Government must be able to rely on the same degree of active assistance from the general public as would be given in similar circumstances in this country. I understand that the police are now receiving much more help than they were before the tragic death of Lord Moyne but that there is still room for improvement.
  Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that this murder was one of a long series of murders and outrages, will my right hon. and gallant Friend be sure that every possible step is taken to ensure the safety of our civil servants and officers in Palestine, who have borne a very heavy burden throughout the war?
  Colonel Stanley: I am sure the whole House will appreciate the atmosphere in which those people have been living and working for so long, and the risks they have been taking. Everything possible under the difficult circumstances will be done to ensure their safety.

  WEST INDIES

    Postal Communications
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the British West Indies there is criticism of the delays in the delivery of letters from residents to their relatives and friends on active service and in this country; that such delays do not occur in the correspondence of Americans and Australians; and if he will investigate the matter with a view to remedial action.
    Colonel Stanley: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. An air letter scheme has, however, recently been inaugurated between certain
    1238
    Colonies in the area and countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, and I hope that this will result in an appreciable improvement in postal communications. The remaining Colonies in the area intend to introduce the air letter scheme at an early date.
    Sir L. Lyle: Is the British censorship not responsible for a great deal of the delays, as against the American and Australian censorship?
    Colonel Stanley: That was not the case of the delay to which the hon. Gentleman is referring in this Question.

    Currency
    Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the resolution passed at the 7th Congress of the Associated West Indian Chambers of Commerce, held in Barbados in June, 1944, that they consider the time opportune for the introduction of a unified West Indian currency, based on the decimal system; and what action be proposes to take in this matter.
    Colonel Stanley: I have read the resolution with interest. The subject is one which I had myself re-opened with West Indian Governments some time ago. I have not yet received the views of all the Colonial Governments concerned, and until I have done so I shall not be able to consider the next step.

  WEST AFRICA (COCOA MARKETING)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements will be made under the post-war scheme for the marketing of West African cocoa to protect the interests of the consumer.
  Colonel Stanley: I am not yet in a position to make a final statement. I agree, however, with the desirability of consumer representation and am considering it in the settlement of the detailed scheme. This will be made available to the House before the vote of the necessary moneys is submitted for approval.
  Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend at least say whether under the post-war scheme it will be possible for manufacturers of cocoa to buy in a futures market in order to keep consumers' prices stable?
  Colonel Stanley: That is a rather different question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

  MAURITIUS (MALARIA CONTROL)
  Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any estimate has been received from the Government of Mauritius of the cost of eliminating malaria, for which plans are stated to be already far advanced; and whether it will be possible to make a start on the work in advance of the report of the anti-malarial engineer for whose appointment provision has already been approved under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act.
  Colonel Stanley: A scheme is now under consideration for the control of malaria in Mauritius, involving capital expenditure estimated to amount to £1,500,000. Anti-malarial work is already being carried out in the Island, and the scheme, which embodies the recommendations of the anti-malarial engineer referred to in the second part of the Question, provides for a considerable expansion of that work.

  NEW MOTOR ROADS (AGRICULTURAL LAND)
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the policy as regards the construction of new motor roads from London to distant parts of the United Kingdom; the estimated cost of construction of such roads; will the local authorities concerned be consulted before the lay-out of any such road is decided on; and will the interests of agriculture, as well as the local amenities affected, be taken into consideration before any decisions are come to on this matter.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): The Government propose to ask Parliament for the necessary powers to construct suitable lengths of road reserved for mechanically-propelled vehicles. The cost of building such roads is estimated at approximately £100,000 a mile, at pre-war prices. The local authorities concerned will, of course, be consulted, and if it is required, a public inquiry will be held before the plans are settled. As my Department's engineers work in the closest
  1240
  collaboration with the officers of the Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries and of Town and Country Planning, my hon. and gallant Friend need have no doubt that agricultural interests and the preservation of amenities will be fully considered.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it a fact that these roads are to be something like 95 feet in width; and will there not be a very great loss of agricultural land in consequence of this waste of concrete being put across the country? Also will not farms be artificially divided by these roads; and will it be possible to have communications between the different parts of a farm?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall certainly do everything possible to maintain communications between different parts of farms and to adjust agricultural interests, as we do, when roads are being constructed. My hon. and gallant Friend must remember that traffic is going to increase very greatly, and that perhaps more agricultural land will be taken for widening existing roads than for constructing new roads, for traffic only.
  Mr. Montague: Will my hon. Friend help to preserve for us a few Devonshire lanes?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope that this will preserve many of them.

  PASSENGER TRANSPORT VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION ORDER)
  Miss Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will make a full statement as to the reasons for refusing to alter the terms of the Order to enable motor vehicle manufacturers to compete in overseas markets; and why the requests were turned down, after over 12 months' delay, without consultation.
  Mr. Leachasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if the passenger motor-omnibuses of 8 feet width, now in service in certain areas, have proved satisfactory; and will he remove the existing 7 feet 6 inches restriction.
  Sir William Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware of the serious handicap to motor manufacturers who are anxious to respond to the Government's appeal to make preparations for export

  1241
  after the war, by reason of the fact that British requirements regulating the design of motor vehicles in this country are for the most part unacceptable in other countries; and will immediate steps be taken to adapt our regulations so as to secure the utmost possible uniformity with overseas requirements, and thus enable our motor manufacturers to proceed with their preparations for export.
  Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (1) why the public service vehicle manufacturers and the operators' associations were not consulted before he refused to alter the Construction Order relating to public service vehicles;
  (2) if, in view of the grave injury being done to our export trade by his refusal to alter the Construction Order in connection with public service vehicles, he will review his decision.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend was asked to sanction increases in the permitted laden weights, and in the over-all lengths, widths and heights of passenger transport vehicles. After consultation with the authorities and interests concerned, he agreed to certain changes in the regulations governing weight and height. He has not felt able to allow increases of permitted length or width, for the reason that on roads where the traffic is dense such increases would cause further congestion and accidents. In reaching this conclusion, my Noble Friend took into account all the considerations to which my hon. Friends have drawn atention. I cannot accept the suggestion that there has been any avoidable delay.
  Miss Ward: Before my hon. Friend came to this decision, did he consult the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department? Did they agree with the decision?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, I think that is so. I will verify it, but I am sure that it is so.
  Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the grave damage to our export trade, and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible moment, on the Adjournment.

  LONDON-SOUTHEND TRAIN SERVICES
  Mr. Channonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the serious all-round deterioration of the train services between Southend and London, especially in respect of late running; and whether he will take steps to introduce, as soon as possible, substantial improvement.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware of the difficulties which the railway company have experienced in maintaining punctual services on the line to Southend, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend about them. In the meantime, the train working is under special observation, and every effort is being made to effect an improvement.
  Mr. Channon: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of people, many of them war workers, suffer daily discomfort and inconvenience; and that since the so-called improvement in the train services for Southend started, I have had the early morning train watched, and that for 20 mornings out of 22 it was very late, and that it was always overcrowded?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I know that passengers are suffering great hardships. I will endeavour to explain to my hon. Friend the difficulties, which we are doing our best to put right, but which it is extremely hard for us to overcome.

  TOLL BRIDGE, WARBURTON
  Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is prepared to negotiate with the interested authorities and assist in the freeing from tolls of Warburton Bridge, which crosses the Manchester Ship Canal, in view of the great inconvenience at present caused and the fact that over 2,000 interested persons have signed a petition for the freeing of this bridge from toll.
  Mr. Goldieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to and the expense incurred by the trading community of Warrington and neighbourhood by the exaction of tolls on the bridge situated at Warburton; and whether he is prepared

  1243
  to enter into negotiations with the appropriate authorities for the abolition of such charges.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the county councils concerned submit proposals, I shall be glad to consider them.

  ANTI-SEMITIC PROPAGANDA (LEGAL ACTION)
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Attorney-General whether he will make it clear that anti-Semitic propaganda is liable to legal action as the initial stage in Fascist propaganda and enemy action.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Propaganda, unless it incites to violence or otherwise comes within the law of libel, is not normally a breach of the law. I would like to add that it is difficult to make hypothetical pronouncements of the kind suggested in the Question, in this or other branches of law.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: As it is so important not to be anti-Semitic, and as I am proudly pro-Semitic, cannot we make it easier for those who feel like me to formulate regulations that will safeguard the minority?
  The Attorney-General: If I fully understand that, it is a suggestion that there should be an alteration in the criminal law. That would not be a matter for me to deal with. The hon. Member's question is a hypothetical one, with regard to the law as it is.

  INDIAN STATES (CHAMBER OF PRINCES)
  The following Question stood on the Order Paper, in the name of Sir RALPH GLYN:
  100. To ask the Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to make a statement regarding representations made by the Chamber of Princes to the Viceroy concerning the future development of their territories.
  The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): May I make a brief statement
  1244
  dealing with the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)? In September last a small deputation of Princes, led by the Chancellor of the Chamber, was received by the Crown Representative. The matters discussed covered a wide field. A formal reply was sent on 2nd December, on behalf of the Crown Representative, to the points raised by the deputation. On 3rd December, just before the date fixed for the Session of the Chamber of Princes, the Chancellor informed Lord Wavell that he, the Pro-Chancellor, and 19 members of the Standing Committee had resigned their offices and membership of that Committee. No question arises of the Crown Representative accepting or not accepting these resignations, since appointments connected with the Chamber of Princes are made, not by him but by the Chamber itself; but they inevitably caused a postponement of the Session of the Chamber. The Princes have made no statement indicating what particular issue or issues led them to resign. Until the situation is clear, I should not like to express an opinion on this point. I would emphasize, however, that the reply to the Princes to which I have alluded contained nothing new in principle or policy. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Viceroy has received an assurance from the Princes concerned that their resignation will not affect their determination to do their utmost to help in the prosecution of the war.
  On the question of the future development of the Indian States, to which the hon. Member has referred, I may add that discussions on this subject and its relation to post-war development in British India were initiated with representatives of the Princes in October last. These discussions are at a preliminary stage only; and the reply to the Princes' deputation which I have mentioned merely referred to the discussions and to the importance of the question. The Government of India are aware of the necessity for so shaping their post-war development plans that the benefits will, as far as possible, accrue to the whole country, and not to British India only.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  "to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government franchises, and the registration of parliamentary and local government electors, to provide for the resumption of local elections, and otherwise to amend the law relating to parliamentary and local government elections, including the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. Ernest Brown; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944
      CLASS II

        COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."
        12.2 p.m.
        The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I am sure that the Committee will deplore the events which have made necessary the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate. On 20th August, the island of Jamaica was struck by a hurricane more severe than any that had been experienced for over 40
        1264
        years. Luckily, it seems to have avoided, to some extent, at any rate, the main centres of population, with the result that the loss of life was smaller than one might have anticipated, but the damage to property was of very serious dimensions. In the Northern and North-Eastern parts of the island, where the hurricane struck with its full force, it is reckoned that something like 80 per cent. of the banana plantations were destroyed, 1,500,000 coconut trees blown down or broken, and serious losses caused to mixed cultivation and to orchard crops, such as citrus fruits, and to fishermen's gear. In addition, in that area, there were 17,000 buildings totally destroyed and 20,000 buildings badly damaged.
        It is quite clear that the island of Jamaica, left to its own financial resources, would have been quite unable to meet the effect of such a serious cataclysm of nature. Jamaica is not one of those territories which has benefited by the war. The interruption of shipping has, in fact, made her economic position extremely difficult, and her financial situation, to say the least of it, tight. When the Government applied to me, representing His Majesty's Government, for assistance, I felt that I could, without any hesitation, say that I would submit to this Committee and this House, in full certainty that they would support it, a request for financial assistance. Of course, I am tied, in the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate, strictly to the matters set out in that Estimate, but I think that it would probably be in order for me to explain why another big measure of assistance which we are giving to Jamaica in connection with the hurricane, is not included in the Supplementary Estimate.
        We have left to the resources of the island itself the problem of dealing with the restoration of public buildings, communications, etc., even though that is estimated at something like £350,000, but we are giving assistance, not only to the particular branch of what I might call agricultural rehabilitation, included in this Estimate, but also on the very much more serious problem of the rebuilding of houses which is involved. Under that heading, we have been asked by the Jamaica Government for assistance to the extent of £30,000 in direct grant, and no less than £875,000 in interest-free loan, and I have agreed to give it. The reason

        1265
        why that does not appear in this Estimate, is that I think that the rebuilding of houses, where it is certainly the intention that the new house, when built, will conform more to our ideas of modern practice and social desirability than the old one, could well come within the limits of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, because there is, in this replacement of what one might call a blitzed area, a real element of development and a real assistance to the building programme which, in any case, we should have undertaken under the Act.
        Therefore, the assistance given under this head will come out of the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote, a sub-head of which, of course, appears in the main Estimates, and it is only in so far as, at the end of the year, the sum actually dispensed to Jamaica will bring the sum dispensed under that head over the sum estimated in the general Estimates that I shall have to come to the House for a further Supplementary Estimate. This other part, which is set out here as agricultural rehabilitation, had no corresponding sub-head in the original Estimate, and therefore has to come to the Committee in this form.
        By far the most serious damage was that suffered by the banana plantations. In the days before the war, the export of bananas from Jamaica used to run somewhere about £2,000,000, 50 per cent. of the total Jamaica export, and, though, of course, war conditions and the unfortunate incidence of banana disease—leaf-spot disease—has brought these exports to a standstill now, it is clear that the future financial and commercial position of Jamaica is largely bound up with a prosperous banana export. It is, therefore, quite essential that, for that purpose, it should be resuscitated, and also for the fact that, at the present moment, it is not possible to export bananas. They are, of course, being bought by His Majesty's Government and consumed locally, and do provide a very valuable local food crop.
        Most of these banana growers are small men without resources, and it is necessary, if they are to rehabilitate the industry and be able to face the future, to give them the utmost assistance possible. What the Government is asking for, and what, in this Estimate, the Committee is asked to approve, is, first of all, a free grant of £196,000 and a loan, free
        1266
        of interest, of £454,000. The loan will be free of interest from us to the Government of Jamaica, and will be re-lent from the Government of Jamaica to borrowers locally for three years at 2½ per cent. interest. While the interest is designed merely to cover the charges of operating the loan and to give a reserve against bad debts, the amounts loaned will be amounts up to £6 per acre as a maximum, and will vary according to the degree of damage which has been done to the holding as a whole. Where there has been a large degree of damage to the holding as a whole, the amount per acre will be bigger.
        The next most important crop which has suffered is the coconut crop, where the acreage involved is some 20,000. Here, owing to the long time which coconuts take to reach maturity, it is considered that loans will be sufficient. No direct grant is being given, but there will be an interest-free loan of £550,000 to be re-lent locally for 20 years, free of interest for six years and at 2½ per cent. thereafter. Here, the maximum loan per acre will be as much as £25. One incidental result of this assistance to this particular form of agriculture is that the work of replanting takes a considerable amount of labour and therefore will provide a considerable amount of employment to people in the district who suffered from the hurricane.
        Orchard crops, fortunately, suffered rather less. They are mainly citrus, and investigation shows that the damage done there was a good deal less than was expected and was at one time feared. The Governor had asked for a loan, free of interest, of £15,000 which will be re-lent to growers for 10 years at 2½ per cent.
        12.15 p.m.
        With regard to the ordinary food crops they will get a loan of £70,000 to be re-lent locally at 2½ per cent. where the money is required for replanting purposes. There are a certain number of cases in which small cultivators might qualify for assistance under all these headings. They may be growing bananas and coconuts and food crops at the same time. Obviously it would be inconvenient to give such growers assistance on various terms in respect of each bit of production, and in those cases their production will be treated as a whole, and for those cases we are providing a loan of £40,000, free of interest, to be re-lent to growers for three

        1267
        years at 2½ per cent. I do not know whether the Committee will require further details of the actual way in which these sums are being expended, but if so I should be prepared to answer any questions. The main facts are clear—that Jamaica has suffered this terrible act of God, and that without assistance from this House would be quite unable to meet the consequences of the damage. I feel certain that the Committee will be prepared to vote this money and give to Jamaica, who to-morrow is voting on the new constitution, a real chance of re-establishing herself and of regaining economic stability and well being.
        Mr. Creech Jones: I think the Committee should express its acknowledgment of the very speedy way in which this matter was dealt with by the Secretary of State and his Department. It shows again the very practical and active assistance which the British Government are prepared to render to people who have been smitten by so grave a calamity as in this case. Throughout the whole period of the war the Government have given a continuing guarantee in regard to many of the crops and the financial situation of cultivators in Jamaica, and this instance is another indication of our interest in the economic development and progress of Jamaica. As the Secretary of State has said, Jamaica, of her own resources, certainly could not have weathered so severe a calamity. We ought therefore to place on record our appreciation of the way in which the local Government immediately proceeded to find a way out of the difficult problems which were presented to them by the disaster and the ready way in which the British Government responded, with a very generous gesture, to all the representations made by the local Government. There is still a little anxiety about whether the assistance will be as complete as had been hoped. As banana cultivation is the basic industry of Jamaica, I trust that if it should prove that the money we are now asked to vote is not quite adequate, and there are still cases of real distress and hardship, that such cases so far as possible will be met.
        There is only one further observation I should like to make, in order that we may be perfectly clear about the money we are voting. I gather that the money
        1268
        does not come out of the sum which was allocated under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940. It would be unfortunate if it were conceived that the moneys which have become and are becoming available for social and development work were in any way reduced by reason of a calamity which was completely outside everyone's control. I would hope that the development plans may proceed, and that the £1,000,000 previously spoken of as available for West Indian development will not be reduced, because these other large sums of money are to be made available for meeting this disaster. On behalf of my party I wish to give our ardent support to the recommendation of the Secretary of State and we hope the Committee will unanimously endorse it.
        Captain Gammans: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has said. I was in Jamaica at the beginning of this year, and I can fully support what the Colonial Secretary said about the extent to which banana cultivation is an intrinsic part of the economic set-up of the island. It is not only one of the great exports of the island but is a crop which is largely in the hands of small cultivators, and without some help from this Parliament it would not have been possible for them to get on their feet again. I do not want to be priggish about this grant in aid, but I hope my right hon. Friend will do something to make known to the people of this country and also to the world at large the underlying spirit behind it, namely, that in times of stress the people of our Colonial Empire can look to the people of this country, hard pressed as we are by taxation and by our own difficulties, to help them out of their troubles. I doubt whether the average man in this country realises what has been done, realises, for example, the implications of the White Paper issued only last week on the war effort of this country. What we have received from our own Colonies has not been on a Lend-Lease basis; we have to pay it back. I do not think that one person in 100,000 realises what my right hon. Friend said when he mentioned that the banana crop of the West Indies had been bought by the British Government and left in the country. One could continue

