Sitting of 7 May 1946

  MINE BALLOTEES (CALL-UP)
  Mr. King
  asked the Minister of Labour whether boys directed to work in mines whose work is unsatisfactory will now be directed into the Armed Forces; and upon what conditions they can volunteer for the Armed Forces.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Young men, fit for military service, whose services are no longer of value to the coalmining industry, are called up. Men employed in coalmining are not accepted as volunteers unless in any individual case there are special circumstances making it desirable in the national interest.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Warbey
  asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that there were 51,816 registered disabled persons unemployed on 18th March last, he will now make a substantial increase in the standard percentage of persons required to be employed under the quota scheme of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  It is the intention before long to raise the standard percentage from the present figure of two and my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the National Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled on this matter.

  Mr. Watkins
  asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the Crickhowell employment exchange, Brecon-shire; how many of these are now unemployed; and the number who have been offered training facilities.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The number of persons registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, at the Crickhowell employment exchange is 25, of whom 10 are unemployed. Four of these are awaiting allocation to courses of training; the remaining six are not considered suitable for training.

  Macclesfield and Congleton
  Air-Commodore Harvey
  asked the Minister of Labour what are the latest returns of unemployed males and females in Macclesfield and Congleton.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  At 8th April the numbers of unemployed insured persons, suitable for ordinary employment, on the registers of Macclesfield employment exchange were 87 males and one female; at Congleton employment exchange the numbers were 126 males and 17 females.

DEMOBILISATION

  Agricultural Students
  Mr. Hollis
  asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to announce the conditions for release from service of agricultural students.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  I would refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend made at the end of Questions on Tuesday, 30th April, which applies to Agricultural students as well as to other students. My right hon. Friend has arranged for copies of an explanatory note to be available for hon. Members at the Vote Office towards the end of this week.

  Mine Ballotees (University Students)
  Mr. D. J. Williams
  asked the Minister of Labour if universities may apply for the release in Class B of ballotees who will have worked three years in the mines by 1st September, 1946; and what steps he is taking to notify these students of the procedure to be followed.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Application for the release of students who have completed three years' employment in the mines by 1st September, 1946, may be made by their universities if they fulfil the conditions laid down in the statement my right hon. Friend made at the end of Questions on Tuesday, 30th April. The students concerned will be advised when the time comes to apply to the National Service Officer for permission to leave their employment.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (ANNUAL BUDGET)
  Major Lloyd
  asked the Minister of Labour what are the annual expenses of the I.L.O.; and what proportion of these are paid by Great Britain.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The Budget of the International Labour Organisation fc 1946, on which contributions from States Members of the organisation are based amounts to 11,621,510 Swiss francs of which Great Britain is due to contribute the equivalent of 1,997,308 Swiss francs (approximately 17.2 per cent.). In addition, an amount of 100,000 Swiss francs is payable towards the Staff Pensions Fund, thus making Great Britain's total contribution 2,097,308 Swiss francs (approximately £121,230).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Price Control and Subsidies
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in farm workers' wages, he will, by stages, allow the gap between production costs and retail prices to be reduced and thus ease the burden to tl taxpayer involved in the food subsidy and bring home to the consumer the realities of the food shortage.

  Mr. Dalton:
  I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in my Budget Speech.

  Inflation (Preventive Measures)
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to prevent the inflationary process now in operation from getting out of hand.

  Mr. Dalton:
  Stimulating production and savings and maintaining rationing, price control and cost of living subsidies.

  Income Tax (Bookmakers)
  Mr. Daines
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that his powers are adequate properly assess for Income Tax bookmakers who operate on dog and horse tracks and have no registered place of business.
  68
  Mr. Dalton:
  Yes, Sir. I think that the powers are adequate, though there may sometimes be difficulties in applying them.

  Football Pools (Profits)
  Mr. Daines
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider an inquiry into the profits of football pools, with a view to special taxation.

  Mr. Dalton:
  No, Sir. Persons carrying on football pools are subject to the existing taxes on business profits, and the Death Duties at the finish, and I see no particular reason for picking them out for special taxation.

  Betting Duty
  Captain Bullock
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider legalising betting with a view to the introduction of a betting tax; and if he can give an estimate as to how much such a tax would produce.

  Mr. Dalton:
  I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) on 6th March.

  Museums and Art Galleries (National Collections)
  Mr. E. P. Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer today's approximate capital value of the buildings and contents comprised by all museums, art galleries and other collections owned or administered by the State.

  Mr. Dalton:
  The contents of the national collections cannot be valued; some of them are priceless.

  National Trust (Properties)
  Mr. E. P. Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer today's approximate capital value of all properties transferred to the National Trust.

  Mr. Dalton:
  I do not know of any State properties hitherto transferred to the National Trust, and of private properties so transferred I have no official knowledge.

  Purchase Tax
  Mr. Bossom
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether meat safes are now released from Purchase Tax under Order 78E, April, 1946, as there is ambiguity on this point, causing uncertainty in the minds of manufacturers.
  69
  Mr. Dalton:
  Yes, if of the cupboard type. A Press notice has been issued for the information of the trade.

  Mr. G. Thomas
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the extreme difficulty caused to manufacturers by the fact that impending changes in Purchase Tax with regard to domestic articles, though announced, have not been defined; and whether he will now declare the changes he proposes to make.

  Mr. Dalton:
  The changes already announced will be clearly defined in the Finance Bill.

  Transferred Military Equipment (France)
  Mr. Vane
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the value of British military equipment transferred or sold to the French Government since VE-Day and now under negotiation for transfer or sale to the French Government respectively; and whether he will give an assurance that no financial or exchange difficulties have prevented us from meeting French requests in full.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  The value of British military equipment transferred or sold to the French Government since VE-Day is about £26 million. The value of equipment now under negotiation for sale is about £13 million. French requests have been met in full in so far as the equipment has been available for transfer.

  Income Tax Receipt Forms
  Major Legge-Bourke
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the receipt forms now being issued by Income Tax collectors have been increased in size by 33⅓ per cent.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

  LISTS OF MINISTERS AND MEMBERS
  Mr. Ernest Davies
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make available to hon. Members,
  70
  lists of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, at present printed for the use of the Committee of Selection.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  The matter is one for consideration by Mr. Speaker to whom the Question will be referred.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

  Evacuated Staffs, Blackpool (Return)
  Brigadier Low
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to make about the return to London of the staffs of Government Departments who were evacuated to Blackpool during the war.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  No, Sir, I am sorry to say there is still a great shortage of accommodation in the London area.

  Appointments (Servicemen's Applications)
  Major J. Morrison>
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in order to give men serving overseas and shortly to be demobilised an equal chance with applicants in this country, he will arrange that all Government appointments advertised through the Press shall have at least three clear weeks allowed for replying for application for such posts, instead of seven days, as sometimes occurs at present.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  Normal practice is to allow ample time for applications, both from men serving at home and men serving overseas, and if the hon. and gallant Member would care to send me particulars of any cases where adequate notice was not given, I shall be glad to took into them.

  Travel, Central London (Staggered Hours)
  Mr. Sparks
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in view of the recent Government announcement regarding the systematic staggering of hours to avoid travel congestions in London, which Government Departments in London have taken steps to cooperate in the direction desired.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  All Government Departments in Central London have been

  71
  consistently urged to stagger, as far as possible, the hours of arrival and departure of their staff, and steps have been taken to draw Departments' attention to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport to the hon Member's Question on 25th March.

BRITISH ARMY

  Italian Women (Marriage)
  Major Ramsay
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to ensure that soldiers serving in Italy who wish to marry Italian girls may be given permission to do so without any delay directly the statutory period of 61 days has passed.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I am not aware of any statutory period of 61 days. It is, however, the practice in certain commands abroad to impose a waiting period, which may be of two months, in cases where there appears after investigation to be no objection to the marriage. Instructions are already in force to the effect that at the end of this waiting period permission should generally be granted without delay as a matter of course.

  M.E.F. (Deferments)
  Major Ramsay
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will review the establishments held in the M.E.F. and the number of deferments there in certain demobilisation groups, in view of complaints received from that area that-many men are redundant.

  Mr. Lawson:
  All establishments are continually being reviewed with a view to preventing any redundancy. Compulsory deferment of release in individual cases is only resorted to if the Commander-in-Chief is personally satisfied that the Arm of the Service concerned has reduced it commitments to the minimum and is carrying out those commitments with the minimum number of personnel. He must also be satisfied that no suitable replacement can be found

  Defence Works (Compensation)
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the anomalies arising in connection with payment of compensation to farmers
  72
  in Perthshire on whose land anti-tank defences were constructed; and whether he will ensure that equitable payment is made in all such cases.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I am not aware of any anomalies, but if the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of the specific cases he has in mind I will gladly investigate them.

  Personal Cases
  Lieut.-Colonel Byers
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 14396814 Lance-Corporal R. J. Garmham, 404 D.T.N., Maintenance Section, attached No. 2 Company, Madras Signals, Fort St. George, Madras, India Command, accepted Class B release on 9th January, 1946, since when he has been given no indication as to the date upon which he is to be released; and what steps are being taken to ensure that delays of this nature are reduced to a minimum.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I am making inquiries about this case and as soon as they are completed I will write to the hon. and gallant Member. Instructions have already been issued to all commands that Class B releases are to be dealt with as rapidly as possible.

  Mr. M. Lindsay
  asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Solihull will receive a reply to his letter of 8th April, relating to a compassionate release for 14844387 Private R. H. Lyons.

  Mr. Lawson:
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member's letter on 3rd May.

  Emergency Officers (Pensions)
  Mr. Champion
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to amend the Royal Warrant so as to provide for pensions payable to officers commissioned from the ranks to be assessed at officers' rates in respect of that portion of their service rendered as officers.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind other rank pensioners who were re-employed as emergency commissioned officers. Under the scheme for the reassessment of pensions in respect of war service announced on 15th April these men will receive a special rank element which takes account of their officer service in addition to the normal service element.
  73
  These additions were decided upon after careful consideration of the circumstances and are considered to provide a reasonable benefit to the pensioners concerned.

  Officers' Pay
  Mr. M. Lindsay
  asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Solihull will receive a reply to his letter of 27th March, in relation to officers' pay.

  Mr. Lawson:
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent yesterday.

  Ex-Mine Ballotees (Demobilisation)
  Captain Crowder
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange to have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the official instruction issued by his Department explaining how ballotees, subsequently called to the Forces, can claim their period of employment in coal-mining for demobilisation in Class A.

  Mr. Lawson:
  An Army Council Instruction was issued in February, 1946, regarding the reckoning of Service in the coal mines of personnel directed to the coal mines before joining the Forces. The A.C.I. provides that coalmining ballotees who were discharged from coalmining and who were called up for His Majesty's Forces will count the period of training and of employment in coalmining as reckonable service for Age and Service grouping, but not for any financial benefits. This concession does not extend to personnel who entered the coal mines either as optants or volunteers. Individuals claiming such service are instructed to submit their applications in the required form in triplicate to their commanding officers. When the reckonable service as a coalmining ballotee has been assessed, changes of Age and Service groups are required to be notified in Part II/III Orders.

  Huts, Huntly
  Mr. Spence
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Huntly-Market Muir camp and the Meadow Bank camp are not situated it the Gladstone Road, Huntly; if he will now state the cost of building the Army huts and services in that road; the date of commencement and completion of the
  74
  work; and the numbers by which they are now occupied.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I understand that the huts in Gladstone Road were in fact constructed as an overflow to the two camps referred to, and I regret that I did not make this point clear in my previous answer. The cost of building these particular huts was £960. Part of the work was done in November and December, 1942, and the rest between November, 1945, and February, 1946. The garrison engineer and his staff of about nine persons recently moved into some of the huts in order to release the Old Police Station, Huntly. The remainder are used for housing engineer stores.

  Ammunition Dump, Duchray Aqueducts
  Mr. John Henderson
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there is a dump of explosive shells within a distance of 40 yards from two main aqueduct lines at Duchray carrying 70 and 40 million gallons of water, respectively, per day from Loch Katrine to Glasgow; and if he will give instructions to have these munitions removed from such close proximity to the Glasgow water supply.

  Mr. Lawson:
  In order to allay any anxiety about the Glasgow water supply, 12 shelters containing ammunition have already been removed from sites near the aqueduct lines and the question of removing six more is being investigated locally in conjunction with the Glasgow Corporation.

  Occupying Forces
  Sir T. Moore
  asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of British troops employed as an occupying force in Germany, Italy, Austria and Hungary

  Mr. Lawson:
  It is not the practice to make public figures of the strength of our forces in particular overseas theatres.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

  Bath
  Mr. McAllister
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he has any statement to make regarding the plan

  75
  for the city of Bath; and when this plan is to be made available to the public.

  Mr. Silkin:
  A plan for Bath has been prepared by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and officials of the city council and the Bath and District Joint Planning Committee. An exhibition based on the plan was opened by my predecessor in February, 1945; and in that sense the plan was then made public. In March of this year, I had the opportunity of discussing certain aspects of the proposals with members of the city's Planning and Reconstruction Committee, and following this, the council is, I understand, being recommended by its Surveying Committee to make application to me for three declaratory orders under Section 1 of the 1944 Act. The question as to the publication of the plan in book form is one for the city council itself.

  New Town, Stevenage
  Mr. Walker-Smith
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will suspend action in regard to the proposed new town at Stevenage until the New Towns Bill has been debated in Parliament.

  Mr. Silkin:
  No, Sir. The development of a new town at Stevenage is a first step in the implementation of the Government's policy of a planned decentralisation from the congested areas of London, which was the subject of a statement to the House on 5th March last. While for the maximum development of the town the powers proposed in the New Towns Bill will be required, I see no justification for delaying to take the preparatory steps which are possible under existing legislation.

  Opencast Working, Wentworth Woodhouse
  Mr. W. S. Morrison
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the consultations between himself and the Minister of Fuel and Power regarding the working of opencast coal on the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate beyond that agreed upon by their respective predecessors, he is satisfied that no permanent damage to the beauty of the park and gardens is likely to result from the workings now being undertaken there.
  76
  Mr. Silkin:
  Yes, Sir. The decision of the late Government to permit opencast working on this estate related to a more limited area than is now to be worked; but in view of the increasing gravity of the coal situation, I agreed with the Minister of Fuel and Power to extend the area. In fixing the limits of this extended working, however, we drew a clear distinction between areas in which the damage would be temporary and could be remedied without serious impairment within five years, and those in which the damage would be permanent, or could only be remedied after a long period; and working will be confined to the former areas alone. While there will undoubtedly be great temporary disfigurement, I am satisfied that when within a period of five years the working is over and restoration is completed, as it will be, the general character and beauty of the park and gardens will be substantially unaffected.

MINISTRY OF WORKS

  Building Materials Shortage
  Major J. Morrison
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that essential house construction and repair is being held up in the South-west of England owing to the shortage of cast iron and asbestos soil pipes, eave gutters and rain -water pipes; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  It is because of the shortage of certain building materials, including those referred to in the Question, that I have recently introduced the Priority Distribution Scheme in order to ensure that the available supplies are used for house construction and other services of national importance. In the meantime my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I are taking all possible steps to increase supplies.

  Sir C. Edwards
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the shortage of slates and other materials required for house repairs in the Risca, Monmouthshire, area, and that many properties are deteriorating because of this shortage; and if he will see that, in addition to providing materials for new houses, he will allow sufficient of what is necessary to keep the present ones habitable.
  77
  Mr. Tomlinson:
  There is a general shortage of slates and of certain other materials required for house repairs, but special steps have already been taken to make supplies of slates and rainwater goods available in the Risca area. The need to provide some materials for repairs has not been overlooked and, in fact, most of the output of slates is being used for this purpose.

  Requisitioned Hotels, Stratford-on-Avon
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Minister of Works if he has any statement to make about the release of hotels in Stratford-on-Avon.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The Government requisitioned altogether 12 hotels in Stratford-on-Avon. Five have been derequisitioned and the remaining seven are in process of being derequisitioned. Three of the seven have already been re-occupied by the owners and in the remaining cases facilities for re-occupation are being offered to the owners. In two instances derequisitioning was proposed in August, 1945, but the owners were not anxious for early release.

  Distempering Licence, Edmonton
  Mr. A. Lewis
  asked the Minister of Works the reason for refusing the application for a licence to carry out distempering at the British Oxygen Works, trimming shop, Angel Lane, Edmonton: and whether he is aware that the filthy conditions obtaining in this shop are contrary to the Factory Acts.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The application for a licence to carry out distempering at the British Oxygen Works has not been refused. My regional licensing officer has asked the firm to supply further information on receipt of which the application will be given immediate attention.

  Requisitioned Premises, Liverpool
  Mrs. Braddock
  asked the Minister of Works why Pulford's Buildings, White chapel, Liverpool, formerly occupied by the American Red Cross, but now vacated and empty, has not been derequisitioned

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  Pulford's Buildings, Liverpool, are urgently required for a blood transfusion centre serving all the
  78
  Merseyside hospitals, and will shortly be adapted for that purpose. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the present owners acquired the premises while they were under requisition.

  Wire Netting
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the issue of wire netting to protect thatched roofs from the depredations of birds.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  Yes, Sir; where there is difficulty otherwise in obtaining wire netting necessary for the protection of thatched roofs, my regional licensing officers are prepared to issue special certificates for the purpose.

FUEL AND POWER

  Petrol Rationing (Staff)
  Mr. Touche
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of persons now employed in the administration of petrol rationing.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The number of staff employed on petrol rationing as at 1st May, 1946, is as follows: Headquarters, 31; regional petroleum officers in England, Scotland and Wales, 1,752: total, 1,783.

  Domestic Coal Supplies
  Commander Pursey
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether local coal merchants in Hull, small as well as large, may now be informed weekly, or monthly, of the tonnage of household coal actually supplied to the city, to enable merchants to know whether they are receiving their proper share, to check unfair distribution among both retailers and customers and restore confidence in the trade and the public that distribution will be equitable.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  Merchants should have no difficulty in finding out whether they are receiving their proper share of the available supplies. The weekly depot receipts are displayed at the depot manager's office, to which all merchants and dealers operating from the depot have access.

  Mr. De la Bère
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will reconsider the decision of rationing coal to the domestic consumer and, where the

  79
  domestic consumers have space available, permit them to replenish and maintain their stocks of coal during the coming summer.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The maximum quantities permitted under the restrictions are not rations, but the maximum recently fixed for summer deliveries has been placed high enough to allow for the disposal of all the coal likely to be available for stocking at consumers' premises. Supplies received apart from what is necessary for cooking should be stored for winter use. It is essential that substantial reserve stocks should be set aside by merchants for winter supply to those who have no stocking facilities.

  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Mr. Warbey
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now increase the scale of supplementary petrol allowances for business purposes where journeys by public transport involve considerable loss of time.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  Regional petroleum officers are authorised to grant supplementary petrol allowances where these are required for strictly business purposes and where the use of public transport would involve considerable loss of time.

  Private Hire Cars, Manchester
  Mr. Shepherd
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the extent to which private motorcar owners are conducting unauthorised hire business in the Manchester district to the detriment of licensed men, including ex-Servicemen; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this

  Mr. Shinwell:
  No, Sir. Provided that the owner of a vehicle has the appropriate Excise Licence and insurance, he needs no additional authorisation for the operation of a private hire car on the basic petrol ration only and it would not be practicable to regulate the use of this ration in such a case. If, however, the hon. Member has evidence that owners of such cars are obtaining supplies of petrol in contravention of the Control of Motor Fuel Order, I shall be glad to have particulars.

GERMANY

  The Ruhr (Inter-Allied Policy)
  Sir P. Hannon
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on inter-allied policy on the future administration of the Ruhr; and if any concerted plan is being put into operation to increase the rehabilitation of industrial life in the Ruhr area.

  Mr. McNeil:
  In view of the discussions now taking place in Paris on this question, my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement.

  Coal Production (The Ruhr)
  Sir P. Hannon
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state, as at the latest convenient time, the production of coal in the Ruhr area; how far production has declined as compared with January this year; and if any change has taken place in the allocation of coal for the needs of civilian economy and German needs in the British zone.

  Mr. J. Hynd:
  The pithead production of cleaned coal in the Ruhr area amounted to 3,550,000 tons in April. This was some 30 per cent. less than the January production of 5,027,000 tons. More shifts were, however, worked in January than in April and it is more accurate to compare the average daily production in the two months. This was 161,000 tons in April, but some 10 per cent. below the January figure of 170,000 tons. Coal used for the requirements of the British zone, including transport requirements and the needs of the occupation forces, averaged 428,000 tons a week in April or some 5 per cent. less than the 452,000 tons a week in January.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS STAFF
  Sir P. Hannon
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate the policy of His Majesty's Government in the provision of continued employment or appropriate compensation for British nationals in the employment of the League of Nations before its dissolution; and if he will give the numbers of the British personnel employed by the

  81
  League who were eligible for employment by U.N.O.

  Mr. McNeil:
  The great majority of the officials of the League of Nations Secretariat retired or were suspended on or soon after the outbreak of war and received compensation in addition to sums due to them from the Staff Pensions Fund. They included approximately 100 British subjects, who at once found employment, many of them with Government Departments, or the Armed Forces. A skeleton staff was maintained during the war, the British component numbering 12 on 1st January, 1946, and there was some increase on the occasion of the recent final Assembly of the League. All this staff is eligible for employment by the United Nations Organisation, and is at present being interviewed for that purpose. In the circumstances, no special measures, as contemplated by the hon. Member, appear to be called for, but I can assure him, that if any individual case is brought to my knowledge, it will receive immediate and sympathetic attention.

  SURPLUS TRACTORS, BLAIR ATHOLL
  Mr. Snadden
  asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to make available to agriculturists, tractors and other equipment previously used for forestry operations and now standing idle in a dump at Blair Atholl.

  Mr. Belcher:
  About half the vehicles have been or are being sent to the Control Commission for timber production in Germany. Those not so required are being reconditioned for disposal to agriculturists and other users.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, WAR OFFICE
  Mr. Lipson
  asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the fact that there is a long delay before the exchange at the War Office answers a telephone call; and if he will take steps to remedy this.

  Mr. Burke:
  Service at this private branch exchange is provided by Post Office telephonists. As in the case of the public exchanges, the difficulties which arise are due mainly to the shortage of
  82
  experienced operating staff; but everything possible is being done, by recruiting and training, to secure a more efficient and satisfactory service.

  NEW CARS (PRIORITY)
  Major Ramsay
  asked the Minister of Transport why priority for obtaining motor cars for district nurses and doctors has been stopped; and whether he will consider reinstating this essential priority.

  Mr. G. R. Strauss:
  I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the system of control of sales of new cars, which was removed at the end of last year in view of the prospects of increased production. I would refer to my answer to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on this subject on 18th March.

  NAVIGATIONAL AIDS, IRISH SEA
  Sir W. Smiles
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, after the stranding of the "George Town Victory," he will now arrange for the buoys between Donaghadee and the Copeland Island to be replaced.

  Mr. Dugdale:
  Since the revocation of Defence Regulation No. 44, the Admiralty has ceased to be responsible for the establishment of navigational aids. The responsible authorities in the area concerned are the Irish Lights Commissioners. I understand that the buoys will be replaced shortly. The s.s. "George Town Victory" grounded while on a northerly course in a position some 20 miles south of that occupied by these buoys before the war. She could not, therefore, have made use of them had they been in place.

  HOUSING FILM
  Mr. Driberg
  asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will draw the attention of local authorities to the housing film, Land of Promise, and urge them to arrange local showings of it wherever possible;

  (2) if he will arrange a showing of the housing film, Land of Promise, for hon. Members.
  83
  Mr. Bevan:
  This film has been produced by an independent company and is available for commercial distribution to local cinemas. It could be shown to hon. Members by arrangement with the producers and I am informing my hon. Friend of the address of the firm.

  BREAD SUBSIDY
  Mr. Callaghan
  asked the Minister of Food the annual amount paid to bakers and confectioners in respect of a bread subsidy since the inception of the scheme; for what purpose it is paid; and what is the need for continued payment.

  Sir B. Smith:
  The annual amount paid to the bakers in respect of bread subsidy since the inception of the scheme is as follows:

  12 months to

  £

  31st

  December,

  1941

  2,200,000

  do.

  do.

  1942

  11,180,000

  do.

  do.

  1943

  6,400,000

  do.

  do.

  1944

  6,180,000

  do.

  do.

  1945

  9,075,000

  £35,035,000

  The bread subsidy was introduced as part of the Government policy to stabilise the cost of living and the price of bread, and is being continued for the same reasons.

SCOTLAND

  Department of Health (Staff)
  Major N. Macpherson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men and women are employed in the Department of Health; how many of these employees are temporary; and how many possess medical degrees.

  Mr. Westwood:
  The number of men and women employed in the Department of Health for Scotland at 1st April, 1946, was 749 (363 male and 386 female) of whom 353 were temporary employees. Those possessing medical degrees numbered 23. The foregoing figures do not include staff employed in the Department's emergency hospitals and stores.

  Housing
  Sir W. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that at Crossridge, Lanarkshire, there is a vacant
  84
  house of three rooms, kitchen and bathroom, built two years ago by Lanarkshire County Council; why this house is not made available for tenancy; and how many such new houses there are in Scotland, built from public funds, awaiting occupation.

  Mr. Buchanan:
  The house in question was provided by the county council under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, as part of a wartime scheme of houses in selected areas specially authorised in the interests of agricultural production. It has remained unoccupied because of a breakdown in the water supply arrangements originally contemplated. The county council have been asked to consider the provision of a proper supply. As the matter is somewhat complicated I am writing to the hon. Member fully on it. The circumstances in this case are quite exceptional and I am not aware that a similar difficulty has arisen elsewhere.

  ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS
  Mr. Hurd
  asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any statement to make about the position of pig and poultry keepers; and if the Government will compensate those who are driven out of business by the further cut in feeding-stuff rations.

  Mr. T. Williams:
  Some immediate changes in the arrangements for feeding-stuff rations in Great Britain during the summer period have been made necessary by the reduction in the supply of animal feeding stuffs which will result from the flour conservation measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food on 2nd May. Basic rations for farm pigs and poultry will have to be reduced in July, August and September, to quantities sufficient for one-twelfth of prewar numbers. Other classes of stock will also be affected.

  I am asking farmers, in making their plans for livestock production, not to proceed on the assumption that the increased rate of extraction and the consequent reduction in the output of millers' offals will be maintained indefinitely. I hope they will make every effort to maintain livestock production in this difficult period, both by increasing their own self-sufficiency in feeding stuffs to the maximum extent through such measures as

  85
  silage making, and also by making the greatest possible use of unrationed feeding stuffs.

  These reductions have been dictated by the world shortage of cereals and not by
  86
  any change in Government policy. I could not accept the view that a case for specific compensation exists or that any pig or poultry keepers will be driven out of business.

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack
Prayers.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

MARQUESS OF ABERGAVENNY'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, before I move the Second Reading of this Bill I think I should tell your Lordships that it is one which has been certified by the Chairmen of the two Houses, under the Private Bill Standing Orders, as a Personal Bill. In accordance with those Standing Orders the draft Bill was referred to the Personal Bills Committee before it was presented and given a First Reading. The Committee have made a
2
Report, which is available to your Lordships, and the Bill is now in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee. I do not think I need say more than that the main purpose of the Bill is to remove an unbarrable entail which was imposed on the Abergavenny estates by Act of Parliament in 1555.
The Standing Orders of the House with regard to Personal Bills lay down that the consents of persons principally concerned are required. Proof that these consents have been obtained will be given on the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

RHODES TRUST BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, this Bill, like the previous Bill, has been certified as a Personal Bill. The draft Bill has been examined and reported upon by the Personal Bills Committee and is now in the form approved by that Committee. The main purpose of the Bill is to constitute the present trustees of the will of the right honourable Cecil Rhodes, a body corporate to be known as "The Rhodes Trust." The Bill also deals with matters concerning the administration of funds left under the will of the testator. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.ߞ(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a and to be printed.
EDUCATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, in connexion with the general convention on privileges and immunities of the United Nations approved at the First General Assembly thereof and in connection with certain resolutions taken at the said Assembly.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.ߞ(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, this Scottish Bill to which I now invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading is, in substance, the same as the Police Act for England and Wales, which became law a few weeks ago. Its purpose is to provide proper machinery for the amalgamation of police forces. The need for such amalgamation is just as great in Scotland as in England and Wales; and the existing machinery is obsolete, unsatisfactory and inadequate. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments in favour of the amalgamation of the smaller police forces, to form units of sufficient size to ensure efficiency and economy of working. In Scotland, where the authorized regular police strength is about 7,000, there are
4
at present forty-nine separate police forces, of which twenty have a strength of less than fifty and eleven have a strength of less than thirty.
The methods and the mobility of the modern criminal and the need for the effective enforcement of road traffic law make it essential that the unit of police administration should be reasonably large, that the force responsible for that unit should be highly organized and fully equipped with modern scientific means of detection, and that it should be fully mobile, with adequate transport and other facilities. If this result is to be achieved, some merging of existing forces is inevitable. This has been recognized by various impartial bodies and committees of inquiry over a long period of years—from the Desborough Committee, which sat over a quarter of a century ago, to the committee presided over by Lord Ormidale in 1933—and the case clearly has not weakened with the passage of time.
It is the desire of His Majesty's Government that this necessary merging of the smaller police forces should be effected so far as possible by voluntary agreement among the police authorities concerned. At present, there are various obstacles in the way of such agreement. Clause 1 of the Bill accordingly lays down a new procedure under which two or more police authorities may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, agree upon the amalgamation of the police forces for their areas into a single force under the command of one chief constable. This amalgamated force would be administered by the police authorities jointly, through a joint police committee, in accordance with the provisions of the amalgamation scheme.
There may, however, be cases where it is expedient, in the interests of efficiency, that police forces should be amalgamated and jointly administered but where the police authorities concerned have not found it possible to submit a satisfactory scheme. Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to require amalgamation in such a case and himself to make a scheme for the purpose. Very full safeguards are, however, laid down. The Secretary of State must give the police authorities concerned notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme of amalgamation and, unless they agree with his proposals, must cause a public local inquiry

5
to be held by an independent person. If he decides to proceed, he must lay before Parliament a draft of the scheme and a copy of the report of the person by whom any inquiry has been held, and either House may reject the scheme within a period of forty days.
Clauses 3 to 9 are really supplemental and consequential. They include provisions safeguarding the position of chief constables affected by an amalgamation, and also the position of policemen who are serving in the Armed Forces or overseas. Clause 10 proposes to put the police grant on a proper statutory basis, and Clause 11 tidies up the law governing the provision of buildings and the acquisition of land for police purposes. An amendment will be proposed in Clause 11 applying the procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, which has become law since the introduction of this Bill, to cases of compulsory purchase of land for police purposes. The Bill is submitted as a valuable and long overdue contribution to the development of police efficiency in Scotland; and I confidently ask your Lordships to give it a second reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
2.40 p.m.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill which is to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to lend the Lacock Abbey edition of Magna Charta for a period of two years for public exhibition in the Library of Congress, United States of America. Your Lordships will notice that the word "Charta" is spelt with an "h," I am reminded that there should be an amendment to leave out the "h," but that is by the way. The position with regard to it is this.
The American people, like ourselves, share this great document in common. It is the foundation of their liberties and of our liberties. Your Lordships know that
6
only quite recently they had in their possession the Lincoln Cathedral copy of Magna Charta, which was one of the four surviving examples of the original issue. That was lent by the Dean and Chapter, and not long ago, as your Lordships remember, was returned with due ceremonial. The Americans were greatly interested in that document, and they wanted very much to have the loan of another copy, but we, the Trustees of the British Museum, found it quite impossible to lend either of the Two copies resting there, because that is put out of our power by the terms of the Cotton Gift, made in 1700, to which they both belong. Meanwhile, as recently as July, 1945, Miss Matilda Talbot, of Lacock Abbey in Wiltshire, offered to the Trustees as a gift, her example of the final re-issue of the Charter made by King Henry III in 1225, which was, I think, ten years after the acceptance of the Charter by King John. It appears that this Magna Charta has been housed at Lacock Abbey for upwards of 700 years, and it has been in the possession of the Talbot family for a very great part of that time.
It is quite obvious that Miss Talbot, had she been so minded, could have sold that document for a vast sum of money, But she was anxious that the documents so long preserved by her ancestors should become for all time the possession of the British people, and she most generously offered it as a gift to the Trustees of the British Museum. Directly that gift was announced, our Embassy in Washington, through the Foreign Office, applied to the Trustees asking whether they would be prepared to lend the document for a short time—we have fixed the period at two years and no more—to the Library of Congress. We, the Trustees, replied that we should be willing to lend the document always provided that the consent of Parliament and of the donor, Miss Talbot, were obtained. Miss Talbot at once, very readily, gave her consent, obviously desiring that it should be done. Therefore I now come to your Lordships because, rightly I think, Parliament keeps complete control of this matter and the Trustees have no power to lend any document without the express approval of Parliament. It is under these circumstances that I move the Second Reading of this Bill. As I said before, I think it is only right that we should do all we can to consolidate

7
our cultural relationship with the citizens of the great American Commonwealth. Magna Charta is a symbol of our common democratic heritage, and it is very right therefore that we should share it in common. For that reason I think it proper that we should lend this document for the two years specified by the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I just say that I imagine we shall give a Second Reading to the Bill with complete unanimity. It is not a matter of Party division in any way. If I may anticipate the point which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, means to raise on the Committee stage I would say that we shall have the opportunity for a little display of pedantry. I would only venture to observe now, having looked it up in the Latin and Greek dictionaries in your Lordships' House within the last half hour, that the origin of our English word "Charter" is not Latin but Greek, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the Greek word Xaprns is spelt with a X and not with a K. That word, in common with a great many words used in Latin which have their origin in Greek, was taken and copied quite exactly as regards its root. The consequence is that the word is classically written—for instance by Cicero and Pliny—as "Charta." I think that in good Latin it is not spelt without the "h."
On the other hand, I am aware that great authorities point out that the particular declaration as made by King John and confirmed by subsequent kings was called "Carta" without the "h." That may very likely be the better guide to follow. However, that is all I can offer on the pedantic plane at this stage. It will of course be more appropriate for us, when the Committee Stage is reached, to pursue the great principles involved in this little argument.
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to address to your Lordships a few remarks on this Bill. I feel myself that it would be singularly unfortunate to lend this celebrated copy of Magna
8
Charta for public exhibition in the United States of America. It is true that it was a gift from Miss Talbot to the British Museum, but the purpose of her gift I understand was to enable the British people to see this copy—which as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said had rested for 700 years in her house—and that it should be seen for ever by the British people. I cannot help thinking with reference to these priceless possessions that are left by private donors for the benefit of the British people, that it is singularly unfortunate that Parliament should be asked, by Act of Parliament, to authorize that they should be shown in some foreign country. I agree that it is not quite so hard when we realize that Miss Talbot who was good enough to make this gift has agreed with the Trustees that the copy should be sent to America. But I do trust that this is not to be taken as a precedent, and that other priceless possessions, which are not the property of the Government but which are the property of the British people, should rest where they were originally consigned, namely inside the building of the British Museum.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I cannot help sharing the anxiety of the noble Earl who has just spoken. Perhaps I may be allowed to add a little concerning the early history of this matter. When Miss Talbot first gave Lacock Abbey to the National Trust she included her gift of this copy of Magna Charta, and as one of the officers of the National Trust I was extremely anxious that it should remain at Lacock Abbey, where it had been for 700 years. It would have been extremely interesting for the British people, I think, to be able to see it in the place where it had always been. But the British Museum authorities brought great pressure to bear on the National Trust and on Miss Talbot to remove it to the British Museum and not to keep it at Lacock Abbey, because of the extreme danger of keeping in a private house like Lacock Abbey such a priceless national possession. They grounded their case on the fact that if it once went to the British Museum it would be absolutely safe and would never be moved. Now the Museum authorities—presumably under propaganda pressure from the

9
Government—are going to remove this priceless national possession. It would really have been very difficult for Miss Talbot, when the British Museum authorities asked for her permission, to do otherwise than to give that permission, but that is no reason, I think, why Parliament should not look with grave suspicion on this proposed plan. Surely this copy of Magna Charta, if it appeals so much to the Americans, will be a means of persuading them to come here to look at it? I always understood that the Government were extremely anxious to obtain as many American dollars as they could for the purposes of their financial position. Here the Government are throwing away something which will encourage American dollars to come to this country, and in doing so they are running a grave risk, by moving across the ocean and putting into strange hands something which is totally irreplaceable and of great national value.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL. My Lords, I do not think that the two speeches we have just listened to should go without reply. As a rule I listen to my noble friend the Earl of Munster with great interest and general agreement—even more general is my agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. But on this occasion I find myself entirely at variance with the view that they have expressed. It is well, perhaps, that before this Bill passes this House some mention should be made of the reluctance with which Parliament would part even temporarily with possession of a document so precious as the Magna Charta. But that reluctance, I think, ought not to lead us to say that the step taken by the Government was a wrong one and ought to be disapproved by this House. It is quite true, no doubt, that the generous donor of this document has desired that is should be displayed publicity to the British people forever henceforth; but after all the British people have not in fact been looking at it for the last 700 years, and it is no very great deprivation that there should be a further delay of two years before it is presented to the public gaze in the British Museum.
I was sorry my noble friend brought in the question of dollars, and suggested that we are wasting possible revenue, by saying that a possession such as this might attract Americans over here to see it. There are, after all, other copies of the
10
Magna Charta in this country, and in any case here comes a very gracious request from the American Congress that out of goodwill towards America we should go so far as to send across the ocean a copy of Magna Charta itself. That gracious request has been graciously acceded to by the Government, by the British Museum authorities and by the donor of the manuscript; and I think it is striking a wrong note to bring any question of finance or foreign exchange into an issue such as this.
I demur, also, to the phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that we are sending this to "some foreign country." The United States of America is not in our eyes "some foreign country." It is our recent ally. It is a country which is animated by the ideas and ideals that have originated in this island. The friendship and the cordial union of the British Commonwealth and the United States is a matter of supreme importance, not only to this country and America but to the world. That friendship rests largely on sentiment and anything which cultivates and endorses that sentiment is a measure to be approved. As to the point raised about the title of the Bill it may be that Charta ought properly to be retained, in order to signify the Greek origin of the word. Bui if so how about Magna? There is no doubt as to the Latinity of Magna. If you say Magna is Latin and Carta is Greek the term is itself a most horrible hybrid, and the sooner we alter it one way or the other the better.
2.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on this matter. A few years ago an attempt was made by the Government of that time to obtain power to lend pictures from the National Gallery. Owing, I think perhaps I may say, mainly to my own efforts I got an Amendment carried. There is a very good reason for not lending these possessions. If you lend things from the British Museum, to one country it is extremely difficult to refuse to lend them to another. You may be quite satisfied with the security, say, of the Louvre but you may not be equally satisfied about the security of an analogous gallery in some Balkan State. There is a second point. Once you lend these things, even to Empire countries, it is very difficult to get them back. They go for two years,

11
there is a further request for them to be retained for another year and gradually the things become almost a permanent possession of the borrower. There is a third reason. Although this does not apply so directly to a unique document like Magna Carta, or Charta, it certainly applies to pictures. If we are asked to lend our pictures to some foreign exhibition we do not like to lend our very best, because there is a danger to them. But equally we are not anxious to lend third or fourth rate pictures.
As a result we are always in a quandary over that, and altogether I am sure that the rule which has applied hitherto of not lending our really prime possessions abroad is a good one. These are my only objections, and I would not carry them so far as to object to this particular instance. It is an ad hoc instance; the gift has only just been made and there are special reasons why the United States should have this first confirmation of our liberties. I am not at all certain that the document is not what is called Confirmatio Cartarum and not actually Magna Charta, but I think, as my noble friend has just said, that it would be rather unfriendly not to allow it to go on this particular occasion. I do very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will give us an assurance that this is not to be made a precedent and is not the beginning of a wedge to lend this sort of possession out of the Kingdom.
2.59 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words. For a year during the war I had the honour to be Minister Resident in Washington for Supply. At that time one copy of the Magna Charta was in the United States because we had sent it over there to be in the British Pavilion at the World's Fair. I know how much it was valued in the United States of America. I had many friends among the Senators and among members of the House of Representatives. They were always asking why we could not leave that copy of Magna Charta over there on loan. They have given us a great deal of help on loan during the war, and I think it would be a most friendly act to allow the British Museum authorities to loan this copy of Magna Charta to our friends across the sea. I do not see why it should lead to any precedent with any other country because
12
the Magna Charta is, in a way, as much their heritage as it is ours, and it is in that kind of spirit that we lend this particular document. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.2 p.m.
LORD SOULBURY: My Lords, as this debate has given rise to a certain amount of dissension amongst political friends and allies, I feel I must take this opportunity of dissenting very briefly from my political friend and ally, Viscount Simon, on the right spelling of the word "Charta." I understood him to say—and I have great respect for his knowledge—that the best version is with "h," because Cicero used it. I would point out that Catullus used it without the "h." I am not sure that this "h" has not got in by some mediæval mistake. The Lord Chancellor's title has "h"—Chancellor. I think the Latin derivation is Cancellarius. I think we should look into this matter very carefully indeed to make sure that there is no error before this document—whether it is Charta or Carta—is despatched to another country.
3.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, I think the particular point of the "h" is really a Committee point. I think I can satisfy your Lordships that it has been referred to in our Statute Books without the "h" from the early part of the 14th Century and therefore I am following a precise precedent. For the rest, I am asked whether I would make some statement about this not being taken as a precedent. I will make no such statement. Before anything is handed over, we, as Trustees, have to come to the House and obtain approval. That is a very wise thing. Each case will be decided on its own merits. I think that pictures are very different things from books. I must recall the great privilege we had in London in the last few years before the war of having some exhibitions of foreign pictures. Most certainly the Italians did not lend us their worst pictures. Some of those exhibitions gave me the greatest possible pleasure. However, we are not dealing with a picture. We are dealing with an historical document, which I should imagine has singularly little interest for the Balkan countries. It has, however, a most profound interest for the Americans and ourselves.

13
It is a fact that we already have two copies of the Magna Charta in the British Museum which we cannot lend and do not propose to lend by reason of the terms of the law. This is our third copy. Are we really to take such a "dog in the manger" line as to say that we will keep three here and not let them have one, even for two years? I rather regret the phrase which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, that we are sending this document into strange hands. When we send a document to our American colleagues and allies. I do not regard the document as falling into strange hands.
With regard to the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, that there is some difficulty in getting documents back, if I may say so, I think that is in singularly bad taste just at a time when they have returned the Lincoln copy, about which they eared so much. Therefore, I very much hope that the proposal which has just been made will go through and receive from the House the same generous approbation which it received elsewhere.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONDITIONS OF MILITARY SERVICE.
3.8 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Lord Chancellor's statement that over 48,000 members of the Services are concerned in divorce petitions now pending, His Majesty's Government is prepared to take steps to reduce the separation of members of the Services from their wives, which is now often excessively long; and also to call attention to the unnecessary hardships imposed upon boys of seventeen by the present regulations with regard to conscription, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since a statement is expected immediately in another place on the second part of this I am afraid somewhat over-composite Motion, and since there is quite enough to be said with regard to the first part to occupy such time as your Lordships may be disposed to allow me, I think that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say nothing at all on this occasion with regard to the second part, but confine my remarks to the first part of my Motion,
14
that which deals with the conditions accorded to Service men by the Service authorities. This is in a sense a sequel to a discussion which, your Lordships may recall; took place in this House some weeks ago. The theme at least of my Motion is, I think, unlike most literary sequels, a little more important than that of the original edition. Your Lordships may recall that on that occasion the Lord Chancellor disclosed that more than 48,000 applications from Service men for divorce had been accepted and were waiting a hearing, had been waiting in fact so long, that, at the present rate of progress, we were given to understand, it might be something like fifteen years before the last of that melancholy queue was absorbed—and all for the lack of three hundred typists.
Naturally, it was not relevant to the previous debate to discuss the social, significance of these figures, and speakers very properly confined themselves to the facts rather than their implications, so that perhaps the most far-reaching consideration which was immediately prompted may have been that it is, to say the least of it, odd that it should baffle the combined intelligence of a Government with unexampled powers and a bureaucracy of precedented size to collect out of a population of 44,000,000, three hundred persons capable of using a typewriter. It was with a mere disorder of the judicial procedure, the slowness of Service divorce, that our previous discussion was concerned. This afternoon I venture to ask your Lordships to direct your attention not merely to the slowness of Service divorces but to the excessive number of marriages jeopardized by Service conditions—that is not merely a disorder of judicial procedure, but what seems to me a grave distemper of the whole body politic.
May I ask your Lordships for a moment to consider the significance of these figures? That there should be 48,500 Service men impatiently awaiting the legalization of the break-up of their marriages is in all conscience bad enough, but that would seem to be a mere fraction of the number of Service marriages which, to say the least of it, have been put in grave jeopardy by the conditions to which married Service men were subjected during the war. Army chaplains and welfare officers, and others best qualified to speak on these subjects, tell us that for

15
every Service man overseas, who on hearing news of his wife's infidelity decides to divorce her, one would forgive her, and two or three more would postpone a decision until they reached home. We know also that in tens of thousands of cases Service-men who had applied for assistance in divorce proceedings have been dissuaded from going further by the good offices of the various Army welfare organizations. This means that the known cases of infidelity must be somewhere about four times as many as the number of divorce proceedings actually instituted, that is to say, that the number of Service marriages which often, one may almost say, through no fault of their own, have been placed in grave jeopardy of eventual shipwreck by the conditions under which husbands were serving, amount to somewhere about four times the 48,500 cases in which proceedings have actually been instituted. And so we have there a figure not far short of 200,000. One must devoutly hope that the threat which hangs over these marriages will in very few cases materialise.
Nevertheless here, it seems to me, is an undoubted fact which we are bound to remember. Again those who are best qualified to speak on these subjects, the Army chaplains who have studied these matters most, and the Army welfare officers, tell us that the unknown cases of infidelity are almost certainly as numerous as the known. Your Lordships may have seen a letter from an Army chaplain who had devoted a great deal of attention to this problem published some weeks ago in The Times, in the course of which he said he had known only one instance in which a wife had actually written to her husband to confess; the bad news usually came to the unfortunate Service-man overseas by some roundabout method, such as the news of his wife's pregnancy or a report from his own relations. If, therefore, we are optimistic enough to halve the estimate from that very reliable source, we have to envisage a further 100,000 cases in which there is at least again a grave jeopardy of shipwreck when the husband has eventually returned home.
Now, needless to say, I am not suggesting, and none of your Lordships, I am sure, will suggest, any criticism in this matter, save if there is to be criticism, of the authorities who, admittedly under
16
the compulsion of urgent necessity, did allow this overlong separation to arise. Nevertheless this is surely a profoundly disquieting social phenomenon. The home is the foundation of any Christian community, and even those who have abandoned the full concept of Christian marriage must recognize any widespread threat to it as, at the very lowest, a grave public injury.
There seems no room for doubt that it has been largely the unimaginative, and in many ways inconsiderate, treatment of the married Service-man which has been responsible for this grave trouble. That seems clear, if only from the fact that there is a Sharp rise in the statistics of applications for assistance in divorce proceedings, in direct proportion to the length of the Service-man's absence overseas.
It is not the rash war-time marriages, on the whole, we are told, which are breaking down, but those which were contracted before the war. Now obviously long separation has not been the sole cause of the trouble. We are dealing here with imponderables. In the most fortunate marriages, as in the healthiest crops, there is a latent germ of distemper; and just as the sicklier growths will succumb to exceptionally unfavourable weather, so the least firmly established marriages are likely to fail to survive an unnaturally long separation. Whereas, however, we can do very little to protect crops from bad weather, we can, I think, and ought, I am sure, to do something more than we have done to protect Service-men from the lack of consideration with which they were too often treated during the late war.
In the one or two suggestions which I shall venture to make with regard to military arrangements, I make no pretence whatever, of course, to speak as a military expert of any kind. My most recent military experience was the somewhat precarious tenure of the post of sergeant in the Home Guard, where I found that the only serious strain on domestic relations was caused by my own invariable failure, without constant assistance from my family, to adjust the complicated and ill-fitting equipment which I was compelled to wear. So I speak by no means as a military expert, only as a citizen and the parent of past and potential Service-men. In the first world war, however, I was for more than two and a half years a prisoner of war,

17
and although in retrospect it seems to me that on balance I may have gained more than I lost by that strange interlude outside the world, I am quite clear that it has left one sombre and permanent impress on my subsequent life. Ever since then I have been visited, at frequent but irregular intervals, by a vivid and recurrent nightmare. Sometimes I do not dream it for two or three months; sometimes it comes two or three times in a week, but the essence is always the same: we are at war again, I am again a prisoner of war, the war is endless and I am irrevocably and for a wholly indefinite period doomed to exile from my home and family. No doubt the dream represents the revenge of the subconscious for some dread which was deliberately suppressed from the conscious mind during captivity, but I always wake from it in acute mental agony. I am afraid there must have been tens of thousands of men during this war to whom not a dream only but present reality brought almost exactly that distress, and I only wish that I could think that any words of mine could contribute to saving one soldier, sailor or airman from unnecessary suffering of that kind.
Certainly during the late war the treatment of married men by Service authorities was, I think, admittedly under the urgent compulsion of crisis, unimaginative and at times inconsiderate. Indeed, it seems sometimes to remain so. Your Lordships may have seen a letter in The Times one day last week in which a wife complained of her apparently hopeless separation from her husband, an Army officer in Palestine—a country to which the wives of police officers and other officials are apparently readily admitted. I wish to ask the noble Lord in the first place whether His Majesty's Government cannot make it easier in future for wives to join their husbands overseas. I doubt whether there is any place nowadays to which a white man can go to which a white woman cannot go also, and the old excuse that she is safer in her own home has certainly not always been true in the last six years, even if she had a home, which she by no means always had, and even if the Government permitted her to stay in it, which they by no means always did.
I hope the noble Lord will not reply to this question, or to any others which may be put to him, by merely saying that these
18
unnaturally long separations are, after all, an exceptional war-time phenomenon; that we are now moving back towards normalcy and that under normal conditions the ordinary Service routine, with married quarters in barracks and the rest of it, will meet all reasonable needs, for I can only say that if the noble Lord is basing his policy, or for that matter is prepared to stake a solitary five pound note, on the expectation of any rapid return to normalcy, then he must indeed be an optimist of optimists and, one would suppose, the object of passionate envy to some of his hard-pressed ministerial colleagues. I must admit that to me a rapid glance round this distressful globe suggests rather that at this moment of time there is simply no telling when during the next twenty years British forces may be needed, or where, or in what numbers, or for what purposes.
May I therefore put my question in this form? Assuming that situations arise during the next decade in which normal peace-time Service routine will not make adequate provision for married Servicemen, will His Majesty's Government endeavour to do better for them than was done during the late war? I have already asked whether wives are likely to be given more ready permission to join their husbands overseas. I should also like to ask whether, as long as, and whenever, conditions such as we have been considering prevail, His Majesty's Government will consider reducing the period of overseas service and granting more frequent leave, and, in particular, whether they are prepared to arrange to do what I believe was never done during the war, and that is to grant compassionate leave or posting home to a soldier in whose home serious matrimonial trouble has been reported?
There has probably never been a Government which has sought to plan or to control as extensively as the present administration. Much of what they have done and are doing would personally applaud, but to me at least it seems they are too apt to be content with purely material advantages, too ready to be satisfied if wages go up or bricks and mortar are forthcoming, too ready to overlook the imponderables and too apt to leave spiritual and moral factors out of their calculations. So it is that the beauties of Wentworth Woodhouse, shall we say, are blotted out for the sake of a

19
few thousand tons of coal which could be got without much difficulty in some other way, and so it is, too, that the needs if home life are too often overlooked in planning. It is just the same with the Service authorities; they are solicitous, and very creditably solicitous, for reemployment and pensions, yet they have tolerated (and it would perhaps not be too strong to say in many cases enforced) conditions under which tens of thousands of young marriages have been almost inevitably destroyed. The words "Better Britain" cannot mean, as in too many public statements they are made to appear to mean, merely a greater assurance of physical comfort. If the catchword is to have any value, it must refer to a country in which there is greater happiness because some of the physical, moral and spiritual obstacles to happiness have been removed.
In war we told the soldier he was fighting to protect his home, and in order to prevent his home being broken up behind his back the Service authorities should surely have been prepared to face inconveniences and even to run quite serious risks. After all, this is not a question of a mere temporary war-time sacrifice such as a Government might naturally expect its people to take in their stride. We can surrender our civil liberties in the fairly firm assurance that we shall resume them after the War; but a marriage, once broken, can never be restored, and the evil consequences of its disruption must fall on the children and possibly on those children's children. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that whatever the unpredictable future may bring forth, the Government is determined to be more considerate to the married Serviceman than it contrived to be during the last War.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for having brought this very important subject to the notice of this House this afternoon. Perhaps the fact that he has made his speech in the quarter from which episcopal speeches very often come may lend weight to it, if that is necessary. As the noble Lord has said, we have two problems; first of all, to get clear of this appalling hangover of Service divorces, and secondly, to take care that the same
20
problem does not recur in the post-war Army. The business of getting rid of the arrears of Service divorces is, I think, very largely a mechanical business—the business of finding the typists, the clerks and the trained people who can handle it. That, we hope, is now much more in hand than it was before, because the reasons for restricting the supply of those clerical staffs, while they may have been cogent in war are surely cogent no longer.
So we come to the second part of the problem, namely, what we are going to do for the good of the Service men, to prevent these long separations and to remove the conditions under which doubts arise which culminate in separation and divorce. My noble friend Lord Elton made a very important point, that we I cannot go back to pre-war conditions, which were very largely designed for regular Service men And, for that matter, we cannot, I think, apply a different yardstick to regular Service men and any temporarily enlisted men there may be. We have just as great a moral I obligation to those in the Regular Services as we have to anybody else.
There seem to me to be four main directions in which improvements can be made to prevent the state of affairs of which my noble friend has spoken. I say "directions in which improvements can be made," but I should really say directions in which we can carry our war-time organization into our peace-time plans. They are leave, mail, welfare organization and accommodation for Service wives. I do not put those in any particular order, but I think they are the four points. As to leave, as my noble friend has said, we adopted quite a different system during the late war to that before the war, when regular Service-men very often did not get home at all throughout a long tour of foreign service. Now we have planned for a regular period of leave. Although that period was not always achieved because of transport conditions during the war, none the less it was planned for and aimed at. We also introduced a system of compassionate leave going far beyond anything which existed in any of the three Services before the war. I feel quite certain that we shall not succeed in solving this problem until the war-time leave arrangements, suitably modified, are carried forward into the peace-time

21
organization of the Services. That is the first point.
The next point concerns regular mail. I am not suggesting that the mails are not running regularly now. I think they are, and I believe the charge to Servicemen for air-mail letters from overseas is quite reasonable. I merely mention it to make the point that regular mail does have a great effect in preventing estrangement. My third point is the Service Welfare Organization. Before the war this organization hardly existed but during the war we built up, not only in the direction of legal aid, but in many other directions, a welfare organization which worked to the great benefit of the Service-man and the Service-woman. We have no assurance so far that that will not be regarded solely as a war-time measure and that it will not disappear when the Army comes to be re-formed for peace-time, but I personally have very great hope that that is not going to be so.
Now the Welfare Organization can do more than almost anyone else to nip these family difficulties in the bud. It provides the channel through which a man can send his complaints so that the Welfare Organization or the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families' Association can make the necessary enquiries on the spot and give the right skilled advice. Something of this kind will be required just as much after the war, whether we are dealing with Regular soldiers or compulsorily enlisted soldiers, and I hope we shall hear this afternoon that those organizations are going to be kept in being and moulded to peacetime needs. The last point, and a much more thorny point, relates to accommodating wives in stations abroad with their husbands. That is a very much bigger question, and perhaps I may be excused if I do no more than mention it this afternoon. Those are the four things which I suggest have to be planned and built into the structure of the post-war army, about which we are all so anxious to hear.
For example, nobody can give a guarantee that leave will be on such and such a scale unless in the peace establishment a proper margin has been allowed so that those people can be absent from peace-time stations. You will find that those four things are more closely interlocked with the general work of the Services than one would imagine at first sight,
22
and therefore it is necessary that those who have the task of planning the postwar Services should have firmly in their minds the need for a proper welfare service of the kind which will assist in removing these difficulties.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, drew too gloomy a picture, but one must remember that even now, and certainly more later on, when the older men have been released and when they are not being called up, there will not be nearly so big a proportion of married men in the Army. That does not mean that it will not be necessary to take care of the people who are there. All the Service departments have laboured very much under the difficulties of transport and operational difficulties which have prevented them sending compassionate cases home at the right time and in the right quota. In peace-time there is no reason that I can see why that should occur. Although the problem may be smaller in size, I suggest it will be the same in shape, and I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who I know has these matters very much at heart, as indeed has my noble friend Lord Croft, who was at the War Office before him, will keep these considerations in his mind.
3.34 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing this Motion before your Lordships this afternoon. It comes, if I may say so, at a particularly opportune moment, when rather unfortunate public discussion has tended to suggest that this problem is not as important as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, in his original Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned the subject of divorces which came to a head during the war, and which sprang from troubles which started before the war. Whether those figures which have been produced are accurate or not I do not think matters, because it is without question a fact that prolonged separation must aggravate the difficulties, whether they started before the war or sprang up during the war. I think also there has been a tendency to allow the subject of marital infidelity to push into the background other hardships which are brought about by prolonged separation, family affairs less important, but nevertheless hardships which have to be faced.

23
There is the problem of the wife trying to carry on the small family business, trying to keep the family together, supervise the education of the children, and all those hundred and one things which are preying on the soldier's mind whilst he is away. Those are smaller questions, but I think they are important.
I must confess that I regard leave as only a makeshift solution to this problem. There are certain difficulties which are now becoming more acute with regard to leave. You cannot have a demobilization scheme which has gone at the rate at which this country has pressed for it without having immediate repercussions on the leave scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has suggested, the stage is being reached from the point of view of both ships and units where there are not enough men left to carry on the work. The first people who suffer if there are not enough men left are the soldiers themselves; their administrative wants are neglected through the lack of administrative staff. I think it should also be borne in mind that the rebirth of life in Europe is meaning that less transport can be provided, both on land and on the sea. I am thinking particularly of shipping, which is now being turned back to trade. The operational considerations are still extremely complex, and both those points operate as a serious brake on the speed of leave. When I said that I regarded leave as a makeshift, I do not want it to be thought for one moment that I am against increased facilities for leave, but I do agree with the noble Lord that the real solution to this problem is a complete change of heart, and reconsideration of the old problem of married life in the Services.
It used to be said before the war to the Service-man who grumbled occasionally about the hardships of married life in the Army and the long separation from his wife and family, "What do you expect? Surely that was part of the bargain when you decided to take up the Service as a career?" That answer will no longer do. Men are not prepared to accept that attitude now, and if that is still the attitude we shall not get the men. The matter was gone into in a book called Other Men's Flowers by Field Marshal Lord Wavell, in which he emphasized, with great experience, wisdom
24
and humanity, the change in heart and mind of the Service-man of to-day and of his day. It may not be entirely acceptable—certainly not to the old school—but it is a fact that until that is accepted this bar to any family life equal to that of the civilian will be serious, and that, of course, reflects immediately on the whole question of conscription.
May I deal first with the question of wives joining their husbands in the operational and occupational areas. I think what is required at the moment is a clear statement as to what is the Government's policy concerning wives and families joining their husbands and fathers both in Europe and in the Far East. There have been, I think, too many conflicting statements from various authorities which have done nothing except to cause alarm and disappointment amongst those who have been wrongly left to think they were going to join their husbands. It is, of course, no light matter to introduce into a war-torn Europe women and children, when there are already serious shortages of transport, accommodation and welfare facilities. There are many who consider that that introduction would be ill-advised, but whatever is the Government's policy, I think it should be announced categorically and clearly as far ahead as it is possible to see. One thing I feel convinced of, and that is that there must not be any backstairs manœuvring whereby some people manage to get their families out ahead of those who are officially allowed to do so.
I turn to the question of the permanent overseas stations. It seems to be forgotten than some stations overseas are faced with just as serious a problem of accommodation and food as we are at home here in England; I think particularly of Gibraltar and Malta. There are some permanent stations which are still occupational areas, for instance, Palestine. There are some areas which were the principal permanent stations during the war, for instance, India and Egypt, which are, of course, still a matter of debate on the highest possible level, and the military future of which cannot be foreseen. But wherever it is possible for married life to be set up again, that I feel should be done, and it should be clearly indicated now where those areas are, what can be done, and what cannot be done.

25
The problem of married life is even more serious here at home. I suggest that it must have been within the experience of many of your Lordships that married conditions in the Army before the war were gravely prejudiced by the deplorable state of barracks and married quarters in this country. There have been many occasions on which officers and men have been unable to take up married life in their own stations, and have had to seek accommodation outside—usually uncomfortable accommodation and at extortionate rents—or be faced with the problem of maintaining two homes. I need not deal in detail with military barracks in this country. The only thing that can be said in favour of military barracks is that they are not as bad as most naval barracks. There is one barracks in the Aldershot area, with which many of your Lordships are no doubt acquainted, which was designed it is said by an architect whose sole claim to distinction was that he had failed to gain the prize in the competition which was held to decide on the design of the Albert Memorial. Many of those stationed in that barracks have often suspected that the design upon which it was constructed was, with a few alterations, the design which failed to win the prize.
May I ask that consideration of the Government's housing problem should include a comprehensive survey of the whole question of barracks and married quarters, and that at the same time consideration should be given to the problem of increased welfare and better education for the families and children of men serving in those barracks, the development of clinics, canteens and everything else which goes to make married life more tolerable in barracks and married quarters in England. As a postscript to the whole idea, may I mention the problem of troopships. This, of course, is looking very far ahead, but if something can be done to improve the conditions of married quarters in troopships it would be very welcome. I appreciate that a great deal has been done. The period of foreign service overseas has, in nearly all cases, been reduced to three and a half years.
The age for marrying on the strength is now down to 21, although there are some people who think that that is too young an age at which to encourage soldiers to undertake the responsibilities of marriage. I also appreciate that a great deal has been done with regard to
26
leave. I do not wish it to be thought, for I one moment, that I am not in favour of I increased leave facilities—and here, for one moment, I think I may speak on behalf of that mute and vulnerable curiosity, the bachelor. I feel that a solution will not really be reached until a complete change of heart officially is acceptable on the whole question of the married man's right to have his married life in the Services with the Services. Surely it is not unreasonable that the country should regard the Service man's wife in the same way as he is taught to regard his rifle—that is, as something to be kept near him and to be kept in the best possible condition. If I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to accept that sentiment and what goes with it, then I think that Lord Elton's Motion will have served a very useful purpose.
3.45 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing this Motion before the House to-day. It gives me a chance of saying a few words on behalf of naval officers and naval ratings who are married. I am afraid that, at the moment, the future of the married life of the Navy does not look very good on the face of it. Unlike the Army and the Royal Air Force, the personnel of the Royal Navy have no married quarters, no matter how bad. I believe that all the Royal Naval barracks married quarters were condemned a long time ago. Now what is the alternative? I suggest—though it may be a rather unfortunate term to use at the moment—satellite naval barracks built say ten to twelve miles outside Portsmouth, Chatham and Devonport. Why not have a small community of houses for officers, chief petty officers, leading seamen and seamen? It should be quite possible to have these people settled in little communities and to run the different ratings in and out from their depôts.
The average naval barracks, I think, works in four watches, which means that a man is off three nights out of four. What can he do on his nights off at the present time? In Portsmouth, Devonport or Chatham there is nothing for him to do. If he were able by getting in a bus—even though he had to pay a fare of sixpence or a shilling—to go home to his wife and family, how much happier he would be, how much more contented. As it is, if he is lucky enough to get a week-end off

27
—a matter of 48 hours—eight times out of ten that is useless to him, for his wife may live in the Midlands and he has no sooner got home than he has to turn round and go back again. It is practically impossible in the naval dockyard towns today to get a house, and anyway the naval rating is at a disadvantage, for I believe that, striking an average, the naval rate of pay is 89s. a week (including marriage and housing allowances) against the civilian rate of 121s. 4d. Those figures were taken in July, 1945, and as your Lordships will note there is a discrepancy between the two of some 30s. It is obvious that, in the circumstances, the civilian is going to get the better house or is going to get the house that is going. So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will be able to give us some hope that we may get housing or satellite barracks built for the naval ratings.
Then there is the question of service overseas. It is possible for a naval rating to have served a commission in the Far East, to come back and then, after his leave, to be drafted to the Mediterranean Fleet which I think I am right in saying counts as a Home Fleet. He may have been in the Far East for two years. He comes back, has two months' leave and then does eighteen months or two years in the Mediterranean where he is, of course, away from his wife and family. Not very long ago, speaking in the discussion on Army and Navy pay, I asked if it would not be possible for one free trip per commission to be provided to enable families of naval men to go to ports like Malta and Gibraltar. This, I think, should be possible. The Royal Navy transported everything during the war with the fleet train. Surely it should be possible to transport a relatively few people abroad.
I noted that in the Hansard Report of May 1, columns 162 and 163, it was recorded that the Under-Secretary of State for Air stated that the Royal Air Force were going all out for married quarters overseas. I only hope that we can get some assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that the Navy will not be overlooked, and that provision will be made for it too. I do not propose to detain your Lordships much longer, but I must say that I could not help noting a report in the Sunday papers that a member of the Government—I forget who
28
it was—said that houses would spring up like mushrooms. I only hope that that is correct and that the hothouse door will be kept shut. If the frost gets in there will not be any mushrooms, there will not be any houses, and I shall not see our naval barracks with married quarters.
3.50 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I would like to say one word in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and that is about accommodation for Service wives, especially at home. I was talking the other day to an officer just back from overseas, training at Cambridge, and he told me that it is very difficult after long service abroad to get accommodation anywhere at home with their wives. I have taken the trouble to go round airfields in East Anglia, and it is a fact that there is a great deal of accommodation for married people which is still occupied by single men, although there is a large amount of hutting available. It seems to me some of this empty hutting could be used for single men so that, when married men have a tour of home service, they can be near their wives. Similarly, in some of the non-operational areas in Gibraltar and Malta there is hutting which could be used by single men, and so give relief to married quarters. In some of the airfields, I know, the permanent quarters are magnificent. Some of the hutted camps are also very fine. I hope that the noble Lord who replies will urge the authorities to try and release some of these quarters at an early date, so that men who do come home from a long tour overseas can be somewhere near their wives. Lodgings are extremely difficult and expensive to find.
3.52 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I hope the House will bear with me for a few minutes. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has been fair in the matter of what has already been done. I have here the minutes of Command Welfare, in which a review was made of Army welfare. There are members in this House who have given great and honourable service for years in Army welfare. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, himself started as it were from scratch, because he conscripted me as a welfare officer six and a quarter years ago. I agree that it was deplorable that only eighteen months ago, not in one Command but in one

29
county alone, there was a list of 600 divorce cases waiting to be heard at Leeds Assizes. It was deplorable—so deplorable that the Lord Chancellor, of the Lord Chief Justice, or somebody, sent to each of the great Assize areas a Divorce Judge. In such places as Leeds they have been at it for a month on end at each Assize, just dealing with divorce cases. The latest report from our Command Minutes shows that the three years' wait has been reduced to eighteen months. This is no Party question. One Government—I do not know whether it was the Caretaker Government; this, that or the other Government—appointed the Rushcliffe Committee to go into the whole question of legal aid. That Committee have partially solved the difficulty—I say partially, because we are short of legal staff. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned typists. He should criticize the Treasury for paying such miserable wages to typists. On the other hand we have been able to get public-spirited lawyers to give voluntarily of their best in order to expedite these divorce cases.
But something more has been done. This welfare work is unique. We were the envy of America. This welfare work is still continuing. We were all told we could send in our resignations about eight or nine months ago; then we were asked if we would carry on until June this year. There was good reason for that request. I do not want to put in any personal note, because I only worked a small military area, as I spent part of my time in London, but whereas during these last six years I personally have dealt with over 3,000 cases—most of them matrimonial cases—my other colleagues in greater centres were almost inundated with such cases up to about March of this year. Now there has been a miraculous, sudden drop owing to the splendid organization of the demobilization plan which, again, is to the credit of all Parties. These men certainly have their difficulties, but the 1,200 Army welfare officers, working every village and township in this island, were told they were not inquiry agents and snoopers but were reconcilers. And that has been the job of the Army welfare officers. These officers, of whom I am the least, have done a great job of work as pastors and reconcilers.
I could weary your Lordships with personal instances—and this is in reply to
30
the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and his gloomy picture—of cables from scores and hundreds of commanding officers. The; noble Lord, Lord Altrincharn, knows all about this work, because he was there at its inception. It grew in strength. I pay my tribute, also, to the noble Earl, Lord Minister, for what he was able to do when he went to India. Our aim was to deal with cases in a few days, to see if this man or that man should be sent back home in order to try and bring about reconciliation. And I say, quite frankly, that thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen realize that the authorities were most considerate. Where it was humanly possible to give 'compassionate leave to these men, that leave was given. Sometimes we were able to bring husband and wife together, and reconcile them. I shall never forget a woman with two children. The commanding officer told us that she was pregnant. I went to see her. She was going to sell up the home, and intended to place her children in a public institution. She was hostile at the beginning, but when I explained- the position to her she said "Yes, I have a letter from my husband,'' That husband realizing a sense of frustration—and I agree that absences from home were intolerable, but that was war—said, "But I forgive you." I asked her "Does you husband belong to any church?" She said, "No, not that I am aware of." "Well," I said, "I want to tell you that your husband is a great Christian." She promised that she would keep the home together, and her husband has taken charge of the baby, of which he is not the father. There are many cases like that.
What I want to say is this: I believe that we have now seen the worst of the numbers of cases which are going to be brought before the Divorce Court. I am confident of that. Our job now in the so-called peace era upon which we are supposed to be entering is to continue regular leave, to allow these fellows to come home, especially where they have a home, and are not living with a mother-in-law, to see their wives and families. I am certain all three Services are trying to do that. I gather that from what the Royal Air Force and the others say. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that regular leave every I quarter should be granted. The Army I welfare authorities have asked if the

31
voluntary welfare officers would carry on, and of course, practically all, or ninety per cent, of them at any rate (there are many volunteers to fill the places of those who wish to resign for business reasons) will be carrying on at least until the end of this year. I do not like these divorces. I would rather reconcile an erring wife and a soldier husband, or the opposite, than drag cither of them through a Divorce Court. I agree with the noble Lord who emphasized that we must have a different approach to, and a different conception of, marriage altogether. That is by the way.
There is a second part to Lord Elton's Motion. I do not think he made very much reference to it. We still have the plus 18's coming into the Army. Personally I believe you will, for a short period, require conscription on the lines of the Militia Act for a short term such as twelve months' service. I suggest it would be a good thing to deal with these young men in three parts—to send them for training, to send them to their units, and then to allow them to join the professional soldier abroad. After that let the young men go on the Reserve, go back to their jobs, to the University, or to bricklaying, or to whatever occupations they want to follow. It is a difficult problem, but there is no reason why we should be, too gloomy about it. This country of ours has done a great job of work in the sphere of welfare, and that is still going to be carried on. I am certain that this debate has been of the utmost value by spot-lighting what is undoubtedly a great problem; it is a problem with which we have to deal, and, knowing this House, and knowing even more the other House, I know that we shall adequately deal with it.
4.5 p.m.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I think the House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having opened this discussion on a matter of great public moment. The debate has been remarkable for the contributions made to it by those who have had experience in the various branches of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, brought to the advantage of your Lordships all the experience gained by him as Deputy
32
Adjutant General of the Forces at the War Office, while Lord Mancroft, in his felicitous speech, spoke for the Army; the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke for the Navy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, for the Royal Air Force. Each brought forward points which certainly deserve and require attention, while the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, spoke with all the experience of a welfare officer.
I do not come entirely uninformed to a discussion of this particular subject, for it so happens, as many of your Lordships know, that I was, from the beginning of the war, charged with a large responsibility in relation to the welfare of the Forces. I believe indeed that at one time I held the military responsibility for about one-third of the British Army in respect of welfare. In that capacity, in about the year 1941, after the raids of the autumn and winter of 1940, I felt the first impact of the situation so far as it was affecting the relationship of husbands and wives. I must confess I was greatly troubled at that time to find the very large number of marriages that were, as it seemed to me, on the way to dissolution. I agree with my noble friend Lord Calverley that the welfare officers and the chaplains—whose valuable work cannot be over-estimated—manfully played the part of reconcilers, and many marriages which otherwise might have come to grief were kept together by their influence; but they are not included in the 48,000 divorce cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred in his Motion.
I must tell your Lordships that, based upon my experience of these matters as I have indicated, I have formed the deliberate opinion that, while separation is an essential factor, leading to a breakdown in married life, it would be as wrong to exaggerate its importance as it would be to attenuate-it. Separation has, no doubt, during these first few years, proved itself to be a factor without which it is unlikely that marriages would have fallen to pieces. But there have been other contributory factors of equal or even more importance. There has been the question of evacuation, especially from the great cities into the countryside, which has meant that many families have been separated, not only husband and wife, but mother and children, when the children have gone to the country. They

33
have been evacuated to the countryside, leaving behind their mothers alone and lonely, without husband and children. In many cases the mothers have found themselves in unaccustomed surroundings in the countryside.
There has been an emotional upset, there has been an uprooting from social anchorages; and the evacuation, the changed environment., very often the change of employment, and the making of new friendships in new surroundings have all been contributory factors, which could not have had their baleful effect if it had not been for separation. But it is not separation alone which in so many of these cases has had that result. I mention that for it is really germane to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The fact of the matter is that it is a social malady, as the noble Lord stated, and not merely a matter of judicial procedure that we are considering. But just as the dislocation of judicial procedure is, as I believe, temporary in this matter, so is this particular aspect of social malady temporary. For it is not really a Service problem in the ordinary sense of the term at all.
A Service problem of this kind never arose before the war, when the separation of officers and other ranks from their wives was a normal feature of life in the Forces, and I have every reason to hope and expect that, as before the war so after the war, this question of social maladjustment, this question of broken marriages, will not be a factor which need be taken into account in planning for the future. It is, as I suggested to your Lordships, due largely to the conditions produced by the war, when a higher proportion of all able-bodied men were conscripted into the Forces and conditions at home were unsettled, involving all the changes of employment, environment and association to which I have referred. There were also the hasty marriages where the husband and wife had scarcely had an opportunity of settling down together at all and where the habit of living together side by side and the creation of a long and lasting affection had had no chance to fructify.
But I ought to tell your Lordships that in all three Services—and I speak not for the Army alone to-day—there is an alertness to the hardships involved by the long separation of husband and wife, and it is the deliberate aim of His
34
Majesty's Government that the periods of separation shall be reduced to the maximum extent under pace-time conditions. This will be achieved in two ways: in part by reducing the term of overseas service where in the past it has perhaps been rather long; and in the second place, by providing opportunities for wife and children to join the husband at overseas stations wherever practicable. In other words, we are approaching the problem: from two different angles. In the one instance, the husband will be brought home to the family, and in the other the family will be taken out to the husband.
So far as the Army is concerned, as I has been already mentioned by the noble I Lord, Lord Mancroft, the term of overseas service will be shorter in the postwar period than it was before the war. It I will be from three to three and a half years in the post-war Army, and three years is the objective which we hope we may achieve, though I cannot at the moment say more than "that it will not be more than three and a half years. Consequently a soldier enlisting at the age of eighteen will obviously complete his tour of foreign service before the question of marriage ever arises, unless he marries exceptionally young. This tour will be his only tour unless he extends for longer service, and if he does so he will do so at a mature age, knowing full well the conditions of his service—to which I will come in a moment, for they will be improved conditions of service.
There is already planned an extensive programme for the construction of married quarters to supplement those which already existed before the war, and it is hoped to provide "he full establishment of married quarters, both at home and abroad. I would ask your Lordships to realize what that means, because in the pre-war Army the soldier was not regarded technically, from the military point of view, as being a married man at all until he was, I think, twenty-six. That has been altered. Now the married man will be regarded, for all purposes, as a married man if he marries at any age after twenty-one, and we are setting ourselves to the task of providing married quarters, both at home and abroad, for all married officers and other ranks.
I should be misleading your Lordships if I were to suggest that that is a programme that can be carried into effect

35
and completed within any short period of years. Thousands of quarters in this country will be required, as well as in the overseas stations. But I should be hopeful that the ambitious programme which has already started as part of the contribution towards the national housing effort might be completed within a period of, say, ten years, if all goes reasonably well, so far as home is concerned, though so far as overseas is concerned it must necessarily depend upon the location of the Army and the facilities that there may be in any particular place where there is to be a garrison. We have already started on the first stage of the long-term programme. One thousand married quarters are in the building programme for this year at home, quite apart from the large number of existing married quarters which are being reconditioned and brought up to modern standards of accommodation and amenities. All this, as I have said, is regarded as part of the national housing programme.
In the Royal Air Force the tour of foreign service is also in process of being reduced. As far as quarters are concerned, the Royal Air Force is working generally on the lines I have already described in the case of the Army. The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, made an interesting suggestion, which I will certainly see is brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for Air, as regards the use of married quarters for soldiers who are brought home from an overseas tour of duty. That will certainly be given the most careful, and I may say, sympathetic consideration. Lord Selsdon referred to the entirely different problem presented in the case of the Royal Navy. The normal tour of overseas service of the Royal Navy is already shorter than that of the Army and the Royal Air Force, and will remain at two and a half years. It has not hitherto been the practice of the Royal Navy to provide married quarters, and it is confronted, therefore, with a novel task. The mind of the Admiralty is, however, being directed to this matter, the policy being to create married quarters where married quarters may be found to be necessary.
But the situation as regards the Royal Navy is somewhat different from that of the other Services in that personnel at home stations have generally been based on three main ports where their families
36
have settled, and local authorities in those port areas have taken those facts into account in creating their housing schemes and in the location and allocation of houses. There does not seem to be quite the same need for independent Service provision in the case of the Royal Navy as in the case of the Army and the Royal Air Force, but some provision corresponding to that of the other Services will certainly be necessary in the case of the Royal Naval Air Service, which is widely dispersed like the Royal Air Force. The provision of appropriate accommodation for the Royal Naval Air Service is under consideration. So far as the Royal Navy is concerned, it is felt that married quarters at stations abroad would scarcely be likely to confer the same advantages on families of naval personnel as on those of the soldiers and airmen. A great deal of the overseas service of the naval officer or rating is necessarily spent at sea, and separation from his family is inevitable. Nevertheless the Admiralty are no less conscious than their colleagues of the other Services of the need for reducing the extent of separation to a minimum and they are exploring the whole position, both at home and abroad, with a view to making whatever provision is most suitable in the circumstances.
The suggestion by Lord Selsdon that, if quarters cannot be made available for permanent residence in places like Malta, or shall I say Gibraltar, the family might be allowed to go overseas for a short tour, is certainly one that will not be looked at without sympathy or appreciation. I should say, both to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, that it is not only the policy of His Majesty's Government but the intention that in these married quarters there shall be the full civilian standard of accommodation and that schools and proper amenities shall also be provided so that the Service-man in his quarters, whether at home or abroad, may have conditions comparable with those of the civilian in ordinary civilian life in our towns and our countryside.
As I have indicated, and as indeed is obvious, the programme I have outlined will take several years to bring to fruition and will depend to some extent, particularly overseas, on decisions not yet taken as-to the strength and distribution of our post-war forces, but as an interim measure three steps are being taken to reduce the

37
period of separation from families. In the first: place the period of foreign service, both of the Army and of the Royal Air Force, is being progressively reduced. It has already been announced that the Army tour of service will shortly be reduced to three years and two months in India and to three years and nine months elsewhere, except in B.A.O.R., for which special facilities for leave exist already. The ultimate aim is to reduce the tour of foreign service to three years. The Royal Air Force tour is already being reduced to three years and when this process is completed a further reduction to two and a half years will be considered. Even shorter tours will be operated, it is hoped, in the case of Gibraltar and West Africa. The naval tour of two and a half years is based on the programme of refit of His Majesty's ships and I am advised that no further reduction is practicable there.
There is also the question, to which reference has already been made, of leave from overseas. Everything that is possible is being done to provide leave at home in the case of men who have been kept abroad for long periods. In B.A.O.R. about a month's leave is allowed each year, in at least two separate allotments. In other Army Commands, where the tour exceeds three years, apart from India and the Far East, one month's leave at home is allowed during each tour for men who have been serving for more than a year overseas and who are not due for home posting for at least six months. Leave is allowed from India and South-East Asia on somewhat similar terms, as far as practicable, but only a proportion of the men can benefit owing to the local situation. The leave policy is kept under constant review. The Royal Air Force have corresponding arrangements in B.A.O.R. which are at present in process of being equated as closely as possible to those of the Army, but the difference in the length of tour elsewhere may involve some difference of treatment as regards leave. It is impossible for the Royal Navy, with their shorter period of service, to allow leave to the United Kingdom during the overseas service tour.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to leave as being one of the four conditions for a happy and contented Army. Certainly as frequent and as long leave as circumstances permit is an important factor, but I am not at all sure
38
that in some ways he is not right in attaching even more importance, or at least much more importance than is often attached to it, to the question of regular mail. If those at home can hear from their men in the Forces and those overseas can hear from their folk at home with regularity, that will help to keep homes together. In the same context I think I might take this opportunity of saying to the noble Viscount and also to Lord Calverley that it is certainly the intention that the welfare services shall continue, extended as necessity may demand and adapted to the conditions and to the circumstances of the post-war Forces. I have no doubt that the welfare services have been of inestimable value to the Armed Forces of the Crown and they will be continued in the future.
As to families overseas, very real efforts are being made to allow families to join Service-men at overseas stations, even where sufficient military married quarters do not exist or where they cannot be provided. Families are now allowed—I think perhaps some noble Lords will be surprised at the list—to proceed to Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada, Ceylon, East Africa, Gibraltar, India, Italy, Malta, the Middle East (less Palestine and the Sudan), North Africa, the North Caribbean area, South Africa, U.S.A. and West Africa (excluding children). The British Army of the Rhine has presented, for obvious reasons, a particularly difficult problem but it is hoped that satisfactory arrangement's will be completed in the very near future.
Meanwhile, the Order which prohibited the meeting of personnel and their families in Paris and Brussels has been cancelled. It might interest your Lordshiips to know that applications for overseas stations other than Germany have numbered 3,394, of which 2,536 have been approved and 1,235 have embarked. The remainder are in course of action, and we are unable at the moment to state the decision. Perhaps I should say nothing at the moment with regard to Germany, except that it is proposed that an appreciable number shall proceed to Germany, although the question may arise as to the conditions and to circumstances under which they should go and for how long.
The Far East is excluded from the arrangement as to families owing to the extremely difficult conditions, and it may be several months before the concession

39
is extended to that area. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned the question of Palestine. Palestine is excluded at present on the advice of the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East. I think the reasons will be sufficiently understood, but I should make it clear that the existing military accommodation is already inadequate in that country, and that which will be available later will be taken up in providing satisfactory minimum scales of accommodation for the troops themselves. The noble Lord referred to the wives of members of the police force, but those who have gone to Palestine have been living in cantonments with their husbands. There are no such cantonments for British troops in Palestine who are for the most part living in tented accommodation. In order to give priority to most deserving cases at all overseas stations, applications are at present restricted to officers and men who have completed or are likely to complete a total of two years overseas service and have a further year to serve at their present station.
It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who referred to the question of compassionate leave in relation to men coming home and trying to prevent the home being broken up. He seemed to be under the impression that such leave is not given. He is mistaken. Where it appears that a real service would be rendered in keeping together a home that might otherwise be broken certainly compassionate leave may be given. It is at the discretion of the local commander, but the noble Lord may be interested to know that in nearly all overseas commands there is a committee consisting of those drawn from all ranks who consider the merits, that is, priority and otherwise, of the various applications for compassionate leave. Compassionate leave for the purposes mentioned by the noble Lord is amongst those which are permissible.
I hope from what I have said that it will be clear that the three Services are in each case fully alive to the need for reducing the minimum time spent by members of the forces away from their families and are doing everything possible in the matter. It is a fortunate thing that with the rapid progress of the release scheme most of the older men, who also constitute the bulk of the married men, will soon have completed their period of service and the problem will be reduced to the post-war level.
40
Your Lordships may be interested to know that by the end of this year the bulk of the remaining non-Regular soldiers in the Army will be under the age of twenty-four, and it can scarcely be expected that this problem of the breaking up of marriages will become formidable in regard to an Army which is so young. As I have indicated, and as will be clear to your Lordships' house, the number of quarters required for married personnel will be greatly in excess of the pre-war numbers, and owing to the larger numbers of personnel and to the desire to meet the requirement for quarters more fully than before the war, some time will necessarily elapse before the need can be satisfied. In the meanwhile very considerable concessions have been made and as far as they can shall continue to be made in an extended degree. Finally, I would say this to your Lordships—and I think this is perhaps a remark Lord Elton would desire me to make—that it is the conviction of His Majesty's Government that family life is the key-stone of the social fabric, and it is the determination of His Majesty's Governments to keep that firm.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder if he could tell me the position with regard to the Royal Marines and married quarters.
LORD NATHAN: I believe I am correct in saying that the Royal Marines stand on the same footing in this matter as the Royal Navy, but if I find I am wrong I will correct myself by writing and informing the noble Lord.
4.36 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his very full, informative and most encouraging reply. If I may say so, it is particularly satisfactory to have had such an answer from one who himself played such a distinguished rôle in the sphere of Army welfare work before taking up his present office. My noble friend Lord Calverley took the opportunity of paying an eloquent tribute to the work of the welfare services which I am sure all your Lordships will endorse. I only hope that nothing I said in my speech suggested to the noble Lord that I would not have endorsed it myself. The fact remains that Army welfare work is like ambulance work or like Red Cross work and it does not dispense us from the need

41
of tending the casualties I would like to thank the noble Lords on the Benches opposite for the four or five very interesting speeches they made. It has always seemed to me that our social tradition, perhaps owing to our seafaring past and present, has been a little over-tolerant of family separations. Most of us have suffered a great deal as school boys or as prisoners of war, and I should be glad to think that the speeches made by your Lordships, and the presiding genius as one so disposed to this cause, may do something to reduce the suffering of future generations. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
4.38 p.m.

SUDAN DEFENCE FORCE.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to a motion on flogging inflicted on members of the Sudan Defence Force which he put on the Paper for September 23, 1944, and which he has twice subsequently withdrawn at the request of His Majesty's Government, who informed him that they had not yet been able to obtain the information for which he asked; and to ask when he may hope that they will have received this information.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on December 11 last His Majesty's Government, after consultation with the Sudan Government, supplied the noble Lord with particulars of the sentences of corporal punishment awarded to members of the Sudan Defence Force from October, 1942, until September, 1945. These particulars showed that the majority of such punishments were awarded for indiscipline; and the noble Lord, at the end of December, requested further details of the offences coming within this category. The Sudan Government were accordingly requested to furnish this additional information, to obtain which it was necessary for them to consult their military authorities, many of them in outlying districts. They would in any case have been unable to supply answers to all the questions asked by the noble Lord in com-
42
plete detail without searching all the records of the Sudan Defence Force, a task which was impracticable because of the shortage of staff, due in its turn to the large-scale demobilization in progress. They explained, however, that the word "indiscipline" was used as a compendious term for offences of an insubordinate nature such, for example, as insolence to a superior, petty or attempted theft, or creating a disturbance. It was pointed out that indiscipline was not, of itself, an offence under the Sudan Civil Code, and it was therefore not punishable by a civil court, either by flogging or by any other punishment. This and other relevant information was communicated to the noble Lord, on April 17.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I say that of course I am aware—indeed it was I who pointed it out to the Foreign Office—that indiscipline was not an offence punishable by flogging, or even an offence under the Code at all. But it does seem to me to be highly deplorable that we should not be allowed to have full details of the offences for which flogging is inflicted. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the impression is not given by his reply that flogging is, in fact, used in the Sudan Defence Force rather like lines at school—that is, as a punishment for minor offences? This is in accordance with the information given to me when I was recently in the Sudan, and I am afraid that that is the impression which the noble and learned Lord's reply leaves with me.
I would further like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether it, is not a fact that the right to order flogging by second-class magistrates in the Sudan has not recently been limited to such cases as would be so punishable in this country, and whether, therefore, the Sudan Defence Force is not now out of line with the civil arm? Finally, I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord with regard to the reconsideration of the whole of this question of the infliction of punishments in the Sudan, which, I understand, is to take: place as soon as the Sudan Defence Force has been placed on a peace-time status, whether he can give any indication of the date when that peace-time status will have been reached?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer all the many supplementary questions which the noble Lord has put to me. I am rather like the Sudan Defence Force. I would remind the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government really cannot accept responsibility for the Sudan as though they were the sole Government concerned—because, of course, they are not. Article 3 of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1899, regarding the administration of the Sudan reads:
"The supreme military and civil command in the Sudan shall be vested in one officer, termed the 'Governor-General of the Sudan.' He shall be appointed by Khedivial Decree on the recommendation of Her Britannic Majesty's Government."
Under this Article it is not open to His Majesty's Government alone to give any assurances on matters affecting the administration of the Sudan, nor can His Majesty's Government answer questions in Parliament on the basis that they are solely responsible for that territory. On the other hand, matters upon which the noble Lord has made representations will, no doubt, be considered for I understand that he was right in saying that these matters are under review at the present time.
LORD FARINGDON: Arising out of, the noble and learned Lord's reply, may I ask him whether I am rightly informed when I am told by Egyptian authorities that the Egyptian Military Code has, in fact, so far as Egypt is concerned, been revised in this matter of flogging, whereas in the Sudan it has not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I regret that I have not the ubiquitous knowledge of Macaulay's school-boy, and I have not the slightest idea what the Egyptian Code provides in this connexion.
LORD FARINGDON: Arising out of that—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
LORD FARINGDON: I believe that I have the right to ask a further supplementary question arising out of the Lord Chancellor's reply, but of course I will bow to his ruling. I would wish to ask him whether, if I put another question at a later date asking for recent figures, these can be supplied, although earlier ones, I understand, will be difficult to obtain. Perhaps I could have the figures for, say, the last six months?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be possible, I really do not know.
4 45 p.m.

SOUTHERN IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether it is yet possible to give any information as to the progress being made in the negotiations on the subject of the Southern Irish Volunteers and unemployment benefit, observing that it was stated on December 10, 1945, that it was honed a decision would be reached at a "fairly early date"; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a late hour to start a debate on another subject, but I am putting forward one of those cases which have always received sympathy and approval from your Lordships. I am speaking for a small and helpless minority who are unable to speak for themselves, having no representatives. They are the sort of people who have always looked to the House of Lords for assistance in matters of difficulty. The negotiations to which I allude in my Motion are those which were started, I believe in 1944, with the Government of Ireland with a view to coming to some agreement on the matter of dispensing the benefits for unemployment among not only the ex-Service men but also the civilians who came over to this country during the war to help in the war effort. Negotiations really started on this subject as long ago as 1924. Since then they have been carried on and dropped and carried on and dropped again. In my Motion I allude only to those which began in 1944, but the 1924 talks must have covered much of the same ground. Therefore I am entitled, I think, to use a cliche much favoured in Government circles, and say that every avenue has been thoroughly explored.
As long ago as October last year a similar question to the one which I am now putting was asked in your Lordships' House but at the request of the Government it was postponed until December as it was said that the matter was "under consideration." It was represented on that occasion that it was a matter of great importance to those concerned that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. Demobilization was going on rapidly and the men were en-

45
titled to know how they stood as regards the benefits. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was good enough to say that "very sympathetic attention would be given by the Government to what had been urged." I am sure that he meant it, and I take this opportunity of saying that, so far as the noble Viscount is concerned, I am convinced that that undertaking has been implemented.
On December 10, in accordance with the Government's request, a further question was addressed about the progress which was being made, and'the Lord Chancellor answered that the matter was still under consideration, but he was glad to say that it was hoped to reach a decision at a fairly early date. Within a few days of that answer, the Prime Minister, answering a question in another place, promised to take the matter up. He also replied in similar terms to a memorial which was sent to him and which has been signed by many influential people including several members of your Lordships' House. That memorial appealed for action in order to mitigate the serious hardship of unemployment which was already beginning to affect Irish volunteers. The memorial pointed out that these men were entitled to full benefits as one of the conditions of their employment, for which their contributions had been fully paid up. Five more months have elapsed, and so far as my latest information goes, there is no sign of any arrangement having been arrived at. In any case, no payment has been made.
Those of your Lordships who are interested in this matter cannot be accused of undue impatience if you now press for some definite information after what has happened. Why has the "fairly early date" of December, 1945, not materialised by May, 1946, five months later? Is there no hope? VE-day was exactly a year ago. VJ-day was nine months ago'. Yet these men who voluntarily came over here in the face of much discouragement and difficulty are left without any knowledge as to how their just claims are to be met. Already many of them are on the verge of destitution. It was obvious that there would be a certain difficult period for these men and women when they went home under the circumstances of the case. It is not that there has been any discrimination against them. There has not been in most places. But, of course, those men and women have been out of their own
46
country for four, five or six years. Places they gave up have been filled, and those of them who had small businesses or worked on their own account have lost their connexion and goodwill. In most places, too, what stock they had and anything else of that sort has gone. To absorb them must take time. Normally speaking, unemployment benefit would have tided them over this difficult period if any arrangement had been arrived at. But no arrangement was arrived at, and so these men and women in their time of dire need are deprived of these benefits which are legally and morally theirs.
Naturally the Reinstatement Act does not help them, and I would remind your Lordships that there are other cases in which ex-Servicemen are at a disadvantage. For instance, they are not allowed to benefit under the Release and Resettlement Scheme, in so far as resettlement grants are concerned. Why this should be I cannot imagine. These grants, it will be remembered, were introduced for the purpose of giving assistance to ex-Servicemen—in the words of the booklet issued "to get the man going again." These were men who had one-man businesses, or who were working on their own and dropped it all to join the Colours. If a man in Eire can produce reliable evidence as to his need of such help, and is eligible for it, why should he not receive the same assistance is his English and Scottish comrades? He needs it a great deal more. The cumulative effect of all this is well illustrated in a letter I received last month from an ex-Serviceman in Cork City. The man wrote:
"When England went to war I left Cork and went to Belfast, where I joined the Army. When I left Cork to join up I had a horse and cart, which my wife had to sell. I am a married man with six children, and I made an application for assistance under the Re-settlement grant scheme and was told I was not entitled to it as I was a resident in Eire. Here in Eire I am not entitled to the dole for twelve months because I was out of the country for five years."
He adds a postscript, "I have six years unemployment and national health stamps which are useless to me here in Cork." My answer to that letter was to advise the man to seek advice from the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Help Society, represented in Cork by a Lieutenant-General on the retired list. He did so; the matter was promptly looked into, and within three weeks the man had been given a sum of money to help him carry

47
on until these benefits come. But he cannot go on in that way for ever.
The Government attitude seems to be that if they cannot come to some agreement with the authorities in Dublin, or deal with the matter through the usual channels (the Post Office or Labour Exchanges or whatever it may be) they can do nothing. Instead they should be taking energetic steps to deal with what is fast becoming an emergency. It is not impossible to get at these men. On the contrary it is comparatively easy. The Government have arranged for the payment of pensions and disability allowances, which have to be distributed all over the country, and they have taken the necessary precautions against impositions. There are, also, certain voluntary societies, such as the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Society which I have referred to, working there. They have many agencies and give assistance to the limit of their powers after investigating each case. The British Legion, too, is very strong and has many branches in Ireland, of one of which I happen to be president. A great deal could be done through them and I believe they have volunteered to help. At least they have given good advice—which has not been taken! The Army benevolent fund works through the British Legion and large sums of money have been distributed. But that is all charity; and that is not the way to treat these men who came over here and to whom we owe a debt, certainly morally if not financially. These men and women hold British Government securities, in the shape of insurance stamps, and these are not being honoured.
It is difficult to find out the exact number of those from Eire who served in the British Forces. 165,000 seems at present to be the figure generally accepted. Questions about the number of men joining the British military forces have met with scant information, just about enough to show that either the records were abominably kept or that for some reason it is not wished to disclose what the numbers are. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who answered the last question on this subject told your Lordships, quite frankly, that the figures he gave were unsatisfactory, although he had tried his best to get them. I am sure he had. The holding back of
48
this information, if it is held back, does not make much difference. If the figures show that large numbers came over then our debt is large and collective.
If the figures show that only a few men came over, in the face of general disapprobation, then our debt is small but doubly a debt of honour, and we should liquidate it. But whether the numbers are great or few they came over in face of Government disapproval, not as heroes, with bands playing, flags waving, and crowds cheering. They came and risked the penalties and possible disagreeable consequences. That is all that concerns us. We were glad enough to have them when they arrived. What would be said of a private individual who did not liquidate his debt of honour because he was too tired to ascertain the details of his liability, for that, I suggest, is what is meant by the Government expression, "A disproportionate amount of time and labour?" I do appeal to the Government to say to-day what they are going to do for these men and women, at any rate to tide them over until some agreement is reached. It affects not only the soldiers who fought for us, but also civilians who came over and were employed in munition factories or on the land, facing our privations and just the same perils as the people of this country. Our honour is concerned; in this matter, and I beg the Government not to go back on the fine declaration made by one of their number, that "it is against our religion to let down those who have fought for us, those who have stood by us." My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Earl in the plea he has made this afternoon. I am not as conversant with the case as he is. I do not know all the details of which he has informed us, but I do know that there is a great principle involved in this. I cast my mind back twenty years or more, to the time when we were discussing the Irish question. At that time many Southern Irish Loyalists were either expelled or had to flee from Ireland to our shores—men who had supported us and fought for us during the first Great War. I remember the terrible and tragic conditions under which some of those people existed for many years, until they ended their lives in absolute impoverishment

49
and misery. A slur was cast on our honour at that time. The controversy about these unfortunate people went on for several years and, if I remember rightly, the whole of their claims were finally liquidated by the payment of a round sum of eight million pounds. In the meantime they had suffered tremendously. To-day we have another case.
These people, as the noble and gallant Earl has told us, have fought for us and have done so at great inconvenience to themselves. They have got into trouble with their own Government; they left their wives and children behind; they left their businesses. In spite of all this they came forward and associated themselves with us in this last great war, in which they earned a very great reputation and created a very fine record for themselves. It will be another stigma, another great slur on our honour, if we do not treat these men in a proper and satisfactory way—at once. I beg the Government in this case not to do what that Government did in those earlier days—when they went on negotiating and talking and writing and discussing whether this is right or how much they should give or how much they should allow them to have. This is a case, in my judgment, where we ought to act at once, to act quickly, and pay what to-day is a debt of honour. We ought not to allow these people to go on starving, selling up their possesions to enable them to keep their wives and children, and so on. We must meet this debt of honour, and it is the duty of the Government to do so as quickly as possible.
5.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, speaking for myself, I would say that the noble Earl who raised this matter has a strong case. If I may say so, with the very greatest respect to him, he has such a very strong case that it was a pity to overstate it in the way in which he did. I find myself really in great difficulty to understand how it can possibly be thought that these men have any legal claim, as contended by the noble Earl in his speech. They have not—none whatever.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: What did they pay contributions for?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They paid contributions as part of an insurance scheme, and they have to observe the
50
conditions of the scheme. We are discussing it on a legal basis. One condition is that if they choose to stay in this country unemployment benefit is available for them. If they choose to go out of the country, unemployment benefit is not available to them. That is the scheme, and when a man comes out of the Army, he is credited with the full number of insurance stamps as though he had insured, and he i; entitled to the full benefits of this scheme, such as they are. If he deprives himself of the benefits of the scheme by going to another country, it is idle to say, as he noble Earl did, that the insurance stamps are not being honoured, or that they have a legal claim.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Chancellor. Does he really mean to tell the House that these men are not to go to their own homes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nothing of the sort. I am talking of the legal claim.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: If they stay in this country they do not go to their own home.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl must listen to me. I started by Saying that I thought he had a strong case. I think he has a strong case on moral grounds. He has no case at all on legal grounds, and I (think it is not right to say that the insurance stamps are not being honoured. They are. The legal side of the contract is being honoured. I will come to the moral side in a moment. But when the noble Earl speaks of the civilians, I am bound to say that I do not sympathize with his case there. Some of these civilians came over from Southern Ireland and enjoyed good wages here. Now they have returned to Southern Ireland, and by going back to Southern Ireland they have put themselves outside the scheme. If they had stayed here they would have had the benefits of the scheme. They have not stayed here. I am sorry to have to say an unpopular thing, but I am bound to say that there does come a time when one must try to protect all these manifold claims which are made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer here and the various funds we have set up.

51
It is idle to deny that when you have these people in Southern Ireland you have not the same measure of control over them as you have here. Here we make it a condition of the continued receipt of unemployment benefit that a person should sign a register, and the employment exchange manager offers a job here, or offers a job there, and if a person does not take the job, he is struck off. You cannot apply that sort of thing if these people are not here. It must at best be a very indifferent administration. Therefore while I say that legally neither volunteers nor civilians have any claim, and I do not accept on any ground the claim of civilians—I come to volunteers. The right way to put this case is that there is here to my mind a debt of honour which we should try to satisfy. I am with the noble Earl there. With regard to men who came over for the war, not to earn much money or anything of that sort, but to share with us the brunt of the fighting and the heat and burden of the day, and who have, naturally enough, as he says, now gone back to their homes in Ireland, while they have no sort of legal claim, and although there is not the slightest ground for saying that the stamps have not been honoured, I do feel we have a debt of honour to them.
It is a very difficult problem. We have been for a long time—I confess longer than I thought at all likely—endeavouring to work out our scheme. I am happy to tell you that we have now worked out our proposals. We have reduced them to writing, and, having seen them, I think that they are reasonable. I am not quite sure whether we have or not actually handed them to the High Commissioner for Eire, but that will be done in the course of the next few days. I think that they will be handed over by the Dominions Secretary. I think they will amply satisfy any moral obligation. The noble Earl will realise I am admitting that we have a moral obligation in the matter. We shall be perfectly prepared, of course, to discuss them with the Government of Eire, and to listen in a sympathetic way to their criticism. But let me make it plain, that applies and only applies to the volunteers. It does not apply to the civilians. It applies only to the volunteers who came over here.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answer. I apologize if I displayed much heat in the matter, but I felt strongly, and I feel strongly now, on this matter. I confess I did not expect to be told that, if a man paid his contributions over here for six years, he is entitled to nothing if he goes to his own home again. I believe that we have an agreement with the Dominions, or some of them, which makes it reciprocal. I am sorry to have to say so—because I have the greatest respect for the Lord Chancellor—but I think it is a hard thing to say that these men only came over here to get high wages. I do not think that is a fair thing to say. If we consider the question of high wages, I think we could make a good deal out of it. Anyhow, the Irishmen did not strike for high wages in the middle of the war.
With regard to the question of control, I quite see that it might be more difficult to deal with these people when they are in Ireland than it would be if they were in this country. But it can be done. It might be done even by the appointment of a few more civil servants. What would they be amongst so many? There are people in Ireland who, after all, are competent to give certificates if a man is genuinely out of employment or it he is not. Surely they can be trusted. I mentioned the case myself—as a matter of fact I did not think "it would be necessary to have to cross "t's"—of a Lieutenant-General, a man with a distinguished record, who went back to live among his people, the particular people who had served this country in the war. Certainly the desire to earn large money is not confined to the Irish working men and women who came over here to help. I think it is an unfair thing to say that that was the only reason why they came over here. However, I am speaking to an empty House. I hope I shall get more sympathy in a fuller House another time. Two or three noble Lords who would have supported me are not here. I apologize to the Lord Chancellor if I addressed him with too much heat—and to the House generally—but I will reserve my judgment until I have seen what the arrangement is, and therefore to-night I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL.
King's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL.
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Urban District of Teignmouth:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SWEDISH TIMBER HOUSES.
  SWEDISH TIMBER HOUSES.
  EMPLOYMENT ON NAVAL WORKS AT ALMONDBANK.
  EMPLOYMENT ON NAVAL WORKS AT ALMONDBANK.
  PERTHSHIRE EXPLOSION: COMPENSATION QUESTION.
  PERTHSHIRE EXPLOSION: COMPENSATION QUESTION.