Skip to main content

Orders Of The Day

Volume 387: debated on Wednesday 17 March 1943

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.



REPORT [10 th March]

Navy Estimates, 1943

Resolutions reported:


1. "That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

Wages, Etc, Of Officers And Men Of The Royal Navy And Royal Marines And Of Certain Other Personnel Serving With The Fleet

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1942

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1943, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants.Appropriations in Aid.
1. Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet1038,000,000

First Resolution read a Second Time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

I want to raise one or two small points, in order particularly to give the Minister an opportunity of answering some of the questions which he was unable by reason of time to answer when his Estimates were last before the House. I would first call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Granville) raised a Question in this House yesterday, addressing it to the Prime Minister, as to whether or not the Prime Minister was satisfied with the machinery set up for dealing with the U-boats. I did not hear the reply, but upon reading the report I thought that the Prime Minister dealt with it rather curtly; and the answer seems largely contradicted by the news that the Press carries this morning and by the statement made by the First Lord himself in the last Debate. I raise this matter merely in order that we may get some clarification of the position. I understand that the Prime Minister said quite categorically that he was not prepared to consider any change of machinery, but the Press this morning gives a statement to the effect that there has been a conference in Washington between representatives of America, Great Britain and Canada to consider a general policy to deal with the U-boat position. On the face of it, it seems as though there has been some variation in the position. The First Lord stated last Wednesday that General Smuts had visited the Admiralty and had expressed himself as satisfied with the arrangements that were made. I thought of asking, in this connection, whether we can have some statement of exactly what the position is about the conference announced this morning, its ramifications and its powers. Does it differ in any way from the position that has obtained hitherto?

I pass from that matter to refer to some points on which I sought some answer last week. First of all, I want again to ask whether all our shipyards are being fully used for shipbuilding and repair. What is the relative position between the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and Sir James Lithgow? Can we have any statement as regards shipbuilding output? In that connection I would call the attention of the Minister to the 17th Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which dealt with merchant shipbuilding and repair. In their recommendations there is one to which I call special attention. The Committee suggested there should be a training school for riveters set up in the main shipbuilding yards under the managements, and that inquiry should be instituted by the Ministry of Labour into the experience gained in the employment of women in other heavy industries and as to whether they could be employed in shipbuilding. They also ask whether the workers were doing satisfactory work, what steps were taken to see whether their reservations should be withdrawn and as to any use that had been made by the Ministry of Labour of consultation and of yard committees in order to smooth out any difficulties that might arise. They suggested that the Admiralty should specifically examine the problems and organisation of the slower and more costly shipyards and that a review should be made of yards engaged exclusively on naval work in order to ascertain whether they could take a certain percentage of merchant shipping.

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Resolution of the Committee which we are now discussing deals solely with personnel. We cannot discuss shipbuilding.

I will confine myself to personnel and will return to these other matters later.

May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Should we not be in Order on this Debate in referring to what has gone before in previous Debates on these Estimates in regard to aircraft, or are we debarred from so doing?

It depends entirely upon what is said. If reference is made to the Fleet Air Arm, no doubt the personnel of the Fleet Air Arm comes under the Vote which we are discussing. Aircraft production for the Fleet Air Arm certainly does not.

May I point out, Sir, that most of the points I have raised concerned personnel, particularly as to the employment of certain types of riveter and as to whether yard committees were being consulted, and so forth. I do not think I wandered very far from the strict bounds of Order. The other point I wish to raise, and which I raised last time, is the position of the security officer. What is his duty and what is his rank, and who is he? I see that that question was raised in another place some time ago. The answer which was given was not too clear. This will be an opportunity for the Minister to give us some indication on the matter. The only other point, having regard to your Ruling, Sir, which I want to put forward is whether we can have some information about the scholarship entries relating to new entrants. I want to refer to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 17th Report of the Select Committee, which I think, having regard to your Ruling, will fall within the category of personnel. The Committee there deal with the question merely of the persons employed. I want to call special attention to this matter, and I crave the indulgence of the House while I read the paragraph. My first reference is in paragraph 22, where the Committee say:

"Though there is general agreement that workers in shipyards are working pretty well and the increased rate of output already referred to"——

I have already stated that shipbuilding and shipyards is a subject not in Order on the Vote that we are now discussing.

I am not concerned now with either shipbuilding or shipyards, Mr. Speaker. I am raising questions as to employees in those yards.

I hope I shall be in Order in making reference to the personnel of the staffs concerned with the technicalities of the aeroplanes used in the Fleet Air Arm. The matter was raised in the Debate last week. I am subject to your guidance, Sir, and will endeavour to keep within your Ruling. The unfortunate part about the House of Commons on such occasions as this is that technical knowledge among Members is conspicuous by its absence. My excuse for raising the matter is that I have been engaged all my life upon these technicalities, and throughout the whole of the war on technical matters relating to the Fleet Air Arm. I want to put it to the First Lord of the Admiralty that the staff concerned with the Fleet Air Arm is gravely deficient in one respect. The deficiency is felt equally in the Royal Air Force. It is a lack of a technical staff strong enough, and of great enough experience in aircraft design and construction to be able to criticise designs and to save the country from having to put up with inferior machines, simply because there is no one at the Admiralty capable of saying what the design should be.

Take the case in point raised by the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks), of three aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm, I shall call them X, Y and Z. They were designed and produced originally by the same firm. It happens that that firm some years ago broke down to a large extent in the designing of aircraft. What the circumstances were, I do not know. Possibly the firm lost designers, or the skill of their designers fell off as the designers got older; but, notoriously, the productions of that firm became very inferior indeed. Aircraft X, of which there are a large number in the Fleet Air Arm, was, in its day, a most admirable machine for its purpose. At the beginning of the war, a replacement, which I call Y, was designed and put forward by the same firm. The replacement was approved by the Admiralty staff, but I venture to say that any competent engineer would have condemned it root and branch from the very start. I spent the whole of an afternoon in investigating the prototype, and I at once put in a real snorter of a report, pointing out that it was quite hopeless and that it could not possibly be any improvement upon machine X which was already in service.

I may say, as an example of the haphazard way in which these aircraft are designed, that one of the first modifications of the air-frame completely changed the whole principle underlying the design of the machine. But the trouble is this, that although in this particular instance it was clear to—I will not say an able but, at any rate, an experienced engineer—that this machine was unsuitable to replace the machine already in use, and although I put in a complete condemnation of it on the spot, not the faintest attention was paid to the remarks which I made upon it. It seems to me in that connection that a Member of this House on joining the Fleet Air Arm ought to demand to be made an admiral straight away; if that had been done in my case, possibly my views on matters within my experience might have received some consideration. However, as I say, I put in at once a report condemning this machine root and branch, and the operational people also condemned it from an operational point of view, yet over 600 of these wretched aircraft were turned out, and at least two and a half years were absolutely thrown away in producing aircraft which were inferior to the machines they were intended to replace.

I think the hon. Member is now discussing the Ministry of Aircraft Production and not the administration of the Navy.

Subject to your guidance, Sir, I was endeavouring, perhaps not very successfully, to point out that there was a deficiency of personnel in the Admiralty, and I was giving, perhaps at too great length examples to show how that deficiency of personnel affected the efficiency of the Fleet Air Arm. Subject to your Ruling, however, I shall try to reduce those examples to an absolute minimum. But I trust the First Lord will realise that the fiasco which I have described could not have happened if he had a technical body at the Admiralty capable of criticising the designs of machines. That is what I have asked for, again and again, in past years, both in the case of the Admiralty and in that of the Air Ministry, and why nothing has ever been done I cannot tell. Everything is in the hands of the aircraft firms, and everything depends upon the personnel of those firms. I ask the First Lord, even at this late hour, to consider this matter seriously. The one remedy is what I have been asking for on every possible occasion, namely, the creation of a proper technical staff at the Admiralty capable of saying what the aircraft ought to be like and capable of condemning those which are wholly unsuitable for the work which they are expected to perform.

Anyone who listened to the Debates of last week and the previous week on the Navy Estimates and even those who have contented themselves with reading the speeches made on those occasions, will understand the deep anxiety of this House in regard to the present position. Usually, the statement made by the First Lord on the Navy Estimates is accepted by the House with a sort of generous enthusiasm, but anyone who attended this year's Debates on the Service Estimates will have realised that, for the first time, the House was giving the First Lord not only an anxious hearing but a rather cold reception. I think the situation was summed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) in his very remarkable speech, when he said:

"I hope that public anger, anxiety and criticism will arise in consequence of what we have heard to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1943; col. 796; Vol. 387.]
That is a very serious statement, and the situation, of course, is serious—far more serious I should think, than it was at any time during the last war. One has but to consider the difference between the situation existing at any time during the last war and the situation which exists to-day. We all know how near disaster we came in the last war, but consider that in the last war we had at one time five navies fighting on our side and against us only one real navy. At present there are two of us, against two of the enemy. The Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the China Seas were all free in the last war. The really dangerous areas were the narrow seas, the coasts of Spain and France and the coast of Ireland. To a large extent the Mediterranean was free. At that time we had something like 950 destroyers helping to guard our convoys. That total was made up from the five navies which were on our side. In this war we had less than a quarter. That is how we were at the beginning of this war, when we were face to face with the situation as it had existed throughout 1938 and 1939.

There is another matter to which attention should have been called more often, and that is the difference between our merchant shipping position at the beginning of the last war and at the beginning of this. In the last war we occupied a dominating position as far as merchant ships were concerned. We had 8,578 motor ships and steamships, with a total of over 18,800,000 tons. At the beginning of this war we had, unfortunately, lost the dominating position, although we still had the premier position. We started this war with only 6,722 ships—a tonnage of 17,800,000 tons. So, we had 1,856 fewer ships and 1,000,000 tons less tonnage. At the same time, as has been said here time and again, we have 5,000,000 more mouths to feed and longer voyages to make. Not only that, but the Admiralty knew that they would be faced with a new combination of which they had not had any experience before. Previously, the combination which they had to face was that of the surface ships and the U-boats. There had not been much co-operation between the aeroplane and the submarine prior to this war. But they knew they would now have to meet that combination—that was the position which faced us on 3rd September, 1929.

I cannot do better than to quote these words as a warning:
"The position of the British Isles and Empire was such that effectual and final interruption of sea communications by any agencies meant—not defeat but destruction. Impotence, starvation, subjugation stalked across the mental screen."
You can well imagine who wrote those words. They were written by the Prime Minister in his book "The World Crisis" with a knowledge of what was then the position in front of us. What was the attitude of the Admiralty? It was expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) in March, 1939, on these very Estimates, when he said:
"…the menace of the submarine will not be as serious as in the last war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1939; col. 653, Vol. 345.]
Why did he say that? Because the Admiralty now thought that they had solved this difficulty with two things. One was the convoy system, and the other was the invention of the thing known as the Asdic. They were now so settled in their minds that they felt that the convoy system would supply the solution, the very Admiralty that had opposed the convoy system during the early years of the last war until they were compelled by criticism from outside to adopt it. Once having adopted it, their mind would travel no further but accepted it as a solution.

The hon. Baronet went on and said that with the Asdic you could locate a submarine nine times out of 10. They thought they were safe—without paying attention to the other side, that the submarines could locate the convoy and get information, not only from one another by radio, but also from the air. No wonder that after 3½ years of war the reception which the First Lord got from the House was a cool one, because what has been the attitude of the First Lord? He has indulged in what have become familiar to us now as his characteristic qualities—vanity, complacency, and a fretful resentment at any inquiry or even advice; and he assumes an attitude with regard to the Navy and with regard to the Admiralty of almost proprietary rights which is almost ludicrous. Just think what he said. He said that high officers were brought back from sea to advise him on operational matters.

Surely the First Lord was referring to himself. Will he again look, as I have looked, through the OFFICIAL REPORT? No one imagines that the First Lord has anything to do with operational matters. Operational matters are guided by the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, and the First Sea Lord is his instrument. Operational matters require hour-to-hour supervision. Every moment of the day must be devoted to them, and no man guiding operational matters has any time to spare, as the right hon. Gentleman has to spare, for speech making, for inspection visits, and for social functions, of which I am perfectly sure he holds the record on that bench. Operational matters are not for him. Let him adopt the straightforward frankness of the Secretary of State for War, who, I observed recently, said when he was asked with regard to his position that he was responsible only for administration and organisation, that operational matters and strategy were not for him, but only for the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet. Instead of pretending that he has anything to do with regard to these matters, it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had confined himself to his real duty, that is, to provide the Navy with the materials they require.

What is the danger? In the last war the greatest number of U-boats out against us was 169, and in spite of our efforts we were within three weeks of disaster. What are the figures to-day? No one has suggested that less than 20 a month are being built. Varying figures—20 and 30—have been given. Let us take the middle figure; that is 300 a year, and that not without warning. One heard rumours during 1936, 1937, 1938 and the early part of 1939 about the increased preparations for the building of U-boats inland so that they could then be assembled and put straight in the sea.

That was known to us. There are the numbers. It has never been suggested that at any time we were sinking more U-boats than were being created. And what types? Types capable of going far longer distances than before, capable of far higher speeds, capable of operating in places where we never thought they could get to, capable now of being refuelled at sea, and of operating so far afield that one does not know of any spot where there is complete safety. What were the preparations to meet that? I have already quoted what the Admiralty attitude was just before the war began: "The U-boat menace will not be as serious as in the last war." What is our position to-day? What are our losses? We have been given information of the naval losses, and they are serious. A whole mighty fleet has gone, and with those vessels irreplaceable people. What are the losses to the cargo-carrying ships which the Admiralty have to protect? At one time we were told what these losses were. Why cannot we be told now? Why indulge us all the time with vague phrases such as we are given—"You will possibly have to tighten your belts," "Eat less bread," "The situation is menacing"? Tell us the facts. The people of this country have never been afraid of the truth. Tell them what the actual figures are. What is it suggested that that information would convey? It was given in an answer to-day, that it would convey information to the enemy. Cannot the enemy make calculations which are about nearly right?

Why not? The hon. and gallant Member for the Pollok division (Commander Galbraith), speaking last week, made a most interesting calculation, based on what? On a statement made by the Prime Minister and the general broadcasting as to what is the production from America and this country. The Prime Minister, standing at the Box, said that building exceeded losses by 1,250,000 tons. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok says that, broadly, we know that the American building in 1942 was 8,000,000 tons, and the bulk of that must have been in the last six months. He makes a modest estimate and asks us to assume that the building was 4,250,000 tons and that the building of this country and Canada was 1,000,000 tons. That makes 5,250,000 tons. Deduct 1,250,000 tons from that, and what is the amount of loss in six months? It is 4,000,000 tons. What do the Germans claim? Eight million tons in 12 months. They can make calculations as near as no matter. What is the point of hiding information from them? How will it guide them in anything?

Is this the real truth? Are the Government afraid of publishing the figures because they may show inefficiency or neglect somewhere? The call is going to be much heavier as we go along. The call on these merchant ships and on the protecting ships of the Navy will increase as the American Forces leave America and go to various parts of the world; it will increase as the call of Russia for more supplies increases; it will increase as the call of Australia, New Zealand and India goes up; and of course it will increase the moment the second front starts. What are your preparations? The test of our real position is this. What tonnage is coming into this country under that protection today? What tonnage is coming in in petroleum, lubricating oil, raw materials, manufactured goods and food? We know that prior to the war we wanted 68,000,000 tons of raw material, manufactured articles and food. That was carried not only on British bottoms but on world shipping, upon which we were dependent. Every ship on the sea, belonging not only to us and to our Allies but to neutrals, was an asset to us. Every one lost was a dead loss to us.

The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) made a most serious charge, which has not been answered. I call attention to his charge—the most serious of all—that the danger point has been passed. Is that true? If it is, it is time the people were told, so that we may know what is expected of us. If it is not true, raise our hearts by telling us what the true position is. What have the Government done to try to meet this menace? What is being done now? In February, 1941, the Prime Minister formed what he called the Battle of the Atlantic Committee. That is a high-sounding name, but even the name does not come up to the description he gave it. He said:
"It was formed under my personal direction, to focus and emphasise the need for supreme exertions."
How often did this Committee meet? It lasted from February, 1941, to October, 1942. It met, all told, 18 times in those 20 months, and the bulk of those meetings were in the first few weeks of its existence. That is the Committee which the Prime Minister said.
"was formed under my personal direction, to focus and emphasise the need for supreme exertions."
In October, 1942, he reconstituted it, and again put on men with full-time jobs. He is himself the hardest-worked of the lot, and he is Chairman. He put on the Minister of Aircraft Production.

What is the Admiralty doing in regard to these matters? How does it function in regard to these matters, and how is it really devoting itself to the most serious situation of all? The military situation is better, without a doubt. Production has improved. American production has gone up to almost astronomical figures. But if the Navy and the Merchant Service break down, production in America will remain in America, and not where it is wanted. Even our aircraft will be tied to the ground, for lack of petrol; and what becomes then of our military situation? Faster ships have been suggested. One of the right hon. Gentleman's first stories at that Box was about the seriousness arising from the slowness of convoys. Therefore, they ought to be speeded up. The right hon. Gentleman now puts forward two answers to the demand for fast ships. He says (1) that they take longer to build, (2) that they do not carry as much, and (3) that the losses among fast ships are really as bad as those among slow ships. That is one answer. The other is that we are building them.

Shipbuilding comes under another Vote, and the hon. and learned Member cannot discuss it on Vote A.

I did not intend to go into detail on the matter, but the right hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. If fast ships are the answer, they should have been begun before this. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty says that one-third of those on order or under construction are now in the fast category. If the disadvantages of the fast ships are as great as those of the slow ships, why build them? If the advantages are all on the side of the fast ships, why did we not start building them before now? How do we stand with regard to air protection? Coastal Command want aircraft. What is the reply from that Bench? "True," says the First Lord, "they are vital: the menace is serious; but I cannot get them." Is that correct? The First Lord also said that they took complete command over the Fleet Air Arm only in 1939. The Fleet Air Arm was formed in 1924. Complete control over it was in the hands of the Admiralty certainly in 1937; and from 1924, under the Balfour Committee, the Admiralty had full power to say what they wanted and what their demand was. They had full control over that. Air Marshal Newall has said publicly that whatever they demanded they got precisely and exactly.

I suppose that I would be out of Order if I ran through what has happened with regard to the Fleet Air Arm and all the failures that there have been. It is no good telling us about the heroic deeds of the men. We know them. Their story is not merely one of peril and anxiety. What might these boys have done if they had had the proper instruments in their hands. Would those two vessels have been to-day back in harbour in Germany if the policy of the Admiralty had been the correct one? What about the others that were to follow—the Albatross, the Skua and the Fulmar? Now we come to the last, the Barracuda, heard of in 1939. Now we are told that production is coming forward. We were told that nearly 12 months ago, I believe, in those exact words. What is the policy? Indeed, the First Lord pins his faith on what he has got. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), in that very able speech giving details and facts, had his doubts. I hope that the First Lord is right. We want to know, not these vague statements that something is now developing or coming forward or that we are thinking about them, but whether they are going to be in the hands of the Navy for operational purposes and in such quantities that operations can be carried out on a large scale. These are the matters which are worrying us.

May I end with this? The Admiralty has been for a very long time under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and also of the First Sea Lord, who has been there right from the outset of the war. The Navy, the protection of our shipping, the carriage of goods and of our men are the most vital things of all. We cannot possibly retain old methods standing between us and what is necessary for our own salvation, nor in any circumstances should any men or any set of men stand between us and what is required and the proper weapons being put into the hands of our men. It is for these reasons that I consider it to be right to call attention to these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of confidence as I, unlike the previous speakers, really want to speak about Vote A, on the question of naval personnel, but before I start on that I would like to repudiate, disavow, and dissociate myself from, the personal attack on the First Lord for going round and visiting the Fleet. Nothing pleases the officers and men of the ports and fleets more than that members of the Board of Admiralty should take the trouble to visit them personally.

I do not know whether the House realises to what extent the Navy is now manned by men of the various Reserves. It has authoritatively been said that war at sea is no longer being fought by the Royal Navy, assisted by the R.N.V.R. and the R.N.R., but by the R.N.V.R. with a small leven of the Royal Navy. We are going to win the Battle of the Atlantic and the naval war in so far as we use all the talent available in the reserves to the best possible advantage. At the beginning of the war, the first Reservists who were called up were the R.N. retired, the Regular naval officer who had been passed over for promotion and had retired or who had found peace-time sailoring dull and had gone into some other work. It is rather important that, while it is fresh in our memory, it should be put on record that there was in peace-time no system by which the Admiralty could keep track of the capacities, abilities, health and other important points about officers who had retired. The result was that many officers were sent to climates which their health was completely incapable of withstanding and to work which they had lost the ability to perform.

I need not go into examples of that, but I will make the following constructive suggestions. In peace-time R.N. retired officers should be called up every two years for a medical examination and an interview; secondly, there should be in every county an association of R.N. retired officers, with a county secretary, whose job it would be to keep in touch with all retired Regular naval officers in his area and be able to advise the Second Sea Lord's Department of the kind of work to which they would be suitable in the event of mobilisation. Then the situation arising from putting many square pegs into round holes would not occur again. You get some R.N. retired officers who, in the ordinary course of age and the living of sedentary lives may not be very suitable for active work. On the other hand, some of the very best of Regular officers do get retired. Perhaps they may have had a clash with their immediate superior, or perhaps they have found peace-time sailoring dull, and they have often gone into business and made a great success of it. It is imperative that the R.N. retired officers who come back should be treated on absolute equality and have the chance of going right up after war starts. Striking examples of this are to be found in Admiral Somerville and Admiral Ramsay, two of the most successful flag officers the war has produced, who were both retired when the war began. It should be laid down officially that the R.N. officer retired should have the same right of promotion as the R.N. officer who is not retired.

The next category is the Royal Naval Reserve, who are officers of the Merchant Navy, who undergo certain training in peace-time and who are mobilised when war starts. It is a comparatively small force numerically, but it is very important that, if they are to be taken way from the Merchant Navy, where they are certainly needed, they should be given ample scope. They feel that they do not get an equal chance to command ships, and that the most they can get is the command of the corvette. A R.N.R. officer who might have commanded a corvette and have had a long sea experience will be passed over by a R.N. officer with far less experience. There have been exceptions, but it would please the R.N.R. very much if it was laid down by the First Lord that everybody should be considered for commands on their personal merits no matter the shape of the stripes on their arm. Another discrimination is that the R.N.R. officer has not the same advantage of progressive pay as the R.N. officer. There is a third point. Those who may not have been R.N.R. officers before the war but have been called up and put into the Sea Transport Department get far quicker promotion than those who have been regular R.N.R. officers and are serving at sea.

These are comparatively small classes compared with the R.N.V.R. As a pure guess, taking rough figures, I should say that the R.N.V.R. constitute about 80 per cent. of the naval officers to-day, yet their prospects of promotion and command are poor compared to what they would have had if they had gone into the Army or into the Royal Air Force. In the Army, if you are appointed to an appointment as a G1 or G2, no matter what your rank may be, you get the rank of that appointment when you are holding it.

That is not the case in the Navy. I have known a case of an R.N.V.R. officer, lieutenant, who took on a captain's job but remained a lieutenant for a long time. The argument the authorities put forward is that, if you know your job, with the prestige of the Navy behind you, you are capable of holding your own with officers who are doing equivalent work in the Army or Royal Air Force, no matter if they hold superior rank to you. That is true to a certain extent, but is it fair on their wives? Is it fair that the wife of a junior R.N.V.R. officer holding a job which would normally be a commander's R.N. job, who may be living in the same place as the wife of the Army officer, should not be able to have the same pay and allowances and to be able to extend hospitality and generally take the position she would have had if her husband had been in the Army and had been given the equivalent rank and pay of the job he was holding? There is no doubt in the Navy that stripes do count, and if an R.N.V.R. officer is suitable to hold a job, he should get the equivalent stripes. At the present moment many R.N.V.R. officers do not get the job for which they are suitable because they have not the stripes. It is a vicious circle. You occasionally get offices where work is done by an R.N.V.R. officer, and an R.N. officer wears the brass hat.

The Admiralty try to have it both ways. If there is a rear-admiral retired like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and he cannot be given an admiral's job and is given a captain's job, then they de-stripe him downwards; but they do not stripe reserve officers upwards to their jobs. That is not really a fair situation. In peace-time the argument of the Admiralty is that anybody who holds lieut-commander's rank or commander's rank should be suitable for any commander's job or any job of that rank. He must be suitable to command a destroyer, to be a staff officer or an intelligence officer or whatever it may be. That is a proper ideal in peacetime, but it is not practicable in war-time. Many R.N.V.R. officers are suitable to go up to one particular job, it may be a mine-sweeping job or a staff job, although they may not be capable of being Commander in the "Queen Elizabeth." But you cannot have this standard in war-time although it is a proper ideal in peace. The present system makes it impossible to employ your R.N.V.R. officer to the fullest extent of their capabilities.

I would like to say a word for the regular R.N.V.R. officer who was in the reserve before the war vis a vis the "hostility only" naval officer. We have many officers wearing R.N.V.R. stripes who are not really volunteers or reservists. They are not volunteers in the sense that they were called up in their age group; they are not reservists in the sense that they did not join and train before the war.

There is a feeling among Regular R.N.V.R. officers that they should have some sort of recognition because of the fact that there was very little encouragement given to them. They fitted themselves by peace time training, often in their own time and at their own expense. It is said sometimes that it would be better if they all wore the same stripes, and I know some Regular R.N.R. officers think that R.N.V.R. officers would have more authority if he wore straight stripes. I have spoken to many R.N.V.R. officers, and I can assure the First Lord that many of us are as proud of our wavy stripes as the Highlander is of his wavy kilt and we would give them up with the greatest possible reluctance. If you are to use the R.N.V.R. to the fullest extent, it would be advisable to have some staff courses in order to train R.N.V.R. officers for such appointments.

An R.N.V.R. officer has an advantage in a staff appointment in that he has a certain degree of independence; he is not making the Navy his career, and he does not have to think of his prospect of promotion later. The present system of confining big ships and destroyers to R.N. officers—with certain exceptions, I know—corvettes to R.N.R. officers and light craft and the Fleet Air Arm to R.N.V.R. officers does mean that in the Fleet Air Arm and the light coastal forces nearly all the practical experience is now in the hands of R.N.V.R. officers. That fact, after only four years of war, should be recognised. If we are to get the maximum efficiency, R.N.V.R. officers should be taken into the Admiralty, high up. I do not think it is unreasonable to hope that we may see an R.N.V.R. officer on the Board of Admiralty before the war is out. Finally, on this question of the use of personnel, may I say that members of the W.R.N.S. are being most useful in many ways, but there are still many jobs ashore, such as paymasters, admirals' secretaries and staff jobs of various kinds for which university-educated women could definitely be trained so that more men could be released for sea duties. A lot has been done, but there is still more to do.

I hope the First Lord will realise that these suggestions have been put forward in a most friendly spirit; there is no question of airing grievances, still less any personal one, as probably the three happiest years of my life have been those I have spent in the Navy. Personal relations between the R.N. and the R.N.V.R. have been, and are, absolutely excellent, and while I am on this question of personnel may I mention two things which do not come directly on this Vote? The hon. and learned Member who spoke last said that we were fighting alone. Well, I have worked with the Greek Navy, which works so closely with us that one never pauses to think whether a man is Greek or English. He is just one of us. Perhaps the House may have heard of the Greek submarine "Papanicolis," which performed the unprecedented feat of torpedoing three Italian transports with one salvo. They may not have heard the comment of a Greek in a club in Cairo who buttoned-holed everybody who came in and said, "I know the officer in command of that submarine. He was going to be turned out of the Navy before the war because of defective eyesight. Think of how many more he might have torpedoed if he could have seen properly!"

And whatever political and other differences may have arisen between the Fighting French and ourselves, they have never been reflected in the relations of the Royal Navy and the Fighting French Navy. There has been the happiest possible co-operation. In Syria we worked in the same offices, and kept no secrets from each other. It was a real joy to work with them and with the Greeks; we have been a band of brothers. I cannot ask the First Lord to give a detailed answer to all the suggestions I have put forward to-day, but I hope he will look into them sympathetically, because I am not putting my own views but views widely held by R.N.V.R. and R.N.R. officers who are proud to be associated with the service of which the right hon. Gentleman is head.

I want to commend the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor), whose practical suggestions will, I hope, be noted by the Admiralty. The tone and temper of his speech were very different from that which was made a short time ago by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), to whom I would like to utter a word of warning. It is this: When a critic criticises everything, there comes a time when not so much notice is taken of him. When a critic devotes himself to criticism on every subject, his criticism loses effect, and probably his criticism of the First Lord to-day would have been more effective if it had not been his habit to criticise everything. Every time he speaks he seems to be a harsh critic of everything the Government are doing, and I hope he will take a lesson from that and sometimes see the good points in what the Government are doing from time to time.

Now I would like to ask the First Lord whether it is possible to cut out some of the bunkum associated with speechmaking luncheons. I am not objecting to the speeches, but the fact that they are made at luncheons does not go down well with the public at a time when there are restrictions on food. Is it not possible for meetings or gatherings to be arranged without having a luncheon? I hope the Government will take note of what is being said in the country. I want to refer principally, however, to a matter which caused me grave concern in the Debate on the Navy Estimates last week, when the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) made a criticism of certain things he alleged to have happened and charged the Admiralty with something which ought to have been met more fully than it was met. Dealing with the loss of three ships, the hon. Member said in that Debate:
"I can tell the House of the conditions in which certain fast vessels were lost. I am not intending to give information to the enemy and therefore I shall not name the vessels. They were three very fast vessels of round about 20,000 tons. I am trying to be as evasive as possible. They were on their way home, possibly in the South Atlantic, and they were torpedoed. They were sailing singly. I have always maintained that these vessels could sail singly and elude submarines. The Admiralty evidently believe that, because these vessels were sailing singly. They were three of our finest vessels but I shall not mention the names of the companies. They were all lost. Why? They were all torpedoed within seven days, because the Admiralty ordered those vessels not to sail at their normal speed but to reduce speed to 15 knots in order to save oil fuel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1943; cols. 738–9, Vol. 387.]
That is a damning indictment if there is any truth in that statement. When I heard it I thought the First Lord would have been on his feet at once to repudiate it. Why he did not was probably because, not having had notice, he wanted to examine the position before replying. Later my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary did make a reply, and this is what was said:
MR. HALL: I was about to reply to the specific point concerning the saving of fuel. I want to assure the House that what was done was not done for the purposes of economy. The ship referred to——
MR. SHINWELL: Three ships.
MR. HALL: One of the ships referred to by my hon. Friend took on sufficient fuel to reach a certain port at full speed. It was discovered that there was an assembly of attacking submarines on the route through which the ships would have had to go, and this ship was, therefore, diverted from the normal route, with the result that the distance it had to travel was very much longer than the distance allowed for by the amount of oil fuel which was taken aboard. There was no instruction whatever that these ships should go at a slower speed to save oil. As I have said, they started out with sufficient oil for a full-speed journey without deviation. I think the explanation is quite clear. The course had to be altered for safety reasons. Owing to the route being much longer, the ship could not go at full speed, but had to travel at reduced speed. There was no instruction that there should be a saving of fuel.
MR. SHINWELL: May I ask one question? There are survivors of these ships, including officers. Has the question of what they think of the slowing down of these vessels been put to them? The officers ought to know.
MR. HALL: It is impossible to give a reply to that question.
MR. SHINWELL: Will you inquire?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1943; cols. 754–5, Vol. 387.]
What I want to know is whether the Government have made inquiries into that statement made by the hon. Member for Seaham and whether the House can be given a denial of the allegations made in that statement. I cannot believe the hon. Member's statement is true, and for the honour of the Navy and the country I have taken this opportunity of raising this question specifically to give the First Lord or somebody on the Front Bench an opportunity of refuting it if they can. I warned the hon. Member for Seaham and the First Lord that I intended to raise this question to-day if I had the opportunity. It is so serious that one feels that it ought to be brought to light again in order to give the First Lord a chance of explaining the position. I do not know much about naval matters, but I felt that this was a matter which should be straightened out for the satisfaction of myself and the country.

I intend to make only a very short speech and to refer in particular to a question of personnel, but before I do that I would like to refer to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I welcomed that speech because I cannot help feeling that a great deal of useful light is thrown upon professional subjects when a clear and trained mind which is not professional in respect of the subject under discussion is brought to bear on our Debates. Many of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member were very interesting, but with regard to his reference to losses by submarines may I say that the principal thing is to leave the enemy in every possible doubt, puzzled as to what is going on? Let the enemy tell his stories. If we once embark upon a policy of publishing figures, one never knows where it might end. It might end by having to give the numbers of ships or even their names. When one considers the different areas of ocean, the North and South Atlantic, the coast of South America, the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, my own feeling is that we should keep these figures completely from the enemy.

I want to say a word or two about the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). What he said about officers and men of the Reserve, and not of the Reserve, who now form part of the Navy I cordially endorse. It may be interesting to the House to know that at the end of the last war the number of officers and men who had come into the Navy as compared with the Regular officers and men was something like four and a half or five to one, and I should be greatly surprised if that figure had not been greatly exceeded in this war. I think the claims of officers with R.N.V.R. experience should be carefully considered by the Admiralty.

The personnel question concerns the coastguards, of which the Admiralty have operational control. I understand they are not paid by the Admiralty, and I hope I am in Order in mentioning it, because they must at least have some of their apparatus paid for by the Admiralty, and, as I understand they are an armed force, they must come under the Admiralty Vote in some way or another. These thousands of men are under the Naval Discipline Act, which subjects them to court-martial—and some have been court-martialled—a most serious thing for people to have to suffer, so that the care and consideration of our coastguards is very much an Admiralty question. The answer which the Deputy Prime Minister recently gave to a Question I addressed to him made it clear that this force has been looked after at different times since 1924 by five different Ministries. At the present time there is a thorough muddle about how a man in my constituency, who belongs to the coastguard and was working under the operational control of the Admiralty and was wounded a short time ago, is to be compensated. If I cared to do so, I could make a big case of this matter, but I do not want to do that; I ask the First Lord to be good enough to look into the matter with a view to seeing whether it is possible to simplify the whole system with regard to this force and for this wonderful and dear old force to come back completely under the Admiralty, as it was when I was a young man. I want, finally, to refer to publicity. I would remind the First Lord that although I mentioned this matter in my speech in the Debate on the Estimates, he did not say what I hoped he would say, that the Admiralty would do everything they could in every way and without stinting the supply of officers, men or money to promote the best possible publicity for the Navy, which for a long time has not had anything like sufficient publicity.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said how tragic it was that the pilots of the Fleet Air Arm had not been provided in the past with the very best machines. All of us are glad to know that in the Martletts, Hurricanes and Seafires they have better machines now. Although those machines are very good, I feel sure the Admiralty will not be satisfied to allow the matter to rest there, but will go on to get better ones. After all, two of those machines are already slightly slower than the latest German fighters and even the Seafire, which the First Lord described as the best naval fighter in existence, is only a modification of Spitfire V and is not so good as the Spitfire IX which is in use by the Royal Air Force at the present time. I was very glad to hear what the First Lord said about new types being developed and I hope they will come into operational use soon.

Some remarks that I made last week about the Barracuda have caused some resentment on the part of a firm of aircraft manufacturers. I wish to say that I made no criticism at all of the workers or workmanship. I said that, not being an expert engineer myself, if I were shown the machine I would not know whether it was a good one or not. I said that certain authorities had criticised the design and told me that it was defective in many ways, and that they did not like it at all. In his reply to me the First Lord said that the defects had been cleared away and that, according to all the professional advice he had, the machine was first-class. I was very glad indeed to hear that, and, of course, I accept that statement. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's professional advice will have been correct and that the Barracuda will prove a real success and a terror to our country's foes. The last thing I want to say is anything that might discourage either the workers making the machines or the pilots flying them.

May I say a word or two about the men in Coastal Command? The other day the Secretary of State for Air paid a great tribute to them. He described how the crews go out in all weather and sometimes for 24 hours at a stretch, cooped up in the same machine. He said also, on another occasion, that as a result of the work of the crews of Coastal Command, no U-boat dared at the present time to show itself on the surface within 300 miles of our shores. On the American side there has been a similar statement that since 9th September not a single ship has been sunk by a submarine in the 1,000,000 square miles of water coming under the operational area of the First Bomber Command of the United States Army. There is, therefore, on both sides an area dominated by land-based aircraft where submarines have to keep below the water. What we have done on both sides of the Atlantic within 300 miles of the shores we want to do in mid-ocean as well and to drive the submarine from there. To do that Coastal Command ought to be equipped with fast long-range shore-based bombers of the very latest types. As the Secretary of State for Air said, the crews have to be out in all weathers and sometimes for 24 hours at a stretch. Even Whitleys, Wellingtons and Halifaxes are really not good enough for these men. They ought to have the best machines. I hope the Admiralty will insist that they be provided with the finest long-range bomber that exists—the Lancaster. I hope they will do that because this battle against the U-boat is the supreme issue between life and death for this country.

I am sure that no one who heard the speech in which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) dealt with the Barracuda would accuse him of desiring to discourage the workers, the designing staffs or the managements in the aircraft industry. I think my hon. Friend did a great deal of good by raising this matter in a public-spirited way. A little prodding of those responsible for priorities in supply will undoubtedly have done great good.

I want to refer briefly to the question of supply in regard to the Fleet Air Arm, which was raised in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, because I am not satisfied that the House has given sufficient attention to the supply of aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a public speech, has appealed to the public to see that the Fleet Air Arm get better aircraft, but last week, in the Debate on the Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Fleet Air Arm were receiving from the factories increasing supplies of better aircraft. I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that the First Lord said the same thing in last year's Debate on the Estimates. If the supplies of better aircraft were increasing last year, why does the right hon. Gentleman now have to make an appeal to the public to help him out of his difficulty? As public opinion is represented by hon. Members, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay great attention to the speech that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieut.-Commander Brabner), who is one of the distinguished young naval flyers and who Knows a great deal about this matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take heed of the special plea that was made by the hon. and gallant Member to see that the gallant naval airmen are given better aircraft. It is no good the First Lord coming to the House and telling us that he is leaving no stone unturned, that everything in the garden is lovely, and that these things are going to be all right. The public has a very lively sense of the enormous debt which the country owes to our young naval airmen. People do not forget what happened when the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau" went up the Channel and the young naval pilots went out literally to certain death in those antiquated crates, the Swordfish. It is not enough for the First Lord time after time to tell us here and to say in public speeches that these things will get better.

According to the Prime Minister, we shall have to undertake enormous responsibilities in the Far East when we have disposed of Hitler. An increasing responsibility will then be placed upon the Fleet Air Arm. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance now that when the Fleet Air Arm have to go out and fight, as the Americans are having to fight now, in the Pacific, they will be given adequate, efficient and effective aircraft to enable them to undertake their responsibility? I know what the First Lord's position is. He looks over his shoulder and says "I shall be able to look to the United States of America for the supplies of those particular dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers which I may require." But this is an important question for the British Admiralty. Aircraft are vital to the Fleet, as recent actions have shown. Technical design, research and development do not stand still at the present time. It is just as vital to design effective and efficient sea-fighters, 21 inch torpedo-bombers and machines of that kind, as it is to design battleships. They are complementary. If the right hon. Gentleman continues to look over his shoulder and say, "I hope the supplies from America will come forward in quantities which will enable us to face our obligations in the Pacific," he will be taking upon himself an enormous responsibility. Surely, it is absolutely vital to the future of the British fleet, to our responsibilities to the Dominions and the part we shall have to play when we go to the Pacific war, to see that no stone is left unturned to produce now our own 21 inch torpedo-bombers and other effective machines for the Fleet Air Arm.

I think the country is getting extremely tired of general appeals for effective and efficient machines for the Fleet Air Arm. This country has an enormous potential in aircraft production. There are sufficient brains in the industry in this country to enable us to give them efficient aircraft to fly. Why should we, year after year when the Navy Estimates come before the House, have to appeal, almost like the Cinderella of the Services, for better aircraft for naval purposes. I have come to the conclusion that it is not so much a question of production capacity as of Ministerial capacity. I understand I should be out of Order if I developed that matter any further. The right hon. Gentleman has his representatives on the Council of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient drive, sufficient control and sufficient contacts with regard to these problems? I hope he will give his attention to this matter. When the Prime Minister returned from his famous visit to Moscow, he said that Russia is a great land animal and we are a great sea animal. That sort of thing may be O.K. for Kipling, but it is not going to be satisfactory for the great responsibilities of the British Commonwealth of Nations, not only in the war but in the future of sea power as well. We are a sea and air animal to-day, or we are nothing at all.

I asked the Prime Minister yesterday whether it was his intention to set up an Allied Anti-U-boat General Staff on the lines suggested by Field-Marshal Smuts. The Prime Minister said it was not his intention to do this. What Field-Marshal Smuts was advocating was not a General Staff in this country, with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Aircraft Production as Chairman, but an Allied General Staff for combating the menace of U-boat warfare. The Prime Minister gave that a direct negative, but, in reading the newspapers this morning, I see there seems to have been a discussion with the object of some co-operation between the British, Canadian and American naval and air forces. I hope the First Lord will tell us that he recognises that this is the only way we can lose the war and that we are going to play our full share if the Americans are prepared, with members of the British Commonwealth, to come in and form an Allied General Staff for concerted measures. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked in a Sunday paper by Mr. H. G. Wells, who asked for the First Lord's scalp. He thinks he ought to go. As far as I am concerned if the First Lord is finding difficulties in the War Cabinet and cannot get his supplies of up-to-date aircraft, he ought to come to the House of Commons, and we will back him up and see that he gets them.

I had not intended to intervene at this stage in the Debate, having already spoken twice at some length, but, while some of the points that, have been put can be covered better and in detail by the Financial Secretary, who has had notice of some of them, I think it is necessary for me to say a few things in regard to specific questions which have been put to me and also perhaps to say a few words about the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), an extraordinary attack of a somewhat personal kind not reminiscent of his old friendship with me. The statement in the Press to-day that a conference had been taking place with regard to the co-ordination of the U-boat campaign refers to one of a series of conferences. It is not new. We have always been anxious and have been in consultation with our Allies in that respect. The statement is designed to make the position plain. The conference will be followed by further conferences. I have nothing to add therefore to the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the setting-up of an Anti-U-Boat Warfare Committee. I also tried to make it plain that the general responsibility for the anti-U-boat campaign rests with the Admiralty in its actual daily operations. The Anti-U-Boat Warfare Committee, which is so comprehensive as to cover all the Departments which are concerned, of course meets regularly under the Prime Minister and gives constant attention to the policy and direction.

Do we understand then that the conference at Washington is entirely distinct from the other Committees that you have here considering U-boat warfare, and that it is not new?

No, it is one of a series of conferences which take place between the staffs of the respective navies and other Forces and will in no way impinge upon or take away from the work of the Anti-U-Boat Committee.

Does that mean that machinery is being set up for the purpose of closer co-operation in measures to be taken to deal with U-boat warfare?

Yes, the whole idea is to get the greatest possible co-ordination and to pool all possible ideas that can be gathered to help us to improve the campaign against the U-boat. I hope that is now quite clear.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery seemed to be very concerned because he thought I was developing vanity, complacency, resentment of criticism, and I suppose over-confidence. I must say that I am not able to attend the House as often as I should like because of the pressure of departmental work, but I read the Debates whenever. I cannot come, and I come as often as I can. As for vanity, I should think there are Members who are constant critics every day and every week on all subjects under the sun who can give me a long start. They may not have any complacency of the kind with which the hon. and learned Gentleman charges me, but no one can say, arising out of the report I made on the year's naval work, that there was anything complacent in it. The situation is much too serious, and it is increasing every day and every hour. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about our going out to functions and speaking—for instance, to the Institute of Marine Engineers and functions of that kind or, maybe, to special appeals which they ask the Government to come and support—I wonder if he realises that we have to take it out of ourselves afterwards by working late into the night. I am not prepared to accept a general charge from the hon. and learned Gentleman that this office is not fully seized of the urgency of this great job. We are putting in vastly more hours of work than our critics who talk about these things. I hope when the hon. and learned Gentleman reflects a little on what he has said he will think that perhaps it would have been wiser not to indulge in some of the things that he said. I always accept advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), an old Member of the House who is highly respected, and if his advocacy can help to get me out of some of these things. I shall be very glad of his support, but there is very heavy pressure from other Members to do just the opposite. Moreover, I am often asked to enlarge the publicity for the Navy, to spread abroad their wonderful work and to impress their needs upon the world.

It is a difficult matter, but it does not go well with the public when they see big functions being held in times of rationing. I only give it as a warning. I know how difficult it is.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called banquet on occasions of this kind is simply an excuse for the speech and that it is not a case of guzzling?

I do not initiate these things, and if they could be reduced, no one would be more pleased than I. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads his own speech, I think he will have to agree that it proves conclusively that the Navy, left alone on the seas as it was from May, 1940, must not only have been very gallant but must have been very well administered and led to have saved the country from defeat. That is my case. Instead of bringing blame and criticism against those who have been in control, the hon. and learned Gentleman should be thanking them very sincerely. He referred to the fact that the First Sea Lord has occupied his position during the whole period of the war. I think we can look back upon it and say, "Thank God for the First Sea Lord." He has pulled us through a naval situation without precedent in the country's history, and I am truly grateful to him for what he has done for me, and far more grateful for what his services have been to the country in carrying us through without risk of defeat.

The general situation to-day is one of continued anxiety. Do not let my hon. and learned Friend believe for a moment that those who are responsible for this sea battle do not know that and are not working night and day. There is not a single thing we can do that we would not try in order to meet the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) referred to attacks upon me in a newspaper last Sunday by Mr. H. G. Wells with regard to the introduction of the helicopter or auto-giro. I wrote Mr. Wells a secret letter in January, 1941, in reply to a letter from him, and he wrote back and said that he had burned my answer. He quoted only one part of that letter in his article last Sunday, probably from memory. The real situation is that, with regard to the helicopter, if it had not been for the action taken and supported by the staff of the Admiralty, we would not be in the position in which we are to-day of coming close to the delivery and equipment of ships with helicopters, which, of course, have yet ultimately to be proved completely to fulfil all that is claimed of them. We will leave no real hopeful thing untried in this great struggle against the U-boats and other forms of modern warfare attack.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh raised—and I am glad he did—the question which was raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) last week. We have looked into it, and I have prepared a statement about it. My hon. Friend had the courtesy to tell me he was going to raise it. I will say, if my hon. Friend will allow me, the exact words I have prepared, so that I can be quite certain about it. Last Wednesday the hon. Member for Seaham alleged that three ships had been lost as a result of instructions to proceed at less than full speed in order to save fuel. As the Financial Secretary stated, ships are never ordered to sacrifice speed solely to save fuel. I desire to repeat that assurance in the most categorical manner possible. Of course, it must be recognised that naval authorities in route-ing ships often have to make a choice between two or more risks. A ship may have to be diverted on to a longer course in order to avoid a known danger, and this may mean that in order to retain sufficient fuel to have endurance to complete the voyage, the ship may have to reduce speed for a part of the time. This was what happened in the case which my hon. Friend described last Wednesday. The local route-ing authority was faced with the choice of directing the ship to an intermediate port to refuel, which would have meant that she would, have had to cross a known concentration of U-boats twice, going in and coming out, or of sending her direct to her destination on a wide sweep, which meant that for reasons of endurance the ship would have had to drop below her full speed for part of the voyage. The officer concerned chose the second alternative. Officers in those very serious responsible outposts often have to take the most difficult decisions of that kind. They are inevitable, and occasionally it is inevitable that decisions taken after the most deliberate judgment will be frustrated, but we do not hear of the numerous occasions upon which directions of that kind have been carried out and the ship saved.

I have replied to-day to a specific question about one ship which I think the hon. Member for Seaham may have had in mind, though I have made it clear that the circumstances are different from those which he suggested. I have been unable to discover any record of two similar instances to account for the number of three which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is possible that in similar circumstances similar instructions may have been given to other vessels, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to give me the names of the ships that he had in mind I shall be only too glad to make further inquiries. I would repeat that in no circumstances would vessels be instructed to reduce their speed in order to save fuel for the sake of saving fuel.

I listened with great interest to two other speeches which I will leave to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) brought points to my notice which I shall be glad to see carefully studied, not merely by the political representatives of the Admiralty but by those in charge of the personnel administration. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give him some information with regard to the details. As regards the case made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) about publicity, I took careful note of what was said before, and I will see that every possible step is taken to have the proper staff and money provided as far as we are able to secure what he needs. I feel confident that the appointment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir W. James) will be a very useful factor in that direction. As regards coastguards, they are not borne on this Vote, but I am having careful note taken of what my hon. and gallant Friend said.

The point I wanted to stress is that, although these men are not paid by the Admiralty, they are borne on ships' books and are subject to the fierce workings of the Naval Discipline Act and suffer from a certain number of shortcomings which seem very unfair.

I have taken note to look into it again. Coastguards are not a charge on the Vote, and the question may have to be taken up with the Minister of Pensions.

There are a few matters of detail which have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell asked whether any information could be given about the Security Officer at the Admiralty. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has already received a letter from me asking him what he really means. There is a letter in the post for him.

I gave my right hon. Friend all the information I had, namely, that I saw a reference to it in another place and that the answer did not seem to make it any clearer.

I am afraid I cannot make it any clearer, but when my hon. Friend sees the letter, which he should have had by now, he will see the difficulty not only of myself but of those who are at the Admiralty. My hon. Friend raised another question of great interest and importance with regard to the entries into Dartmouth under the scholarship scheme. This was started in 1941, and there have been five entrance examinations. At each of them the full number of scholars were entered, namely, 10 from grant-aided secondary schools and 10 from other schools. In addition, two sons of ratings have been awarded scholarships, making a total of 102 scholars entered since the scheme started. Many of the scholars are sons of parents in moderate or poor circumstances. They receive liberal financial assistance and in several cases all fees and charges have been remitted or purely nominal fees have been charged. The scheme is working satisfactorily from the point of view of both the college itself and the material which has been secured as a result of examinations. It can be voted as a really good scheme.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham made an interesting and helpful speech concerning the various branches and grades of officers who are serving in the Royal Navy. He referred to the R.N's, the R.N.R's and the R.N.V.R's. I was pleased that he paid such a glowing tribute to the work of these officers. He referred to the relationship as being excellent and said that many of the officers in the R.N.R. and R.N.V.R.—and he speaks with some authority as he has worked with them—were capable of further advancement. The gap in naval experience between the regular and reserve officers is steadily growing less and the policy of appointing reserve officers to specialist courses hitherto reserved for R.N. officers has proved very successful. As a result of their experience, R.N.R. and to a lesser degree R.N.V.R. officers have been appointed to sea-going commands and other appointments which were hitherto filled with R.N. officers only. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that R.N.R. officers man or command corvettes and that R.N.V.R. officers command the smaller craft. That is true, and it can be said that four-fifths of the corvettes are manned by R.N.R. officers, whereas R.N.V.R. officers command almost all the minor ships. In addition, a substantial number of R.N.R. officers are employed as commodores of coastal convoys and a number are also employed as commanders or commodores of ocean-going convoys. My hon. Friend can see that there is this steady march forward of officers in both the branches.

With regard to the specific points which he put, as my right hon. Friend the First Lord has said, they will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Admiralty. One point was that there should be some mark of distinction as between officers who serve in the R.N.V.R. and the R.N.R., that is, between what may be regarded as permanent officers and temporary officers. While we are aware that the permanent service R.N.R. and R.N.V.R. officers are anxious that they should be distinct in some way from the temporary officers there are difficulties which it is not altogether easy to explain, but this matter is receiving consideration. The other point he put was that there should be more Staff College and other courses for the R.N.V.R. The majority of the places in specialist courses for naval officers are filled by officers of the Reserves. The staff course has been in abeyance since the beginning of the war, but its reinstitution in a modified war-time form is under consideration both for R.N. and Reserve officers. Further, in accordance with the traditional policy of the Navy that instruction should as far as possible be given at sea large numbers of R.N.V.R. officers are appointed to ships for instruction.

A further point which the hon. Member put was that there should be some system to discover in peace-time who are good and who are bad officers amongst the Reserve of Officers. Before the war the Admiralty were able to pass about 1,000 retired officers through courses of instruction which enabled them to judge in some degree the capacity of those officers. It might be possible to reintroduce this system in a wider form after the war, so that all retired officers should at intervals go through some courses of this sort. The difficulty is that this would only provide a very rough means of judging an officer's suitability for positions of responsibility. I am not sure that any satisfactory method can be found, but the matter and the points which the hon. Member put in his speech will, as my right hon. Friend said, receive the attention of the Admiralty. I do not think any other points were raised which have not been answered by the First Lord or myself, and I should like to conclude by expressing our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) for his interesting contribution and the explanation which he gave.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [25 th February]

Resolutions reported:

Army Estimates, 1943

Number Of Land Forces

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

Pay, Etc, Of The Army

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

Army Supplementary Estimate, 1942

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

Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants.Appropriations in Aid.
1. Pay, &c., of the Army.1090,000,000

First Resolution read a Second Time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

There are two points which I wish to raise on this Vote. The first concerns airgraphs sent by soldiers who are with the Armies in the Middle East. I understand that the men pay a little more in order to send airgraphs in the expectation that they will get here in a day or two. In fact, some of them do not even arrive in a week or two. In one case to which my attention was drawn an airgraph had been some three months on the way. I had some complaint about this matter when I was out there recently and have myself had a striking example of the delay, because I sent one from Egypt about November, and it arrived only last week. The soldiers say that there may be some reason for this delay and that if there is a reason for it they do not mind, but what they object to is to find that a service which is supposed to provide a quick means of communication between a soldier and his relatives does not work out so well in practice although they have paid the extra charge. I do not know the reason for the delay. It has been put to me that it may be due to the movements of the Forces in North Africa, but it is also not uncommon in Iraq and in Egypt, where the Forces are largely static.

A striking thing is that I have not had any complaints from soldiers in India. The service may operate there. I was talking to someone in the precincts of the House only yesterday who had received some 10 airgraphs from India in the last three months, and there did not seem to have been any difficulties in his case. I do not know whether the Army authorities are responsible for the administration on this side, or whether the postal authorities of the respective countries are responsible, or whether it is just a matter of censorship, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the delays are causing great misgivings among soldiers and I should be much obliged if he could furnish us with some explanation of what is happening. Further, if an airgraph is not delivered within a certain number of days would it not be possible to return the amount which the man has paid? A soldier receives small pay comparatively, and it