        1269
        with such examples almost indefinitely. I am afraid that as a rule Colonial matters do not "hit the headlines" in the newspapers, but I hope we shall do something to make known that behind the giving of this money lies a great opportunity of co-operation between ourselves and the Colonial people.
        In conclusion I think we ought to realise that the sum of money we are giving, essential as it may be, is not in itself enough to get the banana industry on its feet again. What they want is not merely money to enable them to grow the bananas but a market for the bananas when they are ready for export. What the banana industry in the West Indies needs more than anything else is to get back its banana boats. Previously there were five or six of these boats specially fitted for the transport of bananas. Most of them, I believe, have been lost in the war, and if this industry is to be an intrinsic part of the economic life of the West Indies again it is essential that new boats should be obtained at the earliest opportunity. I know that up to now there has been difficulty over this, but already we are starting to build special ships, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be reluctant to press the claims of the West Indies for special ships to be built for their essential banana trade.
        Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to say how glad I am that the British Government have acted so promptly in this matter. What occurred to me while the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking—and it is the reason why I have risen—is that we have heard many arguments in this House and elsewhere for the international control of certain Colonies, I should like to point out that if an international body had been in control of Jamaica it would have been some time before the representatives on that international body had got the sanction of their Governments to help Jamaica in her time of stress, and there would probably have been a long delay before she received any help. Under the beneficent and generous control which we in this country have for long shown in our dealings with our Colonies, I feel that they inevitably benefit in the long run. Here is a case in point, which provides a complete answer, I think, to those who would wish to have the Colonies under
        1270
        some international commission on which all representatives would be arguing questions of policy and possibly could not take any financial steps before appealing to their separate Governments. It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said that Jamaica, at a time like this, could not meet her own needs. While these islands and Colonies are proceeding along the path towards self-government and full constitutional control—it is clear that they cannot attain this completely until they can maintain themselves—they must look to the generosity of the country which is, as it were, exercising a generous rule over them, for the help they need. That is the point I had in mind when I rose, and although we do not wish to praise ourselves when we are making gifts, nevertheless I, as British taxpayer, feel that I am entitled to say what I have said.
        Captain Peter Macdonald: I too, would like to congratulate the Colonial Secretary upon the promptitude which he has shown in dealing with the crisis in Jamaica caused by the recent hurricane. I am sure the people of Jamaica will feel grateful to him, for his sympathy and action in this crisis. One cannot help feeling sympathy for the Governor, Sir John Huggins, who, when I was in Jamaica recently, was looking forward to introducing his first Budget as Governor and was hoping, not without reason, to be able to show a surplus. This would have been the first occasion for a long time for Jamaica to be in such a position. In one fell swoop this hurricane has swept away the anticipated surplus and caused a deficit. The Governor and his wife have faced the crisis in an admirable spirit, and I have heard from all sides that the way in which the Government of Jamaica and the Governor and Lady Huggins acted in coping with the hardships created by the hurricane, has met with the admiration of everybody concerned.
        12.30 p.m.
        Many people may not realise the importance of the banana industry to Jamaica. I hope when the amount of money which we are able to give as a grant, or loan, is distributed, it will be distributed in such a way that the small man will get his share. There is also the question of the future of the industry as mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain

        1271
        Gammans). The banana disease can practically wipe out a crop, and I hope that when the new crops are being planted attention will be paid to research, and that a stronger banana, able to withstand disease, will be grown. It is going to be some time before the new crop is saleable, but I hope that by the time it is on the market there will be markets in this country for it.
        There is also the question which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, of transport. That is a very important problem. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will prevail upon the Ministry of War Transport to lay down some banana boats as soon as it is possible to build ships, and to produce better, faster and larger boats, with a greater cargo capacity than they had in the past. That is a very urgent problem, because some of the boats the industry had have been lost. I would like to see banana boats built as passenger-carrying boats as well—fast boats—in order to give people an opportunity of going to these West Indian Islands. I am sure that people would take advantage of such a facility to make a trip for holidays if cabin space were available. There appears to be no reason why such boats should not be built to carry passengers as well as the banana traffic. Regarding the future of the industry, I think a policy of insurance should be evolved. I am very sorry I was not here when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was introducing his Estimate, but I feel sure that is a very necessary thing. I want to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on coming to the assistance of this very important Colony, and I feel sure the people of Jamaica are grateful.
        Colonel Stanley: If I may I would say a few words in response to some of the questions raised. Naturally, I am very grateful, and my Department, which has worked hard in this matter, will be gratified at hearing some of the things said, but the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) both point out—and I am sure we should all like to emphasise the fact—that this has meant a very great deal of work which has been promptly and successfully executed by the Government in Jamaica, a Government who are already hardly
        1272
        pressed with the introduction of the new constitution. I think they responded extremely well and rapidly to the crisis. The hon. Member for Shipley asked two questions. The first was whether assistance was as complete as was hoped. I take it that the view of the Committee is that we should help Jamaica to get on its legs again. We are trying to do what the Governor has asked us to do. He has formed his estimate of what is needed, but if events prove that his estimate is not enough then, I am sure, the Committee would be prepared to reconsider the matter.
        The second question was whether this money came out of the Development and Welfare Vote. The rehabilitation of agriculture, with which we are dealing now, was, I felt, not a suitable subject for the Development and Welfare Fund. On the other hand, I did feel that the rebuilding programme should come out of the Fund because, at any rate, the Government was going to have a rebuilding programme and this could well form part of it.
        Several hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans), have referred to the question of banana boats after the war, both the return of the banana boats which survive and the building of new ones. I am only too anxious to help in the matter and to lend what influence I can to both sides of the demand, but hon. Members will realise that the time at which these things can be done must depend upon war considerations—whether boats can be spared from what they are doing now. I think most of these boats have been engaged in bringing meat to this country. Whether the available shipbuilding space which may be needed for other types of shipping can be freed for the building of special boats of this kind remains to be seen, but I will give what help I can in the matter. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) referred to what might have been the procedure if, unhappily, Jamaica had been under international control. I think he made a very good point, but I think the hon. Member for Shipley will agree that there are very few people in this country now—who think about Colonial problems—who would like to see Jamaica under an international administration.
        Mr. Riley: As one who has, on several occasions, adversely criticised

        1273
        what is always regarded on this side of the Committee as tardiness in spending the money provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1940, I may be permitted to join with other hon. Members who have congratulated the Colonial Secretary on the readiness with which he came to the assistance of the banana growers in Jamaica in connection with the recent disaster which has overtaken them. I heartily join with those hon. Members who expressed their congratulations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very timely help he has given to those growers and planters.
        Might I add that I also share the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), that serious attention should be given to the question of transport, either by providing additional boats or other means. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, not only would the possibility of more suitable shipping be advantageous to the banana growers and the industry generally in Jamaica, but if passenger accommodation could be provided I am quite sure that many people in this country would take advantage of such a facility to make the acquaintance of those very interesting Colonies of ours in the Caribbean Sea. I hope that the spirit which the Colonial Secretary has displayed, in his readiness to come to the assistance of those who suffered from the result of the hurricane in Jamaica, will be regarded as a portent of the attention we propose to give in the future to this question, and that we should do everything possible in this Imperial Parliament to assist our Colonial people in the West Indies to go forward in a progressive and enlightened way.
        Question, put and agreed to.
        Resolved;
        "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."

        DOMINION SERVICES
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,750, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st
        1274
        day of March, 1945, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with ex-Service men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
        The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): This money is asked for in order to provide £9,000 for the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee. The money is required, in particular, for capital expenditure as the result of the destruction of one of their clubs, belonging to the Victoria League, by enemy action, and also to the destruction of the annexe to another. It is also required for the maintenance of clubs elsewhere and the organisation of hospitality for Dominion exprisoners-of-war pending transhipment to their home countries. The £750 for the Shamrock Club is required for a club which was organised especially for Irishmen, both from Eire and Northern Ireland, serving in the United Kingdom Forces. Owing to the precise terms of the grant in aid, it is not possible to include it in the £9,000. This club, as I have said, provides only for Irishmen who are serving in the United Kingdom Forces and not those serving in the Dominion Forces, and, therefore, it will have to be dealt with separately. I hope the Committee will agree to grant these sums.
        Mr. Creech Jones: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I would like to be informed—if it is at all possible—what are the bodies to whom this money will be voted, who is responsible for their management, and what clubs are actually involved. Further, I would like to ask, whether the time has not come for the Dominions Office, with the Colonial Office, to consider seriously whether, as this city is the centre of the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire, something much more dignified should be done in respect of providing accommodation and hospitality for visitors from the Dominions, whether they be ex-Servicemen or ex-war prisoners, or whatever they may be. Could there not be some great dignified building in keeping with the nation's Imperial faith which has been so often expressed here in years gone by, particularly by Members on the other side of the Committee? This rather piecemeal way in which hospitality is handled seems to be so unsatisfactory for a nation of the

        1275
        dignity of Great Britain. I would like to know whether some consideration has been given to that problem instead of the Dominions and Colonial Offices having, from time to time, to come to this House for small payments to meet deficiencies here or to meet some disaster which may have overtaken a club. Let this sort of thing be lifted away from charity and put into a position which is dignified, adequate and ample.
        12.45 p.m.
        Sir Patrick Hannon: I am particularly gratified that this Vote embodies a contribution to the Shamrock Club, which has been organised in this city for the entertainment of Irishmen in any of the Defence Services who come here from Southern Ireland. This Club was founded by a number of persons who were pleased to give encouragement to people in Southern Ireland to place their services at the disposal of His Majesty's Government in defence of the great principles for which this war is being fought. I would like to pay a compliment, in supporting the Vote, to Lady Simon for her very active interest in the promotion of this Club. She has taken particular care from time to time to visit the Club and has taken an interest in the welfare of the various members of all the Services who, from time to time, are entertained at the Club. May I perhaps transgress the Rules of Order and say that I think this Club is an example of what has been done by Irish men and women entirely detached from political considerations in this country in support of the great cause of liberty for which we are fighting to-day. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can say how many people from Southern Ireland and Eire are serving in the Navy, the Army and the Air Forces. The last figure that I saw——
        The Chairman The Chairman rose——
        Sir P. Hannon: I am sorry, Major Milner. I am afraid I am infringing the Rules of Order in putting that point to the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, but anybody visiting that club will see evidence of the patriotism and devotion of the people of Southern Ireland fighting in our Services in all parts of the world, and will realise that their entertainment and welfare are looked after by
        1276
        the people responsible for this club. I would like, as an Irishman, to say how grateful I am to the Dominions Office for the interest they have taken in this club and how proud I am of the recognition extended by the generosity of so many people in this country, apart altogether from Parliament, who have contributed in some way to the welfare of men who have come from all parts of Ireland and are giving their services in the defence of a great cause.
        Commander King-Hall: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Would it be better for the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions to answer the important question which has just been put? Until we know the figures it is difficult to know whether the accommodation at the Shamrock Club is adequate to meet the case.
        The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) asked the number of Irishmen in the Forces. I do not think that that would be in Order on this Vote, but it would be in Order to ask what is the membership of the club.
        Sir P. Hannon: Would it be in Order to ask whether it was about 300,000 altogether?
        The Chairman: I do not think that it would be in Order. The hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will be able to give some indication of the membership of the Club and some idea might be gathered from that. It certainly is not relevant on this Vote to say how many Irishmen are in the Armed Forces.
        Mr. Butcher: The Under-Secretary of State will be gratified with the way that the Supplementary Estimate has been received so far, and I will add nothing to impair the harmony of the Committee. I share the view of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that it is wise that we should overhaul from time to time the arrangements that are made for entertainment and hospitality in this capital city for those visiting us from the Dominions. I have a feeling, however, from conversations with men from the Dominions, that they appreciate the variety of clubs and bodies which at the moment have the honour of entertaining them. Perhaps on this matter the Under-Secretary will be

        1277
        able to tell us whether he has been in consultation with the High Commissioners for the Dominions with regard to the entertainment of their Service members. The Secretary of State for the Colonies promises to come back to the House if his Supplementary Vote is not adequate, and I hope that we may have a similar assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, because, at the same time as we are granting this money, preparations are being made in Australia to receive and to entertain the large number of men who will presently be moved to that part of the world.
        Captain Duncan: I do not want to say anything against the Shamrock Club but, having had a little experience of this sort of thing during the war, I should like to make certain that this money is being properly spent. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has said, what good work Lady Simon has done as President of the Club. Here is a grant of £750 to help to run it. Are the Government going to be represented on the Committee which runs the Club? If public money is to be spent it would seem fair to ask whether the Government can make some arrangements to see that the Club is properly run, and also for some representation on the Committee. This is the first time, speaking subject to correction, that this sort of grant has been given, and those of us who are Scotsmen, and I expect there are some Welshmen here, prick up our ears when we see Government money going to an Irish club when the Scots and the Welsh have to pay for the upkeep of their own clubs; but I will not press that matter any further. If we can regard this as a precedent, we shall be delighted to know it, and we shall make our own arrrangements accordingly. Have the Government of Northern Ireland or the Government of Eire contributed anything to this club? The Dominion clubs are either run wholly or partly from the Dominions Office. The Beaver Club is run by Canadians, partly by Canadian money and partly by private Canadian help. To what extent is the Shamrock Club run by Government money from Northern Ireland or Eire? It is only fair that the Irish Governments should make some contribution towards their citizens' comfort while on leave in London. If my
        1278
        hon. Friend can give me a reply to this question, I shall be obliged.
        Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) asked how this money was spent and through what organisation. When the war broke out the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee was set up under Lord Milne, and the societies involved were the Royal Empire Society, the Victoria League and the Overseas League. All the accounts of the money which the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee have received are open to the Dominions Office, and as far as the actual societies are concerned, the Dominions Office can, if they desire, see their accounts, but they act entirely through the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee. The hon. Member also said that he hoped there would be a building set up in London which was consonant with the dignity of the Empire. That is a question for the future. I think the Committee will realise in dealing with these matters we had to improvise when the war broke out and to build up this organisation, which has been a very successful one.
        The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) asked how many Irishmen were actually serving in His Majesty's Forces. That is a question upon which we have never been able to obtain precise information. It is very difficult to give figures at all, and I would not like to make any kind of estimate. He asked what was the accommodation or membership of the Shamrock Club. It is not possible to say what is the actual membership—it is open to all Irishmen serving in United Kingdom Forces—but the number of beds in the club is 35. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) asked whether we were in touch with the High Commissioners with regard to hospitality. We are always in constant touch with the High Commissioners on these subjects. The hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) asked whether the Government of Northern Ireland or the Government of Eire subscribed to the Shamrock Club. No funds are given by any Government except His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the sum is confined to the amount in this Estimate. There is no actual representative of the Government on the committee, but we are satisfied that the committee are spending the money satisfactorily. I think the hon.

        1279
        and gallant Member was under some misapprehension with regard to Dominions clubs. They are different from the clubs dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate, which are organised in this country, and the Dominions do not subscribe to them in any way. The Dominions clubs to which he referred are entirely run by the various Dominions concerned. No funds from His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are applied to these clubs or to the Beaver Club, which is confined entirely to Canadians.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolved:
        "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £9,750 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for sundry Dominion services including certain Grants in Aid and for expenditure in connection with ex-Servicemen in Eire, and for a Grant in Aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers."
        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS
    Considered in Committee.
    [MAJOR MILNER in the Chair.]
    Resolved:
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £709,750 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Peake.]
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is a short emergency Measure extending for a period of three months to 31st March next year, the suspension of the preparation of registers of electors and the holding of local elections. As the House is aware, since March, 1939, there has been no preparation of registers and no holding of local elections.. The Gov-
  1280
  ernment, however, has decided to promote legislation to ensure that next year the elections will be held, and a Bill is in the Vote Office, presented to-day, which I understand will be discussed in this House at an early date, making provision to that end. In the meantime, however, it is essential that the present suspensory Act, which comes to an end on 31st December this year, shall be continued for a period of a further three months so as to have no hiatus between the two Acts.
  1.2 p.m.
  Mr. Butcher: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is very wise to have available in the Vote Office the text of the new Bill to deal with this matter; otherwise I doubt if this Bill would receive as easy a passage as it looks to be receiving to-day. It is high time that the right of the people to choose their representatives on the local councils was restored, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on reducing the time to three months, feeling quite sure that, by that time, satisfactory legislation will have been passed.
  1.3 p.m.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I want to associate myself with what has just been said. We all look forward eagerly to the time when our municipalities can be more representative of the people. The existing arrangements have caused an enormous amount of strain, and while we accept the present arrangement as inevitable, we shall be heartily glad when our local government can return to something of its old dignity, elections be resumed, and once again the people feel that those managing our municipal affairs are properly representative of the feeling and the mood of the country.
  1.4 p.m.
  Commander King-Hall: I would add only this word. Whilst agreeing with both the previous speakers, I would remind the Government that no local elections have been held and there has now been a long delay. I do suggest that steps should be taken through the Ministry of Information to bring home to the public the real importance of local elections in order to arouse interest in them.
  1.5 p.m.
  Mr. T. Johnston: May I suggest that might be a very appropriate observation for my hon. and gallant Friend to make during the passage of the Bill introduced to-day?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Mathers.]
  Committee To-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise:

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-six, being expenses which, under any of the four last-mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December and the said thirty-first day of March, respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."

  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  PURCHASE TAX (ALTERATION OF RATES)

    Mother of Pearl Buttons and Studs
    1.7 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I beg to move,
    "That the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 2) Order, 1944, dated 17th November, 1944, made by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940, a
    1282
    copy of which Order was presented on 29th November, be approved."
    I think it might be courteous, although the House is not very full, to say a word in explanation of the Motion on the Order Paper in my name with regard to the reduction of Purchase Tax on mother of pearl buttons and studs. Mother of pearl buttons and studs, in fact all articles wholly made of mother of pearl, are included in the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act (No. 2), 1940, and are chargeable with purchase tax at the rate which was increased in 1943 to 100 per cent., as being articles of ornament. It has been represented to us, however, that mother of pearl buttons, at any rate, are articles of a purely utility character. For example, the Admiralty specify that all pyjamas supplied to them shall have mother of pearl buttons and, in point of fact, the mother of pearl button wears much better in the wash than do buttons made of bone or casein. As regards studs, they of course only go to the wash accidently and very seldom return therefrom; at the same time these are, I think, also articles of a purely utility character, and we are proposing, therefore, that the rate of Purchase Tax on them shall be reduced to the rate of 33⅓ which is the rate paid by other articles of this character.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally."—[Mr. Mathers.]
  1.10 p.m.
  Commander King-Hall: I beg to move, in line 2, to Leave out from "to," to the first "in," in line 3, and to insert:
  "control the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and to advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report; to assist Mr. Speaker."
  The significance of this Amendment is that, if accepted, it would leave in the hands of Mr. Speaker all questions concerning the actual, textual accuracy of the reports of our proceedings. If, for

  1283
  example, an hon. Member disputed that he had been correctly reported in HANSARD he would, if this Motion is accepted, still go to Mr. Speaker and get the decision from him on the matter in dispute. On the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted, it would place fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates, all matters relating to the actual publishing of our reports. I think, in a broad way, it would be fair to say that in that sense the Committee would become the executive, in the sense that the Kitchen Committee is. It could be argued that yesterday's Debate showed that that is not a satisfactory arrangement, but I think it showed that the House wanted the Kitchen Committee to carry out its duties in another way and that there was no complaint of the actual organisation of the Committee. I would like to explain that in my opinion this reform, as I regard it, is very desirable and is, indeed, essential., It is a rather mournful reflection to me that there are so few hon. Members in the House, since we are really discussing a matter which I hope to show is of fundamental importance to the future of the House of Commons. I recognise, however, that those who believe this have a hard row to hoe, and we have obviously to do some hard work before we reach our objective.
  Hon. Members may say that we have got along very well with the present terms of reference ever since 1911, and they might ask, Why is it necessary to make any change now? One answer would be that a good many things have changed since 1911 which was when this Parliament—and I might add, it was the last Parliament of all the Parliaments in the world to have an official report of its own—decided to have its own Official Report, and Mr. Speaker was requested to take charge of the matter. He indicated, in the words that were used at that time, that
  "eleven of the most skilled reporters of the United Kingdom were recruited to this job."
  Another change which has taken place since 1911 and bears on the need for this Amendment is the rising circulation of HANSARD from a few hundred copies to its present circulation of approximately 8,000 copies. The paid-for circulation, as my right hon. Friend told us the other day, has risen by 3,000 copies in the last
  1284
  12 months, and it is still going up, and will continue to go up. Another thing which has occurred which bears on the need far this Amendment is the formation of a body called the Hansard Society, and it is not altogether a coincidence that the paid-up sales of HANSARD have increased to this extent during the 12 months in which this organisation has been in being. This Society is a creation which came into existence to satisfy a demand, and I think it should go on record that at this moment it is supported by nearly 150 Members of Parliament of all parties who recognise and approve of what it is trying to do. It exists to-day for something which is necessary and expedient, to increase knowledge and spread knowledge throughout the world about the proceedings of Parliament. I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it may be in your mind as to whether I am in Order but I wish to suggest to you that the activities of this Society may create a situation which will make it necessary——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in Order in introducing that question on this subject.
  Commander King-Hall: Then I will pass on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the point of my argument was this, that if there is a great increase in the demand for and the interest in HANSARD, due to the activities of a body to which I will not refer again, it may become necessary for us to revise the methods by which we deal with that demand. I was about to pay a tribute to the Treasury for the fact that they have announced that this Society is free of Income Tax, but perhaps I will say no more about that.
  There is, undoubtedly, a very great and growing public interest in our proceedings which—and I am sure the House will be with me here—should be encouraged in every way and in every respect. This development will undoubtedly give rise to a number of controversial issues. I make no complaint about that, but I respectfully submit that Mr. Speaker should not be placed in a position in which he is obliged, by the terms of reference of this Committee as they now stand, to take part in these controversies. Unless those terms of reference are amended he will be obliged to be mixed up in some of those controversies.

  1285
  I would like to remind the House of just one or two of those controversies, small at present, which actually have arisen during the past 12 months. One was the question of whether Members were or were not to pay for their bound volumes of HANSARD, especially when it was discovered that Members of another place continued to receive their volumes free. They had rejected with contumely the suggestion of the Treasury that they should abandon their privilege. That was a matter of controversy in this House. The Select Committee on Publications and Debates advised Mr. Speaker to take our privilege away from us and, further, advised him to refuse to restore that privilege. It was advice which I fought in that Committee, and on which I divided the Committee, although I was defeated——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in Order in debating the merits of that now.
  Mr. Buchanan: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to argue that that is a reason why Mr. Speaker should not be involved in these matters. Surely he is entitled to cite an example.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will continue his speech.
  Commander King-Hall: The feeling of the House on this matter became manifest, and we are now waiting for the new Committee to advise Mr. Speaker to act in a contrary manner, and Mr. Speaker gave us a hint from the Chair the other day that he intends to accept that advice when he receives it. I submit that these are the kind of things which would not occur if my Amendment was accepted. Another controversial matter was the issue of the printing of Members' speeches, an issue which involved public funds. I maintain that the final decision rested with Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that it is not advisable for him to be brought into that kind of controversy. Operating rather nebulously in the background in this matter is the Treasury, which functions somewhere between the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker and the advisory function of the Committee whose terms of reference I wish to amend. The Committee advises Mr. Speaker on matters which, under the present terms of reference, involve
  1286
  finance. Mr. Speaker then has to decide whether he will accept or reject that advice, and when the issue is raised on the Floor of the House the Treasury may well intervene and give their point of view on the matter. The Treasury objection may touch on one of our privileges, of which Mr. Speaker is the chief guardian and defender.
  I have given these examples of some of the controversial issues which have actually arisen during the past 12 months in order to illustrate the need for the reform of the terms of reference of the Publications and Debates Committee in the sense of my Amendment. But that is not all that will happen; I think we must prepare for the future. The body I referred to earlier, or even Members of the House, might wish to campaign for the publication of HANSARD at the reduced price of 3d., while accepting the view that it will have to be subsidised to some extent. That might well be—without expressing a view as to its advisability or not—a controversial matter, and it is not advisable that Mr. Speaker should be drawn into that kind of issue. As matters stand at present, all questions relating to the publishing of HANSARD—and this is an important part of the terms of reference which need amending—are finally decided by Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that any reasonable interpretation of the word "publishing" includes much more than the mere printing of a report or a book. It includes the arrangements for advertising, considering what the circulation should be and for generally making the existence of the book known to the public. I am suggesting that all these matters relating to publishing and others things of a like nature should be dealt with by a Select Committee responsible to this House.
  In moving my Amendment, I am exploring territory which, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has never been explored since 1911, when it was declared to come into existence, but which has never actually been defined. That is one of the difficulties into which we have been placed. It is a delicate matter to raise, as I am touching on something which is at present in the hands of Mr. Speaker, but I am doing so in order to do everything I can to safeguard the impartiality of his office. There is only one constitutional way in which Mr. Speaker himself could give the House his opinion on this

  1287
  subject. The only way would be that if the House divided on this Motion and the vote was a tie, he could cast the deciding vote. Otherwise, by constitutional practice it would be impossible for Mr. Speaker to let the House know what he thinks about the proposal. Although it is tempting to assume that silence means consent that may be going too far in this particular case. I have touched on the position of Mr. Speaker under the present terms of reference of the Committee, but there is another aspect of this matter which should interest the House in that it is not the desire or wish of the House that Mr. Speaker should have to struggle with the Service Departments when they lay their impious hands on our reporters, and take them away for service in the Armed Forces of the Crown. If my information is correct we have got two back, but we can still do with the other two reporters. I do not believe that the House would wish that Mr. Speaker should be left in a position in which he has to struggle with the Service Departments if he considers that officers of the House are required for the proper reporting of our Debates.
  In conclusion, I ask the House to believe me when I say that by this Amendment I really believe I am raising a matter of constitutional and public importance. I very much regret that for various reasons so few Members are able to be here to listen to what is being said, but at any rate I hope they will read all about it in HANSARD. The Publications and Debates Committee, as I think Members will agree, has not been considered of any great importance up to the present time. Indeed, I have met Members who have said that they have not known that it existed. Events are going to make that Committee a very important Committee indeed, and it should be ahead of events and not be trailing behind, as it is bound to be while the present terms of reference continue in being. It is the public relations committee of the House of Commons, and it ought to be given proper powers to do its job. The public relations aspect of this House is a subject of immense importance to the whole future of Parliamentary democracy. There are not many places in the world to-day where Parliamentary democracy is in a flourishing condition; this is one of its last strongholds, and I urge that the
  1288
  House should do everything proper to keep public interest aroused in the proceedings of Parliament, and to satisfy what I am delighted to say is a genuine and enormous interest in the proceedings of Parliament, although that interest is accompanied by a colossal amount of ignorance of how this place works and what goes on here. I hope the Government will accept my Amendment so that the Publications and Debates Committee will be in a position to carry out its job properly.
  1.25 p.m.
  Mr. Bowles: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall), to whom I am sure every other Member in this House is grateful for his efforts in trying to put HANSARD on the map. My hon. and gallant Friend has worked untiringly in this matter, and is doing a very good job indeed. We had a Debate about two months ago when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seemed to indicate that it might be prepared to agree to certain requests which were then made. We had a division, which perhaps was bad tactics at the time, but I hope that will not make any difference to the decision which I hope my right hon. Friend will announce to-day. I beg my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment. Having regard to the Debate which took place last night on the work of the Kitchen Committee it seems clear that there is a tendency on the part of certain Committees to take refuge in, or seek as an alibi, the refusal of certain Government Departments to provide them with facilities. I think it is quite wrong that the Ministry of Labour should, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, reduce the staff which is necessary for the proper reporting of Parliament. I have also a great complaint about the Ministry of Supply keeping us short of the amount of paper for what is required.
  My first experience in this matter was when I raised the question of reprints of hon. Members' own speeches, and other Members' speeches, when I appealed to Mr. Speaker on the grounds that the matter was one of Privilege. Mr. Speaker did not regard the matter as one of Privilege, but said it was one for the

  1289
  Treasury. At that time there was a limit of 1,000 to the number of reprints any hon. Member could have. I see no reason why the Government should interfere with Members having rights of this kind. What is important is the proper reporting of Parliamentary activity and so long as the Executive, the Government, goes on unhindered and unopposed by hon. Members we can easily slip into a position in which the Government might say that there is no reason why Members should have copies of their speeches, which would mean that they were adopting the methods of a totalitarian State. I think it is invidious that Mr. Speaker should be put into the position which he occupies at present in this matter. He dropped a hint the other day from the Chair which I am sure gratified many hon. Members, and which was most encouraging. I hope my right hon. Friend will consent, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Amendment because, after all, it is an Amendment to a Government Motion.
  1.29 p.m.
  Sir Reginald Clarry: On looking at the words of the Amendment in cold print I had a great deal of sympathy at first with the proposal which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) was making, but after listening to what he and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) had to say I am dead against making any alteration. We all know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk has, if I may so put it, "a bee in his bonnet" about the distribution of HANSARD——
  Mr. Driberg: Is it not a very good bee to have in his bonnet?
  Sir R. Clarry: Good or bad he has it, and his way of fostering that is to give authority and power to this Committee to distribute HANSARD more or less according to the decision of the Committee, without any by-your-leave of the House or anybody else——
  Commander King-Hall: I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent me, but there is nothing in my Amendment to support that view, nor was I conscious of saying anything which would suggest that the Select Committee should not be fully responsible to this House, should not report its decisions to
  1290
  this House and should not be an instrument of this House.
  Sir R. Clarry: The seconder rather gave that impression when he said that, if Members required copies of HANSARD, there was no reason why they should not have them if the House so decided. But the Committee are going to have the right to allocate them as they think fit. They are to have regard only to the decision of the House, without reference to Mr. Speaker at all. The mover said he would like to see a public relations body, committee or individual, to represent to the public generally the situation in the House, and he thought this new committee, with its new authority, would have that effect—in other words, that it could be made a public relations committee as well as a Publications and Debates Committee. I think some alteration is necessary but not quite on the lines the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated. For instance, we want to elucidate exactly what is the meaning of "publishing" and how far it goes. We considered that at one of our meetings and came to the decision that it ended with printing and did not include distribution. It can be argued that it should go beyond printing, but that should be definitely in the terms of reference. I see no reason for making the alteration at this stage without full consideration of all the facts arguing the matter in a very small House, which cannot give the view of the House as a whole.
  1.32 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken talking in what seemed a rather derogatory way of the very persistent efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) to popularise HANSARD. It is perhaps not surprising that it has been such a difficult and uphill job to get people in the country interested in the affairs of the House, and in the Report of its proceedings, if the Chairman of the Committee most concerned does not think it very important indeed that HANSARD should be circulated as widely as possible. There are some matters which, from their controversial nature or for other reasons, might be handled better if the Amendment were accepted. There are, for instance, two matters, which the mover and seconder touched on, on which I should

  1291
  like to comment. The first—which we hope will shortly be happily settled—is the question of the free issue of bound volumes to Members. In the course of a written answer recently I was able to elicit from the Treasury that the amount of paper saved——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Member can cite the fact that he wants an increase of paper, but he cannot go into details as to how much paper is saved, or anything of that kind.
  Mr. Driberg: I have so far cited it, with considerably more brevity than the hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed by your predecessor, Sir, in the Chair. I will, however, merely complete my sentence and pass from the point at once. The amount of paper saved was less than one-thousandth of——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not mind the hon. Member citing these questions, but he must not go into an argument whether it was right or wrong and, obviously, if the point has already been cited the position is even stronger against arguing details.
  Mr. Driberg: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, and I am only sorry that I was not fortunate enough to be called by your predecessor. The other point on which I was going to comment, by way of citation only, was that mentioned by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) about reprints of speeches. Without going into the rights or wrongs of it, it seems an absurd ruling that a reply made by a Minister to a speech on the Adjournment is not allowed to be included in the reprint; this seems to deprive it of a large part of its value.
  I should like to support what the hon. Member said about the attitude of committees, such as this Publications Committee and the Kitchen Committee, vis-à-vis the Executive. It seems to me that, if we pass this Amendment, their hands will be considerably strengthened and they will be able to get away from that rather timid and obsequious and even docile attitude which committees appear to adopt too easily towards Government Departments. They should not start by assuming that things cannot be done or that money cannot be got. They should start by assuming that things can be done if
  1292
  the House wants them done. I hope the Amendment can be passed, and this seems to me to be essentially a matter on which, if it is pressed to a Division, the Government might feel disposed to allow a free vote.
  1.37 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I rise with some hesitation in view of the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I always have the feeling, when he replies, that one ought not to have spoken at all. I think the reference of the Chairman of the Committee to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) was, to say the least, in bad taste. His remark about the hon. and gallant Gentleman having a bee in his bonnet was contemptible. As I said last night, some hon. Members, when they cannot argue with others, substitute some ill-mannered phrase. I dismiss it because that is all it is worth. The real kernel of this controversy is whether Mr. Speaker should be involved in this matter or not. I take a view similar to that of the mover. I can foresee a situation in which Mr. Speaker might find himself in direct conflict with this Committee, and it would be a bad thing if the House divided not really on the merits of the case, because that is not how it would be, but on whether we should give a vote of confidence to the Speaker on a decision that he had made. That would be bad and wrong because we should not be discussing the issue whether bound copies should be supplied, or whether HANSARD should be this or that, but the question of confidence in Mr. Speaker himself. We should take a more enlightened view in these days. I had a feeling in the old days that HANSARD was only of interest to active politicians, but since the war forces have been at work which have rather altered my view.
  I had a letter the other week from a soldier in hospital asking me to search for a number of HANSARDS and send them on to him and friends of his in the hospital. I made an attempt to get them, which involved searching back for some time, and I was very grateful for the kindness of the Librarian. The Librarians are very kind to us. I was astounded that I had to pay for every copy that I asked for. There were eight or 10 in all and I had to pay 5s. because they were back numbers. I thought that, as a Member of

  1293
  Parliament, I was entitled to back numbers. I am sure that in any business firm, in which I held a similar position to that which I hold in relation to this House, I should have been supplied free. It was amazing to me that men ill in the Forces are paying attention to HANSARD. I have made some inquiries and I find that to-day attention is being paid to these matters, which was not formerly the case.
  I do not know that the Government can accept the Amendment but I should like to make this suggestion. We have not examined this matter since 1911, and things have altered since then. There have been two world wars, and the outlook on politics has extended considerably. The Government cannot accept a vote of such a small House at the end of a day and we should be defeated and be called malcontents, because these phrases are now the substitutes for argument. Is it not time that the Government should set up a small committee to examine the whole relationship of Parliament to these publications, and to public access to them? One of the things that ought to be re-examined is the question of supplying HANSARD free to public libraries throughout the country, as an educational facility. No other body would handle its work as the House of Commons does. It does a creditable job every day. Look at the answers to Questions and listen to the Debates. I sent a copy to the son of a neighbour of mine and I was amazed and gratified to find the interest that the troops show.
  I do not ask for a decision to-day. I ask the Government to consider this matter in the light of 1944, in the light of the new democracy which is arising, a democracy which will vote, and we must bear in mind that it is not so much the vote that matters as the education towards the vote, so that when people vote, whether they vote one way or the other, they will do so in a consciousness of what they are doing. A good knowledge of Parliament and of its work would be of great value in that education. Most Members, when they are promoted to be Ministers, take good care to see that everything they do is known in the fullest way. Watch the Minister of Information, watch them all, and we find that they display their goods in every way. Why, therefore, should not Parliament do the same and display its work and its influence? We
  1294
  do not ask the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment to-day, but we think the time has arrived when the whole question of the publications of Parliament and their relation to the House of Commons ought to be examined. With regard to the Government Motion itself, I would appeal to those who manage the parties and to my two Front Bench colleagues in my own party, to have regard to some of us who do not move according to good machine methods, and, when they are nominating Members to sit on committees, to have regard to the unorthodox people as well as to the orthodox.
  1.47 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: I am inclined to support the Amendment after hearing this Debate. At the present time, following long usage, Mr. Speaker is in charge of this Committee and his word is law in regard to HANSARD. That puts the Speaker in a rather invidious position, because if the Committee's Report is challenged it is a challenge to the Speaker. The House does not like being involved in disputes with the Speaker, because he occupies an honoured position and we look upon him with respect as the authority who is controlling the destinies of Parliament. Therefore, anything that might lead to a challenge from the House of Commons would put him in a bad position. As I follow the argument, it is that this Committee should have more power than they have now to propagate HANSARD and should be able, if they wish, to decide that HANSARD should be cheaper or issued to other sources. If they made such decisions they would report them to the House of Commons, and it would not be left entirely to the Speaker to have to decide one way or the other.
  It may be argued by the Financial Secretary that the present system has existed for a long time and that, therefore, what has been done in the past ought to be done in the future. We have to recognise, however, that a greater interest is being taken in HANSARD than ever before. I have had a number of appeals for it to be sent to Italy, and occasionally I send copies to Italy and other places to people I know. It is very easy to do that. If you go to the Sale Office, and give the name and address, and pay the price of HANSARD, the Sale Office will send it. The Committee may wish to recommend

  1295
  that a number of copies be sent to the troops free of charge or sent to other quarters free of charge, and it would be a matter for the House to decide, and not for the Speaker. In present circumstances, if the Committee desire to do that and the Speaker took another view, the House would be faced with a dilemma.
  Commander King-Hall: That particular point would not come under the Committee because the Treasury have already allocated 500 copies free to the Forces.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): The Service Departments are getting all the free copies they are asking for at the present time for use in the Forces.
  Mr. Tinker: If the commander-in-chief or somebody in authority asks for free copies, can they get them?
  Mr. Peake: Yes, they are getting them now.
  Commander King-Hall: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that the Treasury will give to the Service Departments all the free copies they want?
  Mr. Peake: We are, in fact, doing that now.
  Mr. Tinker: I did not know that before, and it is very good. On the whole, I think that there is a case to answer, and I await with interest what the Financial Secretary will have to say in reply.
  1.51 p.m.
  Mr. Graham White: I intervene to support the idea which was ventilated for the first time in this discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), namely, that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary should not advise the House to reject the Amendment without adopting the idea that there should be some inquiry into the set-up and the relationship of this Committee to the House and to Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment, but if it be true, as my hon. Friend has said, that there has been no consideration of this Committee's work and its relationship to the House since 1911, it is high time that there was such an inquiry. It is clear from what has been said that the whole relationship of HANSARD to Parliament and to national life will be a different
  1296
  business in future from what it has been in the past. It was always an amazing thing to me that the only interest which people take in this Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, with offspring all over the world, was apparently represented by only a matter of 2,500 copies of HANSARD before the war. As other speakers have said, that is going to be entirely changed and HANSARD is going to be an important thing in the national life, which is as it should be in a democratic community. My hon. Friends have spoken of the appeals they have had for HANSARD. The other day, when I was on a No. 88 bus proceeding in the direction of the House of Commons, I Observed a lady in front of me reading a periodical, which at first sight I thought was a magazine. On closer inspection, it turned out to be a copy of HANSARD. It is a thing I have never seen before. I find in my constituency that there are groups of people who circulate HANSARD among themselves. The fact that this will be a considerable business in the future and not merely a matter of a few thousand copies, makes it desirable that the whole relationship of this Committee to the House should be reconsidered.
  1.54 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): Several hon. Members have referred to the reply about to be given on behalf of the Government, but my contribution to this Debate is not given on behalf of the Government. This is a Sessional Committee appointed by the House of Commons. Its terms of reference are settled by the House and it is purely a House of Commons matter. The Motion to re-appoint the Committee is put on the Order Paper for convenience by a Government Whip, but that is merely done for the convenience of the House. I am speaking and contributing to this Debate as one of the Ministers who are answerable in the House for the Stationery Office and whose views the House would perhaps like to hear, but so far as the adoption of the Amendment is concerned, I shall have to rely upon my persuasive powers rather than upon the battalions which the Government Whip can muster on occasion in the Division Lobby. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member who has proposed this Amendment for the work which he has done in popularising HANSARD. You have only to look at the figures of circulation

  1297
  and the great increase that has taken place to see that his efforts have borne fruit. In my view, his efforts in this matter are highly praiseworthy, and he is entitled to the thanks of the House. He is rendering a service to, democracy in that way.
  The seconder of the Amendment did, however, get a little off the line. He suggested that at the end of the Debate I might be able to announce that certain requests made to the Treasury may now be granted. He was referring to the restoration of the privilege of receiving the bound volumes of HANSARD free. I would reply that the decision to abandon the issue of free bound volumes was taken in May, 1940, not on the initiative of the Treasury, but on the initiative of the Select Committee whose re-appointment is now under discussion, and that at all times the Treasury have been only too anxious to fall in with the wishes of the House in this matter. We would at any time he ready to restore that privilege to hon. Members were it not that the Select Committee only a few weeks ago took a decision in the opposite sense. There is no question of my getting up and announcing that certain requests of hon. Members shall be granted, because the Treasury in this matter is only too anxious to serve the desires and wishes of the House.
  Mr. Woodburn: In that case, is this the appropriate occasion for the House to express its opinion whether the decision of the Select Committee was right or wrong?
  Mr. Peake: The House has already expressed its view on that matter, for we had a Debate on it only a few weeks ago. I would draw the attention of the seconder of the Amendment to the fact that it is to this very Select Committee, whose recommendations in regard to the bound volume he so strongly disapproves of, that he now wishes to hand over complete control of the arrangements for reporting and publishing HANSARD. I am, therefore, bound to point out that I think his position in the matter is a little illogical.
  Mr. Bowles: My position in supporting my hon. and gallant Friend is that I think Mr. Speaker should be relieved of the possible embarrassment of having to be advised in this matter. I do not think very much of this Committee after seeing the names. May I ask my right hon.
  1298
  Friend whether, supposing my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) and his colleagues come to a certain decision, that is binding on this House? Surely, the right thing to do is to let them make their recommendations to the House and let the House have a free vote on them.
  Mr. Peake: I shall deal with that point in the course of my remarks. Let us just try to get the background of these terms of reference. Of course, there was a time in the 18th century when the concern of the House of Commons was to prevent its proceedings being made public but, in the last century, the advantage of obtaining an accurate report of Parliamentary proceedings came to be generally recognised. Previous to 1909, when the terms of reference of this Select Committee were settled, there is a long history of complaints by hon. Members, of private printing firms which had been entrusted with the duty of reporting the Debates going bankrupt or being subsidised by the Treasury, and of Select Committees trying to devise a satisfactory scheme for the accurate reporting and publication of our Debates.
  Commander King-Hall: Since the Minister is on a point of history, I think it is important to get it right. He has said that in the last century there were many committees to try to devise a satisfactory scheme of reporting, but objection to an official report was taken by one Committee on the extraordinary ground that one of the results would be that Ministers' speeches would be reported verbatim—
  "which would be highly inconvenient afterwards."
  Mr. Peake: That was in the findings of one of the Committees to which I referred, which tried to devise a sound scheme of reporting and publishing our Debates. Up to 1909 contracts were let out to private contractors to do the work, but from 1909 until to-day a scheme has been in operation which has, I think, on the whole worked well and has given considerable satisfaction. There are three parties to this arrangement. First of all comes Mr. Speaker, who is in complete control of the reporting and of the reporting staff. Then there is the Stationery Office, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself are answerable in

  1299
  the House, who are concerned with the printing and, in the ordinary sense of the word, with the publication of the REPORT. In the third place, there is the Select Committee, now being re-appointed, whose duties include that of assisting Mr. Speaker in these arrangements.
  If I might for a moment take up the time of the House, I should like at this point to pay a tribute to the reporting staff of this House. I think that work is done in an absolutely first-class manner. Many times have I listened to halting speeches, sometimes without verbs or conjunctions, and have read next morning in HANSARD a regular, steady flow of eloquent language. On other occasions I have listened to interjections by my hon. Friends which have been inaudible owing to the flow of conversation, and when I have consulted HANSARD next morning I have discovered precisely what was said. I think that work is admirably done, and I think that the House may well be proud of it. As regards the printing and publication, there, again, I think we have a pretty good document. It is got up decently, and the print is legible——
  Mr. Driberg: It is full of misprints.
  Mr. Peake: I should have said there were very few misprints, considering the very short time which is available in the early morning for the production of the REPORT.
  Mr. Driberg: Far more than creep into the average daily newspaper, which has to be produced in the same time.
  Mr. Peake: There is no doubt, I think, that, on the whole, hon. Members are satisfied that we have a very good OFFICIAL REPORT, in good print and good form, which is delivered to us with great regularity. I think the work, especially in these war-time years, and throughout the blitz, has deserved commendation from all quarters. Let us now look at the terms of reference of this Committee as they were originally settled in 1910 and as they so remained for 33 years. They were:
  "To assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the official report of debates; and to enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally."
  1300
  Originally, the latter part of the terms of reference took precedence; but a change was made in the year 1910, when the duty of assisting Mr. Speaker was given priority of order. I would draw the attention of the House to the very great importance of the second part of the terms of reference:
  "To enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally."
  That means that, in relation to the Stationery Office, this Committee do the work, rolled into one, of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on National Expenditure.
  Commander King-Hall: Could do the work.
  Mr. Peake: Yes, they could do the work. They are empowered to do it and to report thereon to the House; so that they have a very extensive power of going into all questions regarding the cost of printing HANSARD and the price at which HANSARD is sold. They can report thereon to the House, and very many of the questions which hon. Members have raised to-day in regard to HANSARD could be dealt with by this Committee under the second part of their terms of reference, and reports could be made by that Committee to the House on those matters. I think that really answers a good many of the points which have been made in regard to the powers which this Committee have in reference to HANSARD.
  Last year, at the request of the Select Committee themselves, an alteration was made in their terms of reference, which now read, as on the Order Paper, that a Select Committee be appointed
  "to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates."
  The words "and publishing" were introduced last year for the first time. Then some new words were added:
  "and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House."
  The important change made last year was that the Committee extended their powers of assisting Mr. Speaker, in addition to the arrangements for reporting, to the arrangements for publishing the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not quite sure, in point of fact, that this added very much to their

  1301
  powers, because I think that under the second part of their terms of reference they already had full powers in this matter.
  I come to the terms of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall). Perhaps I might read the terms of reference of this Select Committee as they would be if his Amendment were adopted. They would be as follow:
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and to advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report; to assist Mr. Speaker in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to enquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally."
  I will deal straightaway with the terms of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to give to the Select Committee the sole executive power in the whole field of reporting and of publishing HANSARD. They would, as the Amendment says, control the arrangements. They would, in fact, become the technical and executive board of directors of a reporting and a publishing agency. Moreover, they would not be obliged to report to the House, and the House could only control the Committee subsequently by means of passing instructions. Mr. Speaker would, of course, be deprived of the authority which he has up to now exercised over the reporting staff. The appointment, for example, of a new editor, new sub-editor or new reporter would become a question not for Mr. Speaker but for the Select Committee.
  Mr. Bowles: Would the Minister be good enough to explain why, if the Amendment were passed, the Select Committee would be relieved of the obligation of reporting to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Peake: I did not say that they would be relieved of the obligation. There is no obligation placed upon them by their terms of reference to report to the House. If the hon. Member will look at his Order Paper, however, he will see that the Committee have power to report from time to time. I daresay that they would report, but they might not report. For example, on the very question which the hon. Member raised in regard to the restoration of the privilege of the free bound volume, they did not report to the
  1302
  House. They reported to Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Member knows that in that matter they failed properly to interpret the general wishes of hon. Members. That is the first objection to the proposed Amendment, that it would be setting up a Select Committee with full executive powers.
  The only function left to Mr. Speaker under the terms of the Amendment would be to receive advice from the Committee on any question concerning the accuracy of the Report. What Mr. Speaker would do on receiving that advice from the Committee as to the accuracy of the Report I do not know. Clearly, the great advantage of Mr. Speaker himself being concerned with the accuracy of the Report is that he, or his Deputy, is constantly in the Chair, but if the Select Committee are to be the body primarily concerned with the accuracy of the Report I think we should find ourselves in a very peculiar position.
  Commander King-Hall: Pardon me. My right hon. Friend is surely getting that point wrong. My Amendment does not say that the Select Committee has to give advice but it is available to give Mr. Speaker advice. Mr. Speaker, being in the Chair and not being satisfied himself on a particular matter, can ask for advice, if he wants it. The Amendment leaves in Mr. Speaker's hands full responsibility.
  Mr. Peake: The Amendment takes Mr. Speaker clean out of the picture, so far as the arrangements for the reporting and publishing of our OFFICIAL REPORT are concerned. All responsibility for the reporting passes to the Select Committee. Then the Amendment proceeds to say that the Select Committee
  "shall advise Mr. Speaker on any question concerning the accuracy"
  and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that Mr. Speaker would be placed in an impossible position. He would not be responsible for the accuracy of the Report and would have no power to give any direction to the reporters or the staff: he is to receive advice from the Select Committee on the question whether the Report is accurate or not. I really do not think that that is a proposition which will appeal very much to the House. I think the House should be very chary of giving executive powers to a Select Committee. The ordinary functions of a Select Com-

  1303
  mittee are to make inquiries, to probe into matters, to sift matters and thereon to report to the House. The only Select Committee we have with executive functions, as I think the hon. and gallant Member himself said, is the Kitchen Committee, and there was yesterday and has been in the past, to my knowledge, a great deal of criticism of that Committee, which is the only Committee exercising executive powers.
  Moreover, in this matter I think one has to consider the position of the Stationery Office, which is an independent Government Department not working under the Treasury but represented in this House by Treasury Ministers. They carry on a very large printing and publishing business, with an annual turnover running into millions of pounds per annum. The Controller works under the directions of Treasury Ministers. It is now suggested that, in regard to a considerable portion of his work, he should be answerable to a Select Committee of this House. It is true that, at the present time, the Committee can and undoubtedly do call the Controller before them, examine him, question him, suggest things to him and so forth. That is one thing; but it would be quite a different thing that he should be a servant of a Select Committee of this House, who will be in a position to issue him with orders and instructions. "No man can serve two masters," and I suggest that if the Amendment were adopted, and this Select Committee were armed with executive powers which they could exercise as they pleased, the position of the Controller of the Stationery Office would obviously be quite impossible. The Select Committee, it has been suggested by one or two hon. Members, has not a sufficiently important field of work to perform. I dissent from that view. I think the advice of this Committee to Mr. Speaker on many issues in the past has been extremely valuable. I also think that the second part of their terms of reference is perhaps more important than the first. I am told that in the years after the last war, when it was necessary to try to enforce some economy in the use of paper in Government Departments, this Committee did extraordinarily good work in going into the expenditure of paper, stationery, printing and so forth, of very many large Govern-
  1304
  ment Departments, and making many recommendations which greatly strengthened the hands of the Treasury in enforcing economy. I hope that this Committee will not take an unimportant view of their tasks, and I hope also that the House will ponder long before it places this Committee in a position of arbitrary power with executive duties, quite independent of any controlling authority.
  2.17 p.m.
  Commander King-Hall: After hearing my right hon. Friend's reply, and as I think this subject has received a preliminary ventilation, which it required, and particularly after what my right hon. Friend said about the second part of the terms of reference, which I quite agree have never been fully used, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered:
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The Question is,
  "That Sir Reginald Clarry"——
  2.18 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are about to read out the names of the Members nominated for the Committee. Can you guide me as to how I could make an observation? I do not want to start objecting to each name, but I would like to make an observation on the general composition of the Committee. I may have to do it by objecting to one name, which I would prefer to avoid if I can make some remark on the general composition of the Committee.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be best if the hon. Member dealt with his point on one name only. So that it would seem less invidious, I would suggest that I read out the first name on the list, and that the hon. Member should then make his observation.
  "That Sir Reginald Clarry"——
  Mr. Buchanan: I do not intend to divide the Committee or expect a reply. Looking at the matter, I hope, not with any desire to be offensive, or in any personal way at all, I think we should have, on this Committee, somebody more representative of House of Commons activity. Let me be frank to my own people. Three of them are here members of the Committee, all connected with the printing trades. This matter goes much deeper than the printing trades. I know that printing is a business, but there is the ordinary activity of the House of Commons involved. I would ask them to look at their duties in that light. If it is said that I have not taken an interest in this before, I accept that impeachment. The three Members from this side are all associated with printing, and all come from the London district. Some provincial Members have something to do with the House of Commons occasionally, and if London would tolerate us we might have something to contribute. I would ask whether somebody whose standpoint was a little wider than that of what I call the syndicalist mind, might be allowed to be helpful in this matter.
  2.21 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: I would like to support what the hon. Member has said. I am sure that this Committee, like others, does a great deal of very useful work, and I do not think any of us wishes to make a personal attack on the hon. Member whose name happens to be first in alphabetical order; but it seems to me that, on the occasions on which the work of this Committee has been brought to the attention of the House, it has been found that the decisions taken by the Committee have not always been those which the House would have wished it to take. The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a decision about the free issue of bound volumes of HANSARD which, as he said, clearly did not reflect the mind of the House. One other decision the Committee recently took to which I drew attention a few weeks ago, which seems to me, although a minor one, an equally bad one, concerned the stamping of the crest of the House of Commons on the notepaper of the House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is clearly out of Order. I have allowed a very wide, indeed, an over-wide discussion. We are
  1306
  now discussing only one name. I allowed the hon. Member to put a point on that, but we must not go into these very technical questions.
  Mr. Driberg: Is one in Order in formally, not emotionally, opposing the reappointment of this individual Member to the Select Committee, in view of the decisions taken by him, among other Members of the Committee, which one is citing as objectionable decisions?
  Sir R. Clarry: The decision was not taken by me but by the Committee.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would seem to be more a point of view on the discussion we have had, but it is a rather difficult point, and if it were put shortly I should not rule it out of Order. But I cannot allow all these points on the work already done to be put.
  Mr. Driberg: I would conclude by putting, if I may, in a single sentence, what I was not able to put before in the previous discussion which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled out of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is definitely out of Order, even more than before.
  Mr. Driberg: With great respect, I am objecting to the appointment of this Committee, including this particular hon. Member, on the ground that one of its decisions was a bad one for a reason that I wish to give.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I am afraid the hon. Member cannot do.
  Question, "That Sir Reginald Clarry be a member of the Committee," put and agreed to.
  Mr. Cluse, Mr. Emery, Mr. Iaacs, Mr. Jewson, Commander King-Hall, Mr. Naylor, Sir Stanley Reed, Mr. Storey, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter and Mr. Graham White also nominated members of the Committee.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Power to report from time to time:
  Three to be the Quorum.—Mr. Mathers.]

  ROYAL NAVY (OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Cary.]
  2.24 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I very much regret, but I make no complaint at all, that there is no representative of the Admiralty to listen to what I have to say, because I fully realise the reason for it, that is, that the Business of the House has been dealt with so much more quickly than was anticipated. Every effort possible is being made to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply to me and I can only say we are all sorry he is not present.
  I again raise the question of the naval officers' contributory marriage allowance scheme, in view of the fact that it is only in the case of naval officers that a contributory scheme is in operation. In the course of my remarks I shall show that the naval officer is being unjustly treated as compared with the officers of equivalent rank in the Army and Air Force. In answer to a Question which I put on 7th March, 1944, referring to naval officers having their basic rate of pay reduced by 2s. a day in the case of all officers reaching the rank of lieutenant-commander, whether married or unmarried, and in the case of commissioned warrant officers reaching the rank of lieutenant, by 1s. a day, my right hon. Friend stated that the rates of pay of the three Services were fixed in 1919 when the Army and Air Force received marriage allowance. The naval officer did not, but the naval rates were fixed at a somewhat higher level than would have been possible if marriage allowance had been granted. In other words, naval pay contained an element of marriage allowance prior to the introduction of the marriage allowance scheme in 1938. Accordingly, in 1938 it was publicly announced that it was necessary to subtract the element of marriage allowance already intimated in the pay of captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders.
  The Jerram Committee's report to the Admiralty in 1919, and whose recommendations for officers' pay were adopted, makes no reference whatever to the fact as stated by my right hon. Friend that these rates contained an element of mar-
  1308
  riage allowance. There is no reference whatever throughout the whole of the Jerram Committee's report to marriage allowance. I submit to my right hon. Friend that a comparison of the pay of the three Services in 1919–19 years before the naval officers' marriage allowance was introduced—is quite irrelevant. I would also draw attention to the fact that the pay of the naval officer in 1938, when marriage allowance was introduced, was not the same as in 1919, but was at a lower rate than it was in 1919. It had been reduced several times since 1919, as had pay in the other Services, so that to base the naval officers' marriage allowance scheme, and make it a contributory one, on the basis of the 1919 pay, was in my view an act of great injustice to the naval officer.
  What is relevant is a comparison of the pay of the officers in the three Services in 1938, when the marriage allowance scheme for the Navy was introduced, in order to see what the pay of the naval officer was at that time. There is no more reason why the pay in 1919 should have been considered in 1938 than the pay in force in 1838 or any other date. The basic rates, before the reduction of 2s. a day in the case of the naval officer, and the equivalent ranks of the other Services was as follows: a lieutenant-commander in the Navy before the reduction of the 2s. a day received £1 7s. 2d. a day. A major in the Army, his equivalent rank, received £1 8s. 6d.; a squadron-leader, again the corresponding rank in the Air Force, received £1 10s. 10d. In 1919 a lieutenant-commander received £1 10s. a day. In 1938 a commander £1 16s. 2d. a day, a lieutenant-colonel, his equivalent in the Army, £2 3s. a day, and a wing-commander, the same as a commander—£1 16s. 2d. a day. In 1919 a commander received £2 a day. In 1938 a captain received £2 14s. 4d. The colonel received £2 9s. 10d., and the group-captain received £2 9s. 10d. also—these being the equivalent ranks in the other two Services. In 1919 the captain received £3 a day.
  From this it will be seen that in 1938, when it was necessary to subtract the element of marriage allowance, already included in the pay of captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders, in point of fact a lieutenant-commander was already paid 1s. 4d. a day less than

  1309
  a major and 3s. 8d. a day less than a squadron-leader—the equivalent ranks in the other Services. This difference, to the detriment of the naval officer, on his reduction by 2s. a day when marriage allowance was introduced, resulted in the discrepancy being increased against the naval officer by 3s. 4d. and 5s. 8d. a day respectively, compared to the officers in the other Services. A commander received 6s. 10d. less than a lieutenant-colonel and the same pay as a wing-coulmander—the equivalent ranks in the other Services. As a result of the reduction of 2s. a day when marriage allowance was introduced, the commander, therefore, received 8s. 10d. a day less than a lieutenant-colonel and 2s. a day less than a wing-commander—his equivalents in the other Services. A captain was better paid than a full colonel in the Army and than a wing-commander in the Air Force by 4s. 6d. a day, but by the reduction of 2s. a day the difference comes down to 2s. 6d. a day. From these figures it is clear how grossly underpaid is the naval officer of lieutenant-commander and commander's rank in comparison with the equivalent ranks in the other Services.
  I ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the officers of His Majesty's Navy should be worse paid than officers of equivalent rank in the Army and the Air Force. Does he consider that the service they render to the country and considering their rank and responsibilities to which we pay such lip service they are less deserving in the matter of pay than officers in the Army and Air Force. On 13th October, 1934, I asked my right hon. Friend the First Lord for the comparative rates of pay of these officers, and I have given the figures which were contained in his answer. To explain the differences in the rates for the three Services, he referred me to a reply which he gave to me on 16th June, 1938, which was as follows:
  "Although the columns are set out above comparing officers of the same relative rank in the three Services, a matter of importance which must be borne in mind in contrasting the rates of emoluments is the age at which these are attained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1938; Vol. 337, c. 409.]
  From that statement, I naturally concluded that my right hon. Friend agreed that age was a factor to be taken into
  1310
  account in paying a naval officer. I would now ask him whether, if he happened to be 25 years of age, instead of, shall I say, 50, he would consider that his salary of £5,000 a year, plus an official residence, should be reduced because of his more tender age? Suppose a second William Pitt should arise, and become Prime Minister at 22, is it my right hon. Friend's opinion that he should receive considerably less than the emoluments attaching to the high position of a Prime Minister, because of his tender age? To make sure where my right hon. Friend stood in this matter, I asked him, on 25th October, 1944, to what extent the emoluments paid to naval officers are based on their responsibilities, in accordance with their rank or their age. His reply was:
  "The emoluments of naval officers are related to rank. The responsibility attaching to any particular appointment is taken into consideration in deciding the rank of officer who should fill it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 158.]
  That is a very satisfactory reply, and it kills the red herring, and most unjust basis, of age in relation to the pay of a naval officer. He is, of course, paid in accordance with his rank and responsibilities; and I hope that never again will any representative of the Admiralty refer to the age of an officer in this respect. Another result of this naval officer's contributory marriage allowance scheme is the amazing and startling fact that all officers from the rank of lieutenant-commander to that of commodore, second class—that is, of course, the rank immediately below a rear-admiral—under the revised scheme applicable to all three Services, after deducting the 2s. contribution which these officers pay towards the marriage allowance scheme, are in this position. My right hon. Friend may say that it is not correct that they contribute 2s. a day; but they have their pay reduced by 2s. a day, and it is a contribution.
  For a wife and one child, each of these officers from lieut.-commander to commodore, second class, receives £1 8s. a week; whilst an ordinary seaman with a wife and one child receives £2 4s. a week, a leading seaman with a wife and one child receives £1 17s. a week, and a petty officer with a wife and one child receives £1 16s. 6d. a week. These sums do not include the men's allotments to their wives. Therefore, all these officers receive

  1311
  from 8s. 6d. to 16s. a week less for a wife and one child than men serving with them on the lower deck. I am not complaining about what the men receive—far from it; although I might, in passing, remark that if it is necessary for these men to receive marriage allowance on such a high scale it is definite proof that they are grossly underpaid as seamen. What I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to is that this is a most invidious and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  Again, naval officers are not on the same basis as officers in the Army and the Air Force, in that they receive marriage allowance only when they are living apart from their wives. If husband and wife are living in the same house there is no marriage allowance. But officers in the Army and Air Force receive the allowance whether they are living with their wives or not. Another injustice to the naval officer is that he does not receive both marriage allowance and lodging allowance at the same time, where such a payment is applicable. In the other two Services they receive both allowances. Why this discrimination? No admiral receives marriage allowance. I am not arguing whether an admiral should or not, but generals do, and I presume that senior officers in the Air Force do, also. There are three very great differences in the application of the payment of marriage allowances in the three Services.
  I trust that my right hon. Friend the First Lord, after what I have said, to show the discrepancies and the injustices of the marriage allowance and the less pay which naval officers receive in comparison with officers of equivalent rank in the other Services, will have the matter reconsidered, and that on the Naval Estimates he will be able to announce that these injustices have been removed, that naval officers have been placed on the same basis as officers of equivalent rank in the other Services, that the 2s. a day will be restored, and that in all respects in this question of basic rate of pay and marriage allowance the officers of the three Services will be placed on an equality.
  2.40 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): I must begin by apologising to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the House, for not being present at the beginning of his speech. The Debate
  1312
  came on a little earlier than I had expected. I must also pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for the long efforts which he has made over the case which he has put this afternoon. He believes that, in respect of marriage allowance, the naval officer is badly treated in comparison with officers of the other Services, and he has pursued this crusade for a very long time, by questions, by letters, and now by raising the issue on the Adjournment. All honour should be paid to him for the efforts he has made. At the same time, as I hope to show, I do not believe that the case which he has made will stand the full examination which ought to be given to it if the truth is to be seen. He has referred to some figures which have been given by the Admiralty on past occasions, and which refer back to 1919. Without referring back to that year it is not possible to obtain a true picture. When the pay was fixed in 1919 there was taken into consideration, so far as the Navy was concerned, the fact that the marriage allowance element should be included in the pay.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will my hon. and gallant Friend quote the authority for that?
  Captain Pilkington: I was about to come to that very point. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the Jerram Committee in 1919 made no reference whatever to this element of marriage allowance being included in the pay. But there was another Committee—the Halsey Committee—in the same year, who said that they did not recommend the marriage allowance, but that there should be adequate rates of pay for all officers, single or married.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Halsey Committee—which was a sub-committee of the Jerram Committee—dealt with half-pay and pensions. The Jerram Committee dealt with full pay. There was nothing in the Halsey Committee's recommendations about full pay of officers. I read every word of the report of the Jerram Committee yesterday, to make quite sure that I was not mistaken.
  Captain Pilkington: That may well be so. I said that the Jerram Committee did not deal with this matter but that the Halsey Committee did, and in this case, it is the Halsey Committee which is referred to.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Which dealt with pensions.
  Captain Pilkington: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the Halsey Report he will see that it does make this statement—that they did not recommend a marriage allowance, but did recommend a level of pay adequate for an officer, whether he was single or married. It is for that reason that, for a number of years, the Navy did not have a marriage allowance for naval officers. From time to time suggestions were made that such an allowance should, in fact, be made, and, finally, in 1938, the case was made again for instituting a marriage allowance for the Navy and it was passed; but what I want to emphasise is that it was passed at that time not because it was felt that the pay which a naval officer was receiving was inadequate, whether he was married or single, but because there was one aspect of the matter which was felt to be unfair, and that aspect of the affair was this. When a naval officer was serving afloat, he had obviously to keep up a separate accommodation for his family, and he had no allowance made to him for that, whereas an allowance was made for officers serving in the other Services. It was primarily upon that fact that the arrangements for a marriage allowance in 1938 did go through.
  Now we come—and this is in the same year, 1938—to the vexed question which the hon. and gallant Member has pursued with such tenacity——
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves that point, may I suggest to him that the advantage of a marriage allowance is negatived when the officer is ashore, because he is not allowed to receive both the marriage allowance and the lodging allowance?
  Captain Pilkington: Yes, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will have patience, I am coming to that point, though not at this stage of my speech. I am dealing with his first point, that is, the rate of marriage allowance, taking into consideration what he describes as the 2s. cut in 1938. I was saying that he has pursued this question with great tenacity, but he does not, if I may say so, give it a really fair description when he describes it as a cut of 2s. and leaves it at that. My hon. and gallant Friend is ignoring the fact that, in 1919, this element of a marriage allowance was then included in
  1314
  the pay, and if, in 1938, we were going to institute a completely new marriage allowance, it was only fair and obvious that the marriage allowance element hitherto included in the pay should be deducted.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but this is very important. I would like to know what the authority was, since the Halsey Committee was not dealing with the pay of serving officers, which caused the Jerram Committee to reach their conclusions.
  Captain Pilkington: I think I have dealt almost exhaustively with the extent to which these two Committees dealt with this question. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Jerram Committee did not refer to it, but the Halsey Committee did, and I have also said that, as has been said in this House on a previous occasion, the rates of pay in 1919 were made on the assumption that this marriage allowance was, in fact, included in the pay; so that, when, in 1938, a proper marriage allowance was instituted, that element which had hitherto been present in the pay had to be subtracted. It was subtracted from the pay of captains, commanders, and lieutenant-commanders and on a graduated basis for officers commissioned from warrant rank. As was also made plain in the Debate on that occasion, if, in fact, the Admiralty had tried to secure this marriage allowance without making the deduction of 2s., it would not have gone through, for, as I submit to the House, the reasonable causes which I have suggested. At the same time, I should say that the naval officers who would be affected in 1938 by this cut were asked by the Admiralty for their reaction, and, although naturally nobody likes having a cut, for whatever reason, made in his pay, the general fairness of the cut was recognised and it was accepted.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Very few officers were asked.
  Captain Pilkington: Well, a sample of the officers at that time was taken, and it was considered by the Admiralty, who thought that it would benefit the Service as a whole if a marriage allowance was instituted. In 1942, a uniform allowance for all three Services was instituted, and it is hoped that that will remove some of the anomalies which are, I know, felt to exist by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: What has a uniform allowance in all three Services got to do with a marriage allowance?
  Captain Pilkington: I was referring to a uniform marriage allowance. I have been dealing hitherto with the marriage allowance which was instituted in 1938, and I say that in January, 1942, a fresh plan of marriage allowance was introduced which will ultimately take effect, although, of course, at the present moment, those officers on a marriage allowance are on the 1938 scheme.
  I now come to the second point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is the question of the payment of marriage allowance and the payment of lodging allowance. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that the naval officer is penalised in that he does not get the allowance paid to him unless he is keeping up two establishments. I think I should say exactly what the position is under half a dozen broad headings into which the naval officers concerned may be grouped. If a naval officer is living in official quarters with his wife he gets neither the marriage allowance nor the lodging allowance. If a naval officer is living in official quarters, and his family is living elsewhere, then he gets the marriage allowance in order to maintain his family. If he is living in his own quarters, with his wife, then he gets the lodging allowance, because he has to pay the cost of his lodging.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: But he does not get the marriage allowance.
  Captain Pilkington: If he is living in his own quarters, perhaps in a remote part of the country, and has to maintain a second establishment for the rest of his family, he gets both the lodging allowance and the marriage allowance. Finally, if he is serving afloat, he gets marriage allowance. That, I should have thought, was a fair enough arrangement. The principle behind it is that if a serving officer has an establishment to keep up, then the Government contributes towards it. If he has not, then they do not. If we did not have this arrangement, and a marriage allowance was paid irrespective of what accommodation the naval officer had to find, we should get into a series of anomalies in which there might be one naval officer having to maintain, out of his own pocket, two different establishments, and another officer, of exactly
  1316
  the same rank, getting the same allowance but living with his family in accommodation supplied by the Government, and that would obviously be unfair on the first officer.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is what happens in the Army and the Royal Air Force.
  Captain Pilkington: One cannot compare the three Services completely like that. The naval officer serves afloat, whereas neither of the other two Services do. There is another aspect, and an equally important one. The marriage allowance and lodging allowance are treated as being necessary for the maintenance of a home. They are not treated merely as a payment for the fact of a man being married. The contention of my hon. and gallant Friend is that that is wrong and that officers should have a marriage allowance if they are married, and he puts the question of accommodation aside. The great drawback to that is, that if there was a marriage allowance paid as such, it would be taxed under the law as it now stands, and if my hon. and gallant Friend's plan was adopted, although it would benefit a minority of officers who are serving ashore, it would penalise the majority of officers serving afloat.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The 2s. is already taken off the pay of an officer, and, if the marriage allowance, in addition, is to be subject to Income Tax at 10s. in the £, then that would take the other 2s., and the result would be that the officer would be no better off than before the marriage allowance was instituted, since the whole of the 4s. would disappear.
  Captain Pilkington: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's arithmetic in this case. It has been very carefully looked into, and I say to him that, if his plan was adopted, the vast majority of naval officers would suffer. The Admiralty have been into this question with some care and that is the conclusion to which we have come. I have tried to deal with the two points which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. This discussion to-day is part of a long tussle which he has had with the Admiralty, but, if it is of any comfort to him, I can say that it may be that, as a result of some of the anomalies which must, I think, arise during war, and as a result of war time conditions, the whole question of Service

  1317
  pay, not only in the Navy, but in the other Services too, may well have to be reviewed, and I can assure him that his arguments will be taken into account if and when that is done.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend, but may I ask him if he will deal with the question of naval officers receiving less pay than officers of equivalent rank in the other Services?
  Captain Pilkington: Yes, I certainly will. I would also thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kindness in intimating, before the Debate, one or two of the questions which he thought he might raise. The point which he has made concerns the reason why officers in the Navy of a similar rank to those in the other Services receive less pay. Again, we have to go back to the early years. My hon. and gallant Friend asks why. It is because that was when the pay was instituted. It may have been changed since then, but it was built up on what was instituted after the last war, and the fact was taken into account at that time that promotion in the Navy was faster and was obtained at an earlier age than in the other two Services. My hon. and gallant Friend made the point in his speech that he hoped he would never hear that particular argument again from the Government, and, in reply to a question which he asked in the House the other day, he was told that pay depended on rank and not upon age. I submit that that is in no way a contradiction of the fact that when the level of pay was primarily instituted, it was instituted on the basis that the serving officer in the Navy obtained the comparative rank at an earlier age than
  1318
  did the officers in the other two Services. That does not alter the effect of the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend that, at the present time, pay must depend upon the rank attained by the officer in question.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down there is one more point I would like him to explain, and that is why a naval officer is deprived of the lodging allowance.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot make another series of speeches after the Minister has replied.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not explained why an officer is not allowed the lodging and marriage allowance. There is no connection between the two things, because they are given to the officer for totally different purposes, the one because Service quarters are not provided, and the other because he is married.
  Captain Pilkington: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my speech, he will find that I dealt with that point when dealing with the question of marriage and lodging allowance. He will see that they are treated together, and are given to the serving officer if he is expected, owing to the position he occupies, to keep two establishments which he and his wife occupy apart.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is no answer.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Three o'Clock.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Warrant Officer Coles (Shooting, Germany)
  Warrant Officer Coles (Shooting, Germany)
  Officers (Promotion)
  Officers (Promotion)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Railway Wagons (Repairs)
  Railway Wagons (Repairs)
  Mines (Released Service Workers)
  Mines (Released Service Workers)
  Miners Welfare Commission Canteens
  Miners Welfare Commission Canteens
  OCCUPIED GERMANY (DISBANDED ORGANISATIONS)
  OCCUPIED GERMANY (DISBANDED ORGANISATIONS)
  SYNTHETIC RUBBER
  SYNTHETIC RUBBER
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (COMMITTEE)
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (COMMITTEE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Turkeys
  Turkeys
  Condemned Meat
  Condemned Meat
  AFFORESTATION (FENCING MATERIALS)
  AFFORESTATION (FENCING MATERIALS)
  ROYAL NAVY (DE-REQUISITIONED TRAWLERS)
  ROYAL NAVY (DE-REQUISITIONED TRAWLERS)
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (PEACE PLANS)
  RAILWAY WORKSHOPS (PEACE PLANS)
EAST AFRICA
  Uganda (Cattle Diseases, Inoculation)
  Uganda (Cattle Diseases, Inoculation)
  Kenya (Coffee Crop)
  Kenya (Coffee Crop)
  Tanganyika (Indians, Agricultural Training)
  Tanganyika (Indians, Agricultural Training)
  JAMAICA (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT)
  JAMAICA (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT)
PALESTINE
  Jewish Colonisation
  Jewish Colonisation
  Arrest, Tel Aviv
  Arrest, Tel Aviv
NIGERIA
  Tin Mining Legislation
  Tin Mining Legislation
  Native Administration Staffs
  Native Administration Staffs
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (DEFENCE REGULATIONS, DETENTIONS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (DEFENCE REGULATIONS, DETENTIONS)
  POST OFFICE (EXPRESS LETTERS)
  POST OFFICE (EXPRESS LETTERS)
  DEMOBILISATION
  DEMOBILISATION
  BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS)
  BROADCASTING (PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS)
  HOSPITAL SURVEYS (REPORTS)
  HOSPITAL SURVEYS (REPORTS)
  SOUTH AFRICA (HORSE SICKNESS, VACCINE)
  SOUTH AFRICA (HORSE SICKNESS, VACCINE)
  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT, REINSTATEMENT)
  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT, REINSTATEMENT)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (BADGES AND GRATUITY)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (BADGES AND GRATUITY)
AGRICULTURE
  Prices (Adjustment)
  Prices (Adjustment)
  Animal Diseases (Research)
  Animal Diseases (Research)
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Rubber Teats
  Rubber Teats
  New Industries, Durham
  New Industries, Durham

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock.
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Prayers.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1ª.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (CYCLES) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Leathers I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make obligatory the carrying by bicycles and tri, cycles not propelled by mechanical power of rear lamps, red reflectors and white surfaces during the hours of darkness, and to relax temporarily, as respects such vehicles when stationary owing to the exigencies of the traffic or in order to comply with any traffic signal or direction, the obligation to show lights; and I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: FOREIGN OFFICE REFORM.
2.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to make a statement with regard to the future machinery of government, which a Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to examine, and in particular with regard to the central reform of the Foreign Office; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on July 22 of last year on the Foreign Service Bill, I placed before your Lordships certain considerations about the machinery of government, and in particular about the need for the centralization of the activities of various
284
Government Departments in respect of our foreign policy. When I indicated that I might at a future date again return to this subject, the noble Viscount who leads this House, speaking for the Government, said that he would be delighted if I returned to the charge, and advised me to "keep pegging away." He said also that the Government would "keep pegging away" as well. After the lapse of more than a year, I feel that the time has come to follow the advice then given to me, and I therefore submit to your Lordships the Motion which stands in my name. Owing to the exigencies of war-time—and I realize that these are very great—I hardly expect to receive a full declaration to-day of the decisions of the Government, but I trust that as they have had this matter under review now for about two years they will at least be able to report on the progress so far achieved.
Before I pass to my main theme, which relates to the central reform of the Foreign Office, there is one matter to which I would wish again to draw the attention of your Lordships. It is one which concerns the machinery of government. Your Lordships may remember that in November, 1942, there was a debate which lasted for two days on the question of the headship of the Civil Service. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, speaking on behalf of the Government, made some statements of first-class importance about the functions of the holder of that office and their scope. While he did not give me and the noble Lords who supported me full satisfaction, because we held, and we still hold, that the office is unnecessary, and that the duties pertaining to it were admirably performed by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in the years in which the title lay dormant—I am trying to he as uncontroversial as possible—and before its formal revival in 1919, yet what the noble and learned Viscount said did definitely allay the uneasiness which, rightly or wrongly, was felt in many quarters. That being so, I would ask whether as a consequence of that speech any fresh circular, bringing up to date those of 1919 and 1920, has been issued to the various Government Departments. I feel certain that the issue of such a circular would be a wise measure, as considerable confusion still exists about the extent of the authority of the holder of that office. I hope very much, therefore,

285
that a circular will be sent round, if indeed it has not already gone.
The second question which I should like to put is this. Assuming that the Govern- ment have decided that the title "Head of the Civil Service" shall be maintained, will the Head of the Civil Service be also regarded as the head of the Foreign Service which has recently been established? I put that question to the noble Viscount in the debate some little time ago and he asked for notice of it. There is one last question in this connexion which I want to ask before I pass to my main subject. Has the Committee on the machinery of government, about which the noble Viscount spoke in the debate on July 22 of last year, had under review the desirability or otherwise of the continuance of the post of Head of the Civil Service, and, if so, has any conclusion been reached on the subject?
I now turn to the problems which have a special relationship to the reform of the Foreign Office. I was very glad to learn from the recent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, of the steps which have been taken to establish a strong Economic Branch of that Office. The information which he gave us ore November 30 was certainly encouraging, and was satisfactory as far as it went, but perhaps the noble Earl was not sufficiently explicit. He stated that the Economic Relations Department of the Foreign Office
"would be responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the probable political consequences of any action taken in the economic field, and of the probable economic consequences of any action taken in the political field."
He mentioned also the political consequences of economic events. I think the situation requires a little further elucidation, and I should be very glad if the noble Viscount could throw some more light on it. For instance, do the arrangements made provide for the study of the effect on our foreign policy of economic proposals which a Government Department may wish to put forward? It is certainly clear that such a study should take place before the proposals are translated into action, and thus become events. Far more co-ordination of the foreign activities of the various technical, economic and financial Departments and agencies is required in order to enable the Foreign Secretary to formulate a strong and efficient foreign policy, after having taken
286
into consideration all the interests involved, and in particular economic, financial and defence factors.
That brings me to the necessity of coordination at Ministerial level of all activities affecting our foreign policy, a co-ordination which I hold to be essential in the national interest. In connexion with this particular problem there are two subsidiary matters to which I should like briefly to refer. The reforms introduced into the recruitment and the training of the Foreign Service will, in due time, ensure that all the members of that service will become commercially minded. Incidentally, I do not think that the accusation which is too often made that members of the Diplomatic Service in the past cared little, if anything, about trade questions, can be justified. It is true we were not trade experts, but a considerable portion of my time when I had the honour to be His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome was taken up with endeavours to promote our foreign trade. Indeed I remember one time when I went direct to Mussolini in order to secure, if possible, that our Welsh coal trade should have an adequate share of the Italian market, and, if I remember rightly, I had some little success.
But nevertheless it is true, as I have said, that time will be required before the Economic Branch of the Foreign Office can be fully developed by the intake of new recruits. With this in mind I suggest that some staff for this branch should be drawn from the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the big business organizations. If this were done—and I see no reason why it should not be done—then not only would the Economic Branch of the Foreign Office be greatly strengthened, but the objections which have been raised to a transfer of that part of the Department of Overseas Trade which deals with foreign countries, would very largely be met. Your Lordships will no doubt have noted that the officers of the Department of Overseas Trade, whether stationed at home or abroad, are to form part of the new Foreign Service; the rest of it comes under the direct authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The second point I want to make in this connexion is the question of accommodation. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of the economic section being within the four walls of the Foreign Office. But

287
that really is not a practical proposition. The old Foreign Office building is already crammed and filled to bursting point. In fact, I am not sure that there is not a serious case of overcrowding there; and your Lordships will no doubt have in mind the statement made by the Minister of Information, speaking recently, when he said that a large part of the duties of his Department will be taken over when peace comes by the Foreign Office. I think your Lordships will all agree that efficient administration requires that the three branches of the Foreign Office, which I may term the Political, the Economic and the Information Branches, should be housed under one roof. They interact continuously, and the closest consultation between the members is necessary. Bat the present Foreign Office building cannot hold them. What is the solution? In considering the problem we must bear in mind—and here I speak from considerable experience—the necessity of the Foreign Secretary working in the nearest vicinity to No. Io Downing Street. He must be able to reach the Prime Minister at a moment's notice. I am therefore driven rather reluctantly to the conclusion that the only method of reconciling all the needs of the case is that the Foreign Office should expand into the domain of one of the great neighbouring Departments, indeed it will have to obtain complete possession. I shall not pursue that point further for the moment, but I trust that the Government will not overlook this paramount administrative need.
Now I come to my final and by far the most important subject—the coordination at the Ministerial level of all activities of the various Government Departments and of the Bank of England likely to affect our foreign policy. The Government Departments which I have specially in mind are the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Defence Departments. I may have already wearied your Lordships on different occasions by my insistence on this subject, but it is to my mind of such weight that I cannot refrain from again urging that the pre-war organization was seriously deficient and must be reviewed and strengthened. The more I read and the more I learn of what happened in the period between the two wars, the more I am convinced that the
288
foreign policy of different Secretaries of State was seriously hampered, and sometimes even deflected, by the independent action of Government Departments in matters which impinge deeply on our foreign policy. I will give two particular illustrations. First, the trouble which arose at The Hague Conference on Reparations when the action taken by Mr. Snowden very seriously upset our relationship with France, and confronted Mr. Henderson, the then Foreign Secretary—an admirable Foreign Secretary—with very great difficulties as to how to restore it; second, the private financial assistance accorded to Germany, which undermined the considered policy of Sir Austen Chamberlain and ultimately made it possible for Germany to rearm.
Now I have already suggested a possible remedy for this defective state of affairs—namely, the constitution of some organ analogous to the Committee of Imperial Defence; but if that were not found practicable, we should at least have a Standing Committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on which the various Government Departments concerned, including the Fighting Services, should be represented at the Ministerial level; and, by some method or other, the Bank of England should be included in any such arrangement. There should further be a special Secretariat for this Committee. The staff of the Secretariat might well be drawn from different Government Departments, in particular from the Foreign Office. The noble Viscount previously seemed to display some sympathy with these suggestions, and perhaps he may be able to tell your Lordships whether there is a likelihood of their being adopted by the Government, or at least assure us that progress is being made along these or similar lines.
The question has been put to me by somebody in a responsible position, "Why do you worry about these matters at the present time when the co-ordination between the Government Departments is excellent?" My Lords, I am sure it is and I am very glad that it is so, but this was equally the case during the war of 1914 to 1918. It was not until some time after peace had been concluded that these independent tendencies revealed themselves, and the sooner machinery is set up to ensure that such dangers shall be avoided in the

289
future, the better served will be the national interest. It may be that the noble Viscount will tell me that the examination of all these problems is not yet completed and until it is finished a partial announcement of the decisions of the Government cannot be made. If that is so, I must of course accept it, but I would point out that the Government have had these questions under examination for a period of at least two years. However, I shall press him for an assurance that once the conclusions of the Government have been come to, there will be no delay in placing them before Parliament, so that they may, if necessary, be discussed there. It is surely only right and proper that Parliament should control and be fully aware of the machinery of government. I sincerely trust that if the final solution is through a Standing Committee or Committees of the Cabinet, we shall still receive full information and shall not be told that all that concerns the doings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are in the nature of constitutional secrets which cannot be revealed. I say this because I have already noticed a tendency in certain replies given to me and, I may add, to members in another place, that this line is being pursued.
In putting forward these proposals for reform of the central organization, I have, I know, the support of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, but I have hope that this will not be treated in any way as a Party matter. Before now I have ventured to urge that our foreign policy should, in its main lines at any rate, be lifted outside the scope of Party politics. I know that in some quarters this is considered to be a counsel of perfection, but I would most earnestly plead that the Government should consider whether, through the use of the Committee of Imperial Defence or by some other method, the leaders of Opposition Parties cannot be kept informed and consulted when a serious issue occurs in foreign affairs. I believe that in matters of such vital import to the nation there is not likely to be any serious divergence of opinion among men of good will who have before them all the relevant facts of the case, and I am convinced that the highest national interest requires that there shall be a national foreign policy. I beg to move.
2.27 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that the noble Lord has exercised commendable patience in that he has waited quite a considerable time before bringing this subject before the House again, and I would like to lend him what support I can in emphasizing its immense importance. It is rather technical, it is true, and it is not a subject which lends itself to outside presentation in an attractive form; but it is of first-rate consequence in determining national policy and, better still, in guiding it. I think we have to recognize that, apart entirely from the war-time growth of Ministries, which is unavoidable, there is a growing scope of Governmental control and activity, whatever Party is in power. With regard to matters like housing, national insurance, marketing food supplies and all sorts of subjects which affect the community at large, there is a growing and inevitable extension of Government control or direction in one form or another. We have to try and secure that it is not accompanied by excessive departmentalism on the one side or an overgrown bureaucracy on the other. Both are dangers to be avoided.
I would like heartily to agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down, that these are not wholly matters which should be shrouded in unnecessary secrecy. They are matters that can be discussed openly and frankly, and the more they are discussed the better. It does not involve the revelation of Cabinet secrets. It is purely a matter of discussing what is the most appropriate machinery for dealing with the State's affairs. I think we have to look to two things in this connexion, and they are, first, how best to secure the Government's proper formulation of policy; and secondly, the guidance and supervision of its application. With regard to the formulation of policy, I suspect we all have in mind the historic Report of the late Lord Haldane, but there is nobody alive to-day, unless it be Mr. Lloyd George, who has a greater and more intimate experience of the machinery of the Cabinet and the Government than the existing Prime Minister. He has had a unique experience of government in various forms, both in times of war and peace.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us, so far as the matter

291
has gone, something more of the Cabinet machinery. I remember many years ago when it was found necessary, owing to congestion of the Cabinet agenda, to have a Cabinet Committee on Home Affairs which was staffed by the appropriate Ministers. Similarly we should have—though that was not developed in my time—a Cabinet Committee on trade and economic affairs. I associate myself very heartily with what the noble Earl has said as to the immense importance of a Standing Cabinet Committee in some form dealing with foreign affairs. In the old days, (and not very old either), foreign affairs were isolated from other Cabinet work. The Foreign Secretary seemed to be a sort of Secretary of State apart. I can well remember when foreign affairs were by some undeclared consent left to be dealt with by the specialists who were concerned with them while others stood on one side. Whether that might ever have been desirable or not I will not say, but I am quite sure it is extremely undesirable as things are developing.
The noble Lord has suggested a Standing Committee, no matter what its form, of the appropriate Ministers and associated with them a Secretariat staff. Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word on that. There is a Secretariat staff necessarily associated with the War Cabinet. Such a staff gradually grew up around the Committee on Home Affairs. Frankly I have some misgiving on this point. I think a special staff of the Committee of Defence tends to become rather separated from the Departments which have to give effect to policy, and I am not quite sure whether the Economic Staff (as I think it is called at present) which is attached to the Cabinet Secretariat is quite the best arrangement. I have some apprehension of the growth of hierarchy above the ordinary Civil Service of the Department and attached to the different Cabinet Committees, developing their own separate staff, their own traditions, their own methods of obtaining information and so on. The person responsible for advising the Cabinet Committee is the Minister, and it is the Minister's business to inform himself and the business of his staff to help to inform him. I am afraid sometimes that this practice to which I have referred may develop into a Cabinet Committee being informed and guided by
292
its own Secretariat rather than by the Ministers who comprise it being advised and guided by their own Departments. That is the distinction I am trying to bring out and it is that which in my view creates so much misapprehension.
Associated with that I should like to say something about the stock criticism of the Civil Service. We have to avoid excessive bureaucracy. The conduct of his Department depends on the Minister who, naturally, is the person held responsible if anybody makes a blunder. Unfortunately he himself may have known nothing about the blunder at the time and it may be hard sometimes on a Minister—I have suffered myself that way—when he is held responsible for the misdoings or blunders of subordinates. At the same time I think it is right that that should be so because it is the only way of managing the business. It is therefore incumbent upon the Minister to see that departmentalism and bureaucracy do not get out of hand; it is his business to see that it does not. That is one thing. But anything more damaging than the stock criticism of the Civil Service I cannot imagine. It is altogether wrong. My experience of the Civil Service is that, taking it as a whole, it is composed of highly competent, exceedingly trustworthy and thoroughly honest people. This shallow talk about government by bureaucracy has a ricochet effect of discrediting the Civil Service which is most harmful. I believe that a lot of young men who would like to enter the Civil Service and would be very useful in it, may be deterred from entering by this kind of shallow criticism. Although it does not perhaps relate to the subject of the Motion of the noble Earl I once more take the opportunity of voicing my protest against this sort of criticism.
I am quite sure the noble Earl's plea for a reform of machinery connected with the conduct and supervision of our foreign affairs is urgently needed. I do not know how far it has gone in recent times, but I believe it is still a very powerful tradition in the Foreign Office that its sphere is something rather apart from the other activities of the Government, something perhaps a little superior. That is wrong. I am not quite sure whether the method of recruitment, particularly for the Diplomatic Service hitherto, has not been responsible for that result. At all events

293
I am glad to know that there is now in contemplation a much wider machinery of recruitment for the Foreign Service. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us something as to how it is going on. Apart from recruitment we want a complete breaking down of any barriers that there may be between the different branches of the Foreign Service and the men who staff them. Therefore I think we require a long training for the men who are to be recruited into the Foreign Service—training with regard to trade and social conditions and close contact with the many branches of activity that are closely related to the conduct of our foreign affairs.
I hope that there will be developed inside the Foreign Office, for the immediate assistance of the Foreign Secretary, a representative body of experienced public servants who will be knowledgeable in respect of the different branches of trade and finance and other matters that impinge on the conduct of our foreign policy—a body of persons inside the Foreign Office to guide and help the Foreign Secretary. Hitherto the advice to the Secretary of State, (and it is the same in other Departments), has very largely come finally through one channel in the end. I think myself that that may probably be improved. Whilst the Permanent Secretary must be responsible as the chief civil servant, I cannot but think that the Foreign Secretary would be better off if he had round him in his own office a body o men competent to advise on economic, trade and other questions with regard to which he has to take action abroad. The two remarkable cases to which the noble Earl referred—the lending of money to Germany to the harm of our own foreign policy, and Mr. Snowden's activities at The Hague—I think would not have been conducted quite as they were if the Foreign Secretary of the day had been advised by the kind of body I am talking about. Certainly they would not have been if we had had a Standing Committee of the Cabinet to which such things would be submitted before final decisions were taken.
I would like most heartily to support fie noble Earl's plea with regard to the Standing Committee of the Cabinet. I know very well that our machinery of government has got to be adjusted to the exigencies of the time, and therefore it
294
may well be that different procedures are adopted at the present time, but the essential plea that there should be a concert of Ministers acquainted with all the different aspects and all the facts of our policy, to be brought together regularly and serve as a standing piece of our machinery of government, is, I am sure, of the first importance. I certainly hope that that will be accompanied by a much wider range of training of men to serve in the Foreign Department. Finally, and most important of all to my mind, we should make it our business to see that the service of the State is not detracted from but is made more attractive, so as to offer increasing scope for competent men and women of all classes.
2.43 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I venture to offer some observations of a general character about Foreign Office reform. I think indeed I might have offered them before had I not been precluded from attending earlier debates. As it is, what I have to say is very closely linked to the words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and I think that if these particular points of a general character are not borne in mind we may find that reforms, both of men and of machinery which are now contemplated, will perhaps fail to bear the anticipated fruit.
When I joined the service over forty years ago the bar of the examination was neither unduly high nor unduly low. Let us say it was fixed at 5 ft. 6 in. If you cleared that you were a certain winner. You could get a place at 5 ft. 5 in. Moreover, the Ambassadors of the day enjoyed great dignity. Though some of them admittedly were men of no peculiarly outstanding attainments yet they were the personal representatives of the King, they were not commented on in the Press—or very rarely—they were never assaulted in Parliament and they were practically all professionals. At that long range I think I can only remember one exception. Moreover, I think my noble and highly distinguished friends, the Earl of Perth and Lord Tyrrell, would probably bear me out when I say that these men had rather more initiative in guiding policy than the extension of the Cabinet system has subsequently allowed to their successors. I think that is a broadly true proposition. In other words, in those days

295
the entry was fairly easy and the attractions, once in, were considerable.
During the intervening period that has undergone a slight change. The bar was put up peg by peg to about 5 ft. 8 in. and simultaneously the number of outside appointments increased very considerably. I remember very well Lord Curzon, whose private secretary I then was, asking me to say frankly what I thought would be the reaction of the Service to the appointment of Lord D'Abernon to Berlin. I said frankly I thought the results to the Service would be disastrous because we had our own men who were very amply equipped to do the job, as Sir Horace Rumbold, Sir Ronald Lindsay and Sir Eric Phipps afterwards demonstrated. In the same period there was a very marked increase in the evil habit of attacking those who cannot defend themselves. I am the last person in the world to wish to indulge in reminiscences, but I had some experience of that myself on account of my known views as to German intentions. I mention the point merely to say that that has a further tendency to increase the difficulties and reduce the attractions.
During the period of the war some of these tendencies have increased. Nearly all the great posts have been in outside hands—Washington, Madrid, Paris and, at one time, Moscow. At the same time the evil habit to which I alluded just now has not been dropped. On the contrary, there was an instance of it only the other day in another place. I think those who have kept in step and in tune with the march of time must realize that the initiative of modern Ambassadors is severely circumscribed. If that is to be the tendency on the one hand and on the other hand they are to be belaboured in public, that would be the ruin ultimately of any Service.
After the war the bar apparently is not going to be put up peg by peg. It will start somewhere about 5 ft. 10 in and I think you are going to demand a race of walking encyclopædias who, owing to the very just and legitimate amalgamation of the Service, will be required to take their turn as Vice-Consuls at places like Jeddah, Trondhjem and Pernambuco. Some of these posts may not appear at first blush very attractive. If, into the bargain, you are going (a) to restrict their initiative, (b) to put in a number of out-
296
siders over their heads, and (c) to attack them in Parliament as well, I think a good number of your walking encyclopædias will exercise their ambulatory powers by walking out on you. They will do that with all the greater alacrity and celerity in that you will have insisted on their jumping and aiming so high. It has been said that every country has the Government it deserves. That, I suppose, is broadly true. I submit that to-day it is perhaps even truer that every country has the public service it deserves. I submit also that this country has, on the whole, been very well served. If you want it better served then I think you will in the future have to treat your public servants somewhat better.
I revert for a moment to the case of Mr. Leeper. I am not going into the merits or demerits of that case. I merely suggest this to your Lordships' minds. The Government defended him, but, on the very morrow, we saw in the Press that Mr. Macmillan had been appointed to go out to Athens, no doubt, as all charitable minds would have thought, to assist him in his difficulties, but as all uncharitable minds would not only have thought but have said, to supersede him, to wipe his eye. Well, fortunately, that was all put right. No harm was done because Field-Marshal Alexander, possibly the most brilliant soldier of this war, was sent out at the same time, and nobody could possibly cavil at that action. On the contrary it is a very welcome one, but I venture to suggest to the Government that if they had sent out Mr. Macmillan alone that would, in effect, in many minds, have undermined and impaired the prestige and utility of our own Ambassador. And then, in due course, what more natural, more just in a way, than to say that the public interest now makes it advisable that he should be transferred or removed. That would pan out as art extremely odd form of defence.
In other words, I think that if you are to get the best out of the new machinery and the new men, you will, once you have got your new paragons, have to treat them with complete trust and respect. And you will have to allow them not less but a great deal more latitude; and when they have taken it, as I hope they will, why then you will either have to back or sack them. I think it will be very rarely that you will have to resort to the latter alternative. I feel fairly convinced, too, that

297
if you are going to get the best out of them, and the best out of the new machinery—it is all part of one whole—you will also, in the course of time, and not too long a time at that, be driven to reduce these outside appointments to the point where I found them when I entered, in other words to practically nil.
They were, at one time, regarded as more or less accidental. I am going to be very frank about them. I think they are no more an accident; I think that they have been tending to become a system. They have been tending to become spare Ministerial appointments. I do not criticize one of the appointments of this kind which have been made during the past quarter of a century that the practice has been growing. On the contrary, in many cases, these appointments have been crowned with great success. But not even for the sake of old acquaintance will I say that I consider the system—for it is now a system—to be compatible with the much higher aims which we are setting for the professional Foreign Service. To sum them up they are to get the full fruits of all the improvements that are in the air. I feel sure that if we desire an improved service we trust neither beat our servants in public nor cheat them of the higher appointments. All that we can do and should do, if necessity arises, will be to give them notice, and then they will leave—I think this is the consecrated phrase—"to improve themselves." Very likely, I should think, you will find that they will go into politics. If these considerations are borne in mind, I think you will get the full fruits, but if you overlook them I am sure that you will not. I will detain your Lordships no longer.
2.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has framed his Motion on somewhat broader lines than those who have spoken upon it this afternoon have entirely followed. He refers to the whole machinery of government, and I would like, in the course of a few moments, to touch upon that aspect of the Motion. There seem to be two ideas, which do not exactly square, as to how our future machinery of government should be constituted. In the first place, we find it advocated, and advocated very powerfully in many
298
quarters, that in the future, as necessity grows and the work of the Cabinet becomes more and more heavy, there should be a grouping of Departments—such as the Service Departments under a Ministry of Defence, and others which I need not particularize at the moment. That may be a very useful suggestion. Personally I think it is one that might be carried out with advantage. It would be a matter of some difficulty, I foresee, to group the Departments, and it would require very considerable study to prevent overlapping and other inconveniences, but I think it could be done.
Certainly, I think it is preferable to one system which has been put in practice especially during this war and the last war. Suddenly, and at a moment of need, new Departments have been created. Well, that may be necessary in time of war, for you cannot wait for things to happen and you cannot spend time studying matters carefully. But I think it has been pointed out that between the two wars Departments which have been created ad hoc have become permanent. Whether that is a satisfactory solution of the problem or not I do not know, but it is one that involves factors which need the greatest possible consideration. One consideration which I mention in that connexion—and it has been alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—is that of accommodation. I have, in a certain sense, some experience of that matter because, at one time, I had the honour to represent in your Lordships' House the Board of Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health. It was not very easy to keep in touch with the three Departments, but the task was made simpler by reason of the fact that they were practically under one roof so to speak. The Board of Education and the Ministry of Health were actually under one roof, and the Home Office is connected by a bridge, as your Lordships will know. It was quite easy, or fairly easy, to be in touch with the three Departments together.
But, some years later, when I became Under-Secretary of State for War and at the same time had charge in your Lordships' House of the Colonial Office, which at that time was also the Dominions Office, I found a very different state of affairs compared with that which I had experienced when the Departments with which I was connected

299
were under one roof. To get to the Dominions Office, as it was then, from the War Office, although the distance is very short, was a matter of much more difficulty than it would have been had those Departments been under one roof. I think, with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that even if you do not regroup the Departments in the way he has suggested when the Foreign Office expands—a suggestion which seems to find favour in all quarters of your Lordships' House—the Foreign Office, which is divided among different buildings, will be a most difficult place to run efficiently. I was for a short time at the Board of Agriculture, and I remember that we were scattered about in various buildings. That was not a very satisfactory arrangement, and did not tend to make our work easy. When we reconsider the whole machinery of government, therefore, the question of accommodation will be one of paramount importance if we are to avoid overlapping and keep the various subdivisions of the Departments properly in touch with one another.
There is another point which I wish to mention. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Vansittart, and is the question of the itinerant Ministers. Frankly, I do not understand what their particular functions are. What, for example, are their relations with the accredited representatives to the foreign Powers in their area? What is their connexion with the Home Government, and especially with the Foreign Secretary? All the noble Lords who have spoken have insisted on the necessity of the control of foreign affairs by the Foreign Secretary, but if there is a number of other Ministers, whose functions no doubt are clear to my noble friend the Leader of the House—and I hope he will tell us what they are —is the Foreign Secretary responsible for them, and are they responsible to him, or equally responsible with him? The position requires considerable explanation.
There will be general agreement that a dual authority, especially in foreign affairs, is not convenient. During the war we have seen, as my noble friend Lord Vansittart has pointed out, a growth in the appointment of these Ministers, who have been given responsibilities not only for foreign affairs but also for Colonial and Dominion affairs. In wartime that may be convenient and even
300
necessary, and it may work satisfactorily; but I venture to say that if we have Ministers of the Crown—whether Cabinet Ministers or not—who are resident abroad, we shall get into a state of confusion. I noticed in a newspaper—I do not know whether it was accurate or not —that my right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan was described as a Cabinet Minister who was going to Athens. At the beginning of the war, when my noble friend Lord Stanhope was leading the House, the question of the War Cabinet was brought up, and some noble Lord said that there was both the War Cabinet and the ordinary Cabinet. My noble friend got up at once and contradicted him. He said that there was only one Cabinet, and that the other Ministers were not members of the Cabinet. I do not see how a man who lives abroad can be a member of the Cabinet. He may be a Minister, but he cannot have the full responsibility of a Cabinet Minister when he does not live in England and is not in a position to attend the Cabinet.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CHANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): Perhaps I may put that matter right immediately. Mr. Macmillan is not a member of the Cabinet. He is a member of the Government, but the only members of the Cabinet are the members of the War Cabinet.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am glad to hear that the statement to which I referred is inaccurate, and that the responsible members of the Cabinet are the regular Cabinet Ministers—namely, those in the War Cabinet. I need not trouble your Lordships any more on that point, because I have had a perfectly satisfactory answer. For the rest, I should like to associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in their various observations, and to support them in every way possible. I would especially support what my noble friend Lord Perth said about the Head of the Civil Service. I noticed the other day that a pamphlet was published by the Liberal Committee (I think it was) in which the views of my noble friend Lord Perth were fully endorsed. I hope that this anomaly will be put right. It is an anomaly. There may have been a Cabinet Minute fifty or a hundred years ago on the subject, but I understand that

301
that has never been found, and that it is not now in the archives of the Treasury or in the Public Record Office. When I was a member of the Civil Service the Head of the Civil Service may have been known in the Treasury, but he was not known to many outside it. I strongly support my noble friend in thinking that this office should be abolished altogether, or at any rate modified on the lines which my noble friend Lord Perth recommended.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I do not pretend to speak with any great knowledge of the Foreign Office. I speak as a simple soldier with some little experience of international associations, and also as a politician. I think that in dealing with the question which my noble friend Lord Perth has raised, it is as well for some of those outside the Foreign Office to express their views as well as those who have spent their lives inside the Foreign Office. I heartily endorse all that my noble friend Lord Perth has said. I doubt very much whether the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will be able to give him very much satisfaction to-day, but if there is a Committee of the Cabinet sitting to examine these very important questions they will no doubt take into consideration anything which is said in your Lordships' House. This debate may serve to bring points to their notice to which they may not have attached much importance or which they may have overlooked.
It seems to me that for many years the Foreign Office has been getting into a position of less importance than it used to have. The Treasury has become more and more powerful. Possibly what in part led up to the weakening of our Armed Forces before this war was the pressure of economic control by the Treasury rather than any reports from the Foreign Office. NO doubt my noble friend Lord Hankey will have something to say on the subject when he speaks later. A procedure which began at 10 Downing Street in the last war has extended right through into this war, and many of the functions of the Foreign Office have gone over to the "Garden City" at 10 Downing Street. Whether that is a good thing or not I do not know, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary has not at present the great position which he used to have in the counsels of the nation.
There is no doubt that before the war we suffered to some extent from dual con-
302
trol. My noble friend Lord Vansittart would have been able to emphasize that. We had dual control among the civil heads in the Foreign Office; we had one of them advising the Prime Minister and another advising the Foreign Secretary. That cannot be good. The power of the Treasury has increased, while that of the Foreign Office has diminished. It was said in the debate last year that the chief civil officer in the Treasury is now Head of the Civil Service. That is bad. The pressure on the various heads of Departments in the Government, including the head of the Foreign Office, is bound to be increased by this control by the Head of the Civil Service in the Treasury. Until this pernicious system, which was introduced in 1919 by a Cabinet Minute, is done away with there will always be that trouble. I suggest that the Committee of the Cabinet should consider very carefully how the Civil Service in this country is to be controlled, and whether it is a good thing for the head of a Department like the Treasury to exercise the power which he has at present.
Even before the war our international relations were becoming more and more dependent not on pure foreign policy but on economics, industry and finance, and it is perfectly clear that if we are going to make progress we shall have to bring into the Foreign Office some Department to deal with international industry and with finance. In order to do that you have to bring in an adviser to the Foreign Secretary, who would be a Minister under him with the special duty of considering the financial and commercial aspects of all our policies in the various countries of the world. In order to get personnel with the necessary equipment for the task, I think you have to go outside the ordinary entrants to the Foreign Office and bring into the Foreign Office men from the banking world and large concerns in the commercial world, to advise the Foreign Minister on these subjects. For our international relations are, and will in future be, so bound up with financial controls, business arrangements and commerce generally that it seems impossible otherwise to have a policy directed towards those particular things in countries abroad.
There is another point. I think that the Department concerned with commercial treaties and general commercial

303
relations, which is now directed by the Board of Trade, might very well be moved from that Department to the Department which I have suggested at the Foreign Office. The Board of Trade has quite enough to do with our trade at home and with its reactions on our export trade, whereas matters of commercial relations and treaties would be much better if put definitely under the Foreign Office. That is my suggestion, made with the advice I have received from my commercial friends. Such a change of course would mean a reconstruction of the Department of Overseas Trade which indeed is a corollary of such a move. I think the Department of Overseas Trade might be strengthened and reconstructed. For there is no doubt at all that in trying to re-establish this country after the war we shall have to give long credit to various countries in Europe. We shall have to give credit to Russia, we shall have to give credit for periods of four or five years. We shall get it all back later on when these countries are re-established, but in order to re-establish these countries I am perfectly certain it would pay us to give the necessary credit, so that the outflow of trade to these countries would be followed later on by an inflow of imports into this country. That again depends very largely on the policy of His Majesty's Government, and if we have a Foreign Office properly equipped to look ahead, and men with real knowledge to deal with these things, then I think we shall get something of great advantage to the country.
The last thing I should like to refer to is the question of Germany. There is no doubt at all that after this war is over the control of Germany will be not so much a control by armed forces as a financial and economic control over a period of many years. It may go on for ten or fifteen years until something arises in Germany, but until that time comes we shall have to control her war potential, and to control that war potential we shall have to have it examined very carefully by a Department in this country, and at the same time by economic advisers who will be placed abroad. I cannot imagine any possibility of divorcing foreign policy from such a control, and the Foreign Office must get first-hand information of what is going on in Germany. What happened after the last war? We know
304
very well what happened. I paid many visits to Berlin at that time when Lord D'Abernon was Ambassador there. Although things were going on under our noses, and we knew very well about them, the real information never reached our Government at home. Unless we have some sort of control, with the necessary information —which means the spending of money—we shall be in the dark again after a period of probably ten or fifteen years. For that reason I think our Foreign Office does require to be reorganized and put in a position whereby it will take over certain functions from other Departments which those Departments are probably not doing so well as the Foreign Office could do them if given the necessary trained personnel. For that reason I have great pleasure in supporting the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
3.17 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I am not going to attempt to cover the whole of the ground of this Motion to-day partly because, to my great regret, I arrived rather late, and for another reason because I really said nearly all I want to say in earlier debates, one in 1942 on the headship of the Civil Service, another in 1943 on the reform of the Foreign Office, and a third on my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield's Motion in March, 1944. Just as I took my seat, however, I heard my noble, friend Lord Onslow speaking about the arrangements whereby members of the Government, like Lord Halifax and at one time Mr. Casey when he was in Egypt, are members of the War Cabinet. I do not know that I feel any very strong objection to that as a war measure. I do not know any precedent for it, but just as an Ambassador is strengthened by being a Privy Councillor, so I should have thought that in war-time there was a case for giving certain representatives abroad this special status as members of the War Cabinet or of the Government, especially now that air communications enable them to keep a closeness of contact such as did not exist in the past and to come home for consultation.
My main reason for rising, however, is to expand a little the point that I made in some of the earlier debates—namely, a plea for a still closer association between the Foreign Office and the Committee of Imperial Defence. There has,

305
of course, always been a fairly close association. For example, the secretary of the body that preceded the Committee of Imperial Defence, and on which it was founded really, a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, that was started by Lord Salisbury, I think, in 1895, was a member of the staff of the Foreign Office. In my view that precedent might be followed with great advantage by appointing a member of the Foreign. Office staff as an Assistant Secretary for a term of years, just like the other Assistant Secretaries from the Service Departments, to the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of course, a much closer link than that is the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the very first right up to the beginning of the present war was a regular member and a regular attendant at the Committee. In addition, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Tyrrell would confirm, was in the very closest touch with the Committee and was the custodian of its archives in the Foreign Office.
In addition to that, very important questions of foreign policy were frequently discussed at the Committee in their defence aspects. For example, as is shown by many of the memoirs, including those of Lord Oxford and Asquith, our defensive preparations for 1914 were largely governed by our treaty obligations as formulated by the Foreign Office, including, of course, very notably, the Belgian Treaty of Guarantee of 1839. Many other examples could be given up to the most recent times. But, in spite of that, there have been many occasions on which our foreign policy has got out of step with our defence policy: I go back to 1856 for a case, when Lord Clarendon signed the Declaration of Paris on the ground that "We can never again establish our ancient doctrine concerning neutrals," and dealt thereby a blow at our maritime rights which was destined to prove very embarrassing nearly sixty years later in the Great War. That mistake was repeated again in much more modern times in the Declaration of London of 1909. Although the House of Lords rejected the legislation to give effect to that instrument, nevertheless the Declaration of London, on top of the Declaration of Paris, hampered our sea power most grievously in the Great War, and it was long before the enemy's
306
breaches of the laws of war enabled us to get rid of them for the rest of the war.
Those examples are in glaring contrast to Lord Castlereagh's action under Cabinet instructions, no doubt prompted by the Navy of that day, in insisting at one of the meetings before the Conference of Vienna that the question of maritime rights must be entirely excluded from discussion; and they are in glaring contrast to Mr. Lloyd George's corresponding action, also under War Cabinet instructions and also, I feel sure, prompted by the Admiralty of that day, in securing the reservation of the interpretation of the question of the freedom of the seas in the second of the Fourteen Points. Several examples of a loss of contact between defence and foreign policy should be mentioned between the two wars. For instance, there was that sequence of a Treaty of Mutual Assistance, a Treaty of Mutual Guarantee and the Geneva Protocol, all of which, if my memory serves me aright, were drawn up at Geneva without there being any opportunity for them to be discussed from the point of view of our own defensive requirements, with the result that they proved unacceptable and had to be rejected. And the same was true, in a way, of the Treaty of Locarno, although that did get through and was ratified, but it was really so unworkable—I am sorry to see that Lord Cavan is not here; I am sure he would support me—that it was impossible to put teeth into it.
The fact is that this long-drawn-out disarmament episode is the most striking instance you can find of the unbalancing of defence policy and foreign policy. It was fatal to the Fighting Services and, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack who was then Foreign Secretary said in another place on November 28; 1934, "disarming ourselves in advance, by ourselves, by way of an example, has not increased our negotiating power in the disarmament discussions at Geneva." I have said enough, perhaps too much, to show that the close and very valuable association of the Foreign Office with the Committee of Imperial Defence has not prevented an unbalancing at times of foreign policy and defence, to the detriment of both. It needs to be strengthened. I would submit to your Lordships that two principles ought to be adopted: first, that the strength of our Forces, as

307
well as our plans and preparations for their use in emergency, should always be adjusted primarily to our international commitments, as well as, of course, to other defensive considerations; second, that no new international commitments should ever be undertaken without prior discussion at the Committee of Imperial Defence. I believe that if those two principles could be closely followed, it would prevent the trouble we have got into so often.
Now as to the ways and means, the machinery for carrying out those principles, a number of valuable suggestions have been made in the course of the debates I have mentioned. My noble friend Lord Chatfield's suggestions, his proposals for securing unity in defence policy by the adoption of a national defence programme accepted by Parliament for a term of years, if adopted and carried out, would go far to secure the desired result, since his long-term defence plan would have to be founded largely on policy and, I understand, would be modified from time to time to meet changes in that policy. Then there are quite a series of proposals in a new book that has just been published by Sir Victor Wellesley, a very distinguished former Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, entitled Diplomacy, in Fetters, in which is assembled a vast amount of information on this subject. The book only reached me last night and I do not pretend to have conned it properly. I do notice, however, that he proposes not only important developments of organization within the Foreign Office but also outside the Foreign Office, including a Cabinet Committee on Foreign Affairs, which he says has been advocated by Mr. Amery and others. He also discusses a great number of other suggestions that ought to be very carefully weighed and I hope will be weighed by the War Cabinet Committee before the question is finally settled, if it is not finally settled already.
Again the whole matter is admirably presented in a closely reasoned pamphlet called Problems of Foreign Policy, published I think by the Liberal National Party. I hope I have not got the title wrong; these things are rather confusing, but it is no doubt familiar to your Lordships. That reaches the conclusion that the Committee
308
of Imperial Defence already provides the machinery for better consultation in matters of foreign policy and that the solution lies in the direction of the already existing machinery being more extensively used than it has been in the past. For my part I prefer the Committee of Imperial Defence to a Cabinet Committee for this reason, that it would enable one or two high officials of the Foreign Office and the Chiefs of Staff or their representatives to be present and would thus give a more permanent element to the organization which would go on from Government to Government. That suggestion I submit at present holds the field.
3.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in the speech with which he opened this debate, implied, at least so I understood him, that he had again raised this subject of the machinery of government, with special reference to the reform of the Foreign Office, as a result of my encouragement. I almost got the impression that he had done it as a personal kindness to me. That I think was going a little too far. So far as I am aware I have never encouraged any noble Lord to raise any subject in this House. Indeed, so active are your Lordships' minds and so wide your interests that it seems to me you never need such a stimulus from me. At The same time, I would fully agree that this is a subject very suitable for discussion in your Lordships' House and I would also agree with him that your Lordships' House was a very suitable body to discuss it. After all, we do contain within our ranks many eminent public servants, who have had a lifelong experience of this particular subject. The last time this question was raised and discussed I claimed, what is indeed perfectly true, that there is no difference between His Majesty's Government and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the other noble Lords who have spoken to-day as to the main objects to be achieved—namely, the desirability of ensuring the closest co-ordination that is possible between foreign, commercial and economic policy. We all agree about that.
As I think Lord Addison said in the speech he delivered this afternoon, this is a matter of the very first importance to our country. The whole problem is

309
one of method and, I would add, it is not possible to isolate the problem of foreign policy from other aspects of the machinery of government. When I spoke last, I think I also stated—a reference has been made to it to-day—that there is a Cabinet Committee already sitting to consider this broad general problem. The main question that the noble Earl has asked me this afternoon is whether I can now say how the deliberations of that Committee are progressing. He recognizes, and I am grateful to him, that no final decisions are probably yet possible. What lie asks for is an interim report. He has been supported, as the House has heard, by other noble Lords, all of whom have stressed the importance of setting up the necessary machinery.
I feel it is desirable, not so much from the point of view of your Lordships, who know the facts, but of anyone outside this House who may read the debate, that I should first remove the impression, which some of the speeches may have created, though I am sure it was unintentional, that at present there is little or no coordinating machinery between foreign and economic policy. That of course is not the case. It was not the case before the war and it is still less the case now. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, in his opening speech said—I think I have got his words—that he had become more and more convinced that, in the years between the wars, the policy of the Foreign Secretary was hampered and deflected by the action of other Departments. No doubt that, on occasion, was perfectly true, in the sense that the policy of the Foreign Office and other Departments did not always coincide and that the Foreign Secretary was often obliged to make concessions to meet the views of other Departments. But it does no: necessarily imply, though it may have seemed to imply, that there was not full consultation between the Foreign Office and the other Departments concerned. Where consultations did not take place—I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, quoted one or two instances in his speech—that was not necessarily the fault of the machinery. It may well have been the fault of individual Ministers, who did not operate that machinery as it should have been operated; I am afraid that no machinery however perfect could completely avoid that danger.
310
I do not intend to suggest to your Lordships that the machinery which existed before the war was anywhere near perfect. Clearly there was room for improvement. But, actually, elaborate machinery did exist which was built up, as I think Lord Hankey said, under the Cabinet Offices, for the purpose of coordinating the various aspects of public policy. Lord Addison said to-day that when he first came into politics the Foreign Office was isolated. That is certainly not the case now, and I think your Lordships all know it. Within recent years, innumerable meetings have taken place, day after day and week after week, both at the Ministerial and at the official level, to discuss the various aspects of policy. And if that was already true before the war, I am glad to think it is even truer now. If I may give my personal experience as Dominions Secretary, I constantly attend meetings of my colleagues on commercial and economic subjects in regard to matters which concern the Dominions, and it was exactly the same when I was Colonial Secretary. At those meetings, in my experience, the Foreign Office was always represented on any subject where their interests were concerned. Often at those meetings—sub-committees of the Cabinet or whatever you wish to call them—complete agreement was reached: and where it was not, the matter had to be taken up to the Cabinet for final decision. That is the machinery. I do not say it is complete and perfect machinery, but it would be a great mistake for anyone outside this House to feel that there was no machinery in existence.
The question which the Committee on the machinery of government has to consider is, Can that machinery be improved? I am not yet in a position, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, anticipated, to tell the House the point which the discussions of that Committee have yet reached. If it be pointed out to me, as he did very gently this afternoon, that the examination of this problem has already been proceeding for over two years, I would answer—and I think quite fairly—that that does not necessarily imply that the time is yet ripe for final decisions. Under the impact of war we are all of us learning lessons the whole time. Discussions which are now taking place with other countries—discussions on financial and economic

311
questions—are likely to, and almost certainly will, bring into being yet more organs of international collaboration. These must be taken into account in framing our own machinery of government. As I understand it, there is no desire in any quarter that the Foreign Office should dominate economic policy merely because economic affairs have an international aspect. The noble Earl put forward no such pretentions to-day and indeed it would obviously be quite ludicrous to put forward such a point of view as that.
The Foreign Secretary has made it quite clear that there is no question of the Foreign Office trenching on the responsibilities of other Departments. What is required, and what of course we shall try to provide in any reforms which may be instituted, is that the Foreign Office should be an efficient partner in the formulation of Government policy as regards the economic, commercial, and political aspects of international affairs. For this purpose, it may be found desirable to constitute machinery in a very definite form, machinery of the type suggested by the noble Earl this afternoon, or it may, on the contrary, prove preferable to allow greater elasticity to enable the business of government to be arranged as may be most convenient from time to time.
The noble Earl himself put forward two very interesting suggestions to-day as to how our common purpose may be achieved. One of them, I think, he mentioned in your Lordships' House during the last debate and the other was a new one. First he suggested the constitution of some organ similar to the Committee of Imperial Defence but dealing with external affairs; and secondly put forward the idea of a Standing Committee of the Cabinet—in this I think he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addison—which would be presided over by the Foreign Secretary and would include the other Ministers concerned, with a special Secretariat. He also suggested that there should be on that Committee a representative of the Bank of England. I thought that was rather a surprising proposal. I do not see how there could be such a representative on a Ministerial Committee unless, possibly, it is now the policy of the Liberal Party to nationalize the Bank of England.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I say that I suggested that the Bank of England should, in some way, be included in these arrangements because I think the fact that money was poured into Germany without the knowledge of the Foreign Secretary was a very serious thing?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not know whether my noble friend has discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Catto, who used until lately to ornament the Liberal Benches; but surely the best liaison between the Cabinet and the Bank of England would be provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I think he would be in fact the representative. We have had other alternatives put forward this afternoon. There was an extremely valuable contribution from my noble friend Lord Hankey, who speaks with unrivalled experience. As I understood it, he rather favoured a closer integration, for this purpose, of the Foreign Office and the existing Committee of Imperial Defence. He suggested, for instance, that the Foreign Secretary should always be present at meetings of the Defence Committee. So far as I am aware, that has been the practice ever since the beginning of this war.
LORD HANKEY: I did say that.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The noble Lord would, I understand, like that to continue. He also made other valuable suggestions. As regards all these proposals, I can give an assurance that I will pass them on and that they will be given the careful consideration which they deserve by the Committee on the machinery of government. I can also assure the noble Earl on a point to which he obviously attached considerable importance, that the fullest practicable information as to the machinery ultimately decided upon will be given to Parliament when the time comes. I agree with him that there is no reason for complete secrecy on a matter of that kind.
In the meantime, I feel that your Lordships' House will agree that considerable progress has been registered by the setting up of the Economic Department of the Foreign Office, which was referred to by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel last week. The function of this Department is exactly what was defined by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, as being necessary. It is to advise the Foreign Secretary as

313
to the bearing of economic developments at home and abroad on foreign policy and as to the bearing of decisions made by the Foreign Office, in the political sphere, on the economic position. It will act in fact as a liaison between the Foreign Office and the Economic Departments. That is, I think, the answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as to whether there would be provision for the study of proposals put forward by other Departments before they were translated into action. That is one of the main purposes for which the new Department has been Great d. It is also proposed that the Foreign Office should contain a Foreign Economic Intelligence Department to collate information as to economic developments in .foreign countries. I think that this should prove a very valuable piece machinery. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hankey indicated there had been a lack of precisely that type of machinery in the years before the war.
I know what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will say. He will say that all this is not bad, but that it is not enough. I agree that that may very well be so, but, for all that, it is a very considerable advance in the right direction. It is hoped by the Foreign Secretary that, as soon as man-power considerations become easier than at present, it will be possible to arrange for a considerable interchange of staff between these two new departments of the Foreign Office with the Treasury and the Board of Trade. I would not like to go further, but that is what is hoped. This, I think, provides the answer to another question asked by the noble Earl this afternoon. He also asked whether business men of suitable experience will be taken into consultation. So far as I know, that is not ruled out. At any rate, I will pass on what he has said this afternoon.
There is one other question asked by the noble Earl, which it may he convenient that I should deal with now. He referred to the remark made by my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that the Economic Department should be situated within the four wells of the Foreign Office and he asked how this was to be achieved. As I understood him, he suggested that the Foreign Office should take over the buildings of one or more of the neighbouring Departments. Here the noble Earl touched on an extremely tender spot.
314
As he knows, the problem is not an easy one. I think it is common knowledge that all Government Departments to-day are suffering from exactly the same handicap—namely, shortage of accommodation. I have been in turn Colonial Secretary and Dominions Secretary and I can tell your Lordships that both Departments are lamentably short of space. Indeed the staff of the Colonial Office is already scattered over wide areas of Western London. All these Departments, every one of them, have the same need. They need to be concentrated in one building near the centre of Government. The noble Earl, I thought, looked at the problem, quite naturally, from the point of view of the Departments with which for years he was connected; but in his present detached and more Olympian position, I hope he will not take too departmental a view of this matter. All I can say this afternoon is that the Government are very aware of the urgency and the complexity of this problem. Negotiations are already proceeding and it is hoped they may lead to a solution of this very real difficulty.
So much for what I may call the main subject of the debate; but inevitably some more extensive issues have been raised about which I may perhaps be allowed to say a word. First, there was the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as to the relationship between the various Resident Ministers who, at present, represent His Majesty's Government in various parts of the world, and the Foreign Secretary. Quite clearly, the noble Lord did not at all like these new ornaments of the body politic. He, apparently, looked forward with the keenest relish to the day when they would, he removed from it. This new category of Ministers of the Crown is certainly a somewhat novel development. It has been brought into being, in accordance with the natural adaptability of the British Constitution, in order to meet a completely new set of circumstances. But I do not think it would be right to assume, as I thought the noble Earl did, that they necessarily overlap the functions of existing diplomatic representatives of the King. Indeed, they were appointed, as your Lordships know, and as I think Lord Hankey said to-day, to fill a gap created by abnormal war-time conditions.
Take the positions of Minister Resident in the Middle East and Minister Resident

315
in the Central Mediterranean. This is a complicated question, and, as the noble Earl was good enough to give me notice, I have obtained accurate particulars for the House. The essential business of the Minister Resident in the Middle East is to co-ordinate issues of general importance affecting more than one territory in his area, to settle matters in dispute which would otherwise have to be referred home—especially when several local authorities or Departments are concerned —and to give guidance to the Commanders-in-Chief on matters of concern or interest to them, as, for instance, the administration of occupied enemy territory. On political matters, where, in his own sphere, concerted action is required regarding foreign policy, he corresponds with, and reports to, His Majesty's Government through the Foreign Office. His normal channel of communication is through the medium of His Majesty's Embassy in Cairo and the Foreign Office. He communicates direct, however, with other Departments on matters which are their concern. That is the position of the Minister Resident in the Middle East.
Now I come to the position of Minister Resident in the Central Mediterranean. This member of the Government, this Minister, serves in two capacities—first, as Resident Minister; and second, as Acting President of the Allied Commission. In his first capacity, his general function is to represent the views of His Majesty's Government, on political and economic questions relating to the territories within his sphere, to the Allied Commander-in-Chief. This normal channel of communication is through the Foreign Office. As Acting President of the Allied Commission, to which he has been appointed by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, his channel of communication with His Majesty's Government and with the Government of the United States is through the President of the Commission—that is the Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean—and the Combined Chiefs of Staff. I think that what I have said makes it clear that, so far as any matters in the field of foreign policy are concerned, the channel of communication of Resident Ministers is through the Foreign Office, and the functions discharged by them are entirely without prejudice to the functions normally discharged by His Majesty's
316
representatives in the various territories with which they are concerned. As to the duration of these posts, of course, I cannot tell the House anything. That lies in the lap of the future. I take it that these appointments are likely to come to an end when the emergency for which they were created no longer requires their continuance.
There were also one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. He spoke from a very long and distinguished experience of foreign affairs, and he made what I thought were some extremely interesting remarks with regard to the present situation of the Diplomatic Service and its possible reforms. I say reforms, my Lords, but broadly speaking nearly every reform that was proposed by the noble Lord aimed at going hack and not forward. He wanted, as I understood it, to return to what he regarded as the older and better methods of the past. It seems that he regrets almost everything that has happened in the last twenty or thirty years. He expressed regret at the fact that there was less responsibility thrown on the shoulders of diplomats than used to be the case. He regretted the tendency of Governments to appoint as Ambassadors men who are not professional diplomats. He regretted that there was more publicity than there used to be about the actions of diplomats. With regard to these last two points, I am bound to say that I thought the noble Lord was a little too rigid. It would surely be impossible for any of us to say that in no circumstances ought His Majesty's Government to appoint to an Embassy a non-professional. Names like those of Lord D'Abernon and Lord Bryce spring to one's mind. At the same time, it is quite clear that if all the plums of the profession were given outside the Diplomatic Service, the evil effect on the Service itself would be serious and lasting, and I hope, personally, that that consideration will be very high in the minds of the Foreign Secretaries in the future.
The appointment of non-Service Ambassadors and Ministers should be very much the exception, and should not become the rule. In that respect, I find myself in strong agreement with Lord Vansittart. Similarly—to come to Lord Vansittart's second point—I think it is inevitable that less personal responsibility should be given to diplomats than used to be the case in past days. The very simple fact of the invention of the postal

317
telegraph, the telephone and now wireless make it possible for Governments to keep in touch with events in other countries from day to day, almost from hour to hour, and that gives them an additional direct responsibility from which, I feel sure your Lordships will agree, they cannot: in practice divorce themselves. Lord Vansittart mentioned Greece, which is very much in all our minds at the present time. Supposing I were to get up in your Lordships' House and say that His Majesty's Government could accept no responsibility for recent. developments, that the affairs of Greece were in the hands of His Majesty's representative in Athens, and that the main responsibility rested on him. That would be an impossible position for me to take up, and your Lordships would, quite properly, laugh Me to scorn. The new means of communication which have telescoped space have, inevitably, entirely altered the speed and methods of diplomacy. It is quite useless for us to ignore this.
But this very fact, I suggest, makes it more unjustifiable—and here I find myself in very strong agreement with Lord Vansittart—that His Majesty's diplomatic representatives abroad should be subject to public attack here. It cannot, I think, be made too clear that the Government, and the Government alone, are responsible for our policy towards foreign countries, and that the function of diplomatic representatives is merely to carry out that policy under instructions from the Government at home. For uninformed people—and I am afraid that there are all too many of them—to hurl abuse at devoted public servants is surely indefensible and liable to break the heart of the Diplomatic Service.
Reference has been made by several noble Lords to the position of the Head of the Civil Service. I do not propose to deal with that question now. Two years ago, we had a very full debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, a debate which lasted for two whole days. That debate was notable for a very remarkable speech by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which will, I believe, go down as the classic exposition of this subject, and I have certainly nothing to add to it. It appears from some of the speeches made to-day that the necessity for a Head of the Civil Service is still disputed; but at any rate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, himself said that
318
the Lord Chancellor's statement had allayed many of the anxieties which were felt. He asked me whether, as a result of that speech, a further circular, bringing up to date those of 1919 and 1920, has been or is to be issued to Government Departments. So far as I know such a circular has not been issued; but the principles enshrined in that statement are being applied in practice in all Departments. If the noble Earl has any evidence to the contrary, I shall be very glad if he will let me know, and I will pass on the information to the appropriate quarter.
He asked two other questions. The first was, whether the Head of the Civil Service will also he head of the new Foreign Service. From what my noble friend Lord Hutchison said, there is a genuine and serious misunderstanding about this, and I am glad to be able to give a clear and unequivocal answer. The answer is that he will not. The White Paper on the Foreign Service states quite definitely that the new Service "will be entirely separated from the Home Civil Service and will be treated as a self-contained and distinct Service of the Crown." The Head of the Civil Service, therefore, will not be the head of the Foreign Service. Secondly, the noble Earl asked whether the Committee on the machinery of government had considered the question of whether the position of Head of the Civil Service should continue, and, if so, whether they had come to any decision. That was a very fine fly which the noble Earl threw over me; but I feel sure that he will not really expect me to give the House information as to the proceedings of a Cabinet Committee which has not yet completed its deliberations and which has certainly not yet reported to the Cabinet. Even if I were to be so indiscreet, the information which I gave your Lordships would be utterly without value at the present stage. I hope, however, that the noble Earl will not take this to mean that His Majesty's Government are contemplating any departure from the views expressed by the Lord Chancellor two years ago; to do so would be very rash on his part.
In conclusion, to revert for one moment to the main question of the debate, I should like most cordially to support the plea of my noble friend Lord Perth that foreign policy should be kept outside Party politics. That is not always as

319
easy as it sounds, as we may see from the events of this last week. But, though no doubt divergencies of view are sometimes inevitable, and nothing can prevent them, at the same time we shall all agree that they are deplorable and can only tend to weaken our influence in the councils of the world. We should take every possible step to reduce them to a minimum. I would agree with the noble Earl that the best way to avoid such differences and divergencies is, first of all, to see that there is the closest possible co-ordination of policy between the various Departments, so that we may ensure that this country has a foreign policy which is firm and undeviating, and secondly to ensure that the fullest information possible should be given to the leaders of all the main Parties of the State, in order that they may be able to guide their followers with a full knowledge of the facts. On those two basic principles I should imagine that we are all agreed, and to that end all our deliberations, whether on the Committee on the machinery of government or elsewhere, should be devoted in the crucial months and years which are to come.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I should like first of all to express my appreciation of the support given to me by the various noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular by Lord Addison. I also wish to say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for what he has just said. I feel that there is very little difference of opinion between us except that I (speaking with all humility) have had more experience of foreign affairs in the past, and perhaps of the machinery of government, than he has had; but that is owing to age, and I am not at all sure that that is an advantage. I am much relieved to hear that the headship of the Civil Service does not include the headship of the new Foreign Service, but I would still ask whether it would not be opportune for a circular to be issued in the sense of the admirable speech made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, for otherwise, knowing Government Departments as I do, I know that the circulars of 1919 and 1920 will certainly hold the field.
There is one constitutional point raised by the noble Viscount to which I should like for a moment only
320
to refer. He said, and rightly, that it is intolerable that servants of the Government, official diplomats, should be criticized by name in the public Press. I entirely agree, but what is the position as regards people like Mr. Macmillan? Is the same rule of exemption from criticism to be applied to them or not? It is a very nice constitutional point, and perhaps the noble Viscount will think it over.
LORD ADDISON: They are open to criticism.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The answer which I have received from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is that they are open to criticism. On the main question, my rather pessimistic anticipations have been justified, but the noble Viscount attributed that to the war, and I cannot dispute that plea. I am very grateful to him, however, for the announcement that the decisions of the Government about the machinery of government will be placed before Parliament as soon as definite conclusions are reached, and I am so grateful for that that I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FORESTRY POLICY
4.8 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to put the first question that stands in his name. If I may say so, I trust that the Government will bear in mind the importance of an early announcement, and also that only a few of the main principles concerning private forestry have been agreed with the Forestry Commission, and these are dependent upon other important details which have to be filled in.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are considering the Joint Report of the Royal Scottish and Royal English Forestry Societies as well as the proposals of the Forestry Commission; whether they are aware that the long delay in making public their decisions on future forestry policy and administration is preventing woodland owners from preparing their plans for replanting their felled areas; and whether they will therefore make known these decisions at an early date.]
LORD BINGLEYMy Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to add a few sentences on behalf of England, because this is not a question which applies only to Scotland. The need for a decision by the Government and for an announcement of their policy about forestry is very urgent in England also. There are very many wide areas which have been felled under requisition and which can never be got going again without considerable Government assistance. The suggested plan of the Forestry Commission for the protection of these woodlands by those willing to maintain thorn would solve the difficulty, and the sooner that that declaration can be made the sooner will it be possible to get on with making plans.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT rose.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think that we had better observe the usual procedure with starred questions. I have been asked to answer the noble Earl's question, which has been put on his behalf by the noble Duke. The Government have already made clear their intention that in framing their proposals on the Forestry Commission's Report they will be guided by the advice of Parliament and by representations from outside bodies.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government have before them the Joint Report of the two Royal Forestry Societies, and have it under consideration along with the proposals of the Forestry Commission. I recognize that if a landowner knew precisely what terms of assistance the Government's proposals may contain for private forestry, he would he so much the better placed for making plans and preparations at once. The Government think it better, however, that forestry policy should be formulated as a whole, and they must, therefore, ask for the exercise of a further measure of patience. In the meantime, the Government have made it clear that they desire a great expansion of forestry activities after the war. They have instructed the Forestry Commission to take such preparatory steps as are open to them, pending further decisions, and they trust that private owners will feel encouraged to do the same.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to seize the opportunity afforded by the noble Earl's question, which the procedure of your Lordship' House enables me to do, to ask His Majesty's Government the following questions: First, will His Majesty's Government state now or in the near future that they will do their best to ensure that, save in the case of extreme financial necessity, they will not allow the Forestry Commission's grant in aid to sink below the average figure of the 1929–1939 decade? Secondly, will His Majesty's Government consider bringing the Forestry Commission's aims and the work it has hitherto accomplished to the notice of the general public by an increased number of popular publications to be issued at reasonable prices and preferably illustrated in order to make the public more forestry minded?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's two questions, of which he gave me previous notice, I have to say that the post-war forestry policy of the Government, including the financial aspect, is under consideration, and I am sure the noble Lord will not expect a statement at this moment. In reply to his second question the Government will do everything they can to stimulate interest in forestry among the general public.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, in regard to the word "patience" in the noble Earl's answer, can he say what period of time is indicated by that word?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid I am not able to do so, but I will certainly direct the attention of the appropriate Department to the noble Earl's question.

REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR
4.13 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH Arm QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield I beg to ask the other question which he has on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will consider the advisability of giving to all British prisoners of war, repatriated now or in the future, the option of immediate discharge from His Majesty's Forces, pro-

323
vided that their period of imprisonment shall have been of not less than two years' duration.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, prisoners of war who have been repatriated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention fall into two classes. They may be seriously ill or wounded and a Mixed Medical Commission may recommend them to be repatriated. On the other hand, they may be protected personnel, for example members of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Most of those in the former category are discharged from the Army on medical grounds. If they are not discharged they are employed either in administrative, training, or other noncombatant units in this country. Protected personnel may be employed in any theatre of war overseas if they are medically fit for such employment, provided that they are not employed in a combatant capacity.
In addition to men repatriated under the provisions of the Geneva Convention there are men who return from captivity in other circumstances, for example the men who were recently rescued while being taken by the Japanese from Siam. There is no Convention which restricts their employment. They are liable to be sent overseas in any capacity for which they are medically fit, but they will not in fact be sent to the Far Eastern theatre. I should perhaps add that they are given six weeks' leave when they arrive and are retained in the Home Establishment for six months and during this time they undergo courses of rehabilitation. Those who are retained for service in the Army are therefore fully attuned to Army life.
The noble Lord's suggestion would deprive the Army of a number of men who are fully capable of useful employment in it, and in view of the very serious man-power situation this loss of useful men would not be justified. Moreover, the application of such a rule as he suggests would be unfair to men who have been prisoners for just under two years and also to men who have not been captured but have undergone the ardours of fighting, perhaps in a number of theatres in the course of several years. I regret, therefore, that His Majesty's Government do not see their way to adopting the noble Lord's suggestion.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply and apologizing for having been detained by a slight atmospheric thickness, I hope the Government will bear in mind that many of these men who have been for prolonged periods in captivity will certainly not be in a very good condition for further service in any of the Forces, although they may not be strictly speaking liable to discharge from the Service on medical grounds.

ORISSA: THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Your Lordships will have read the Resolution standing in my name on the Paper to-day, relating to the continuance in force for a period of twelve months of Government rules in the Province of Orissa. Ministerial Government ceased to function in this Province on June 30 of this year, and the Governor made a Proclamation under Section 93 of the Government of India Act which was laid before the House on July 25. The Proclamation remains valid for only six months. It is necessary to seek the approval of both Houses of Parliament for its continuance before December 30. I therefore formally move the Resolution.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Orissa on the 30th June, 1944, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th July, 1944.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LABOUR COSTS AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
Referred to the Special Orders Committee.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (QUOTA AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
Referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report of the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past four o'clock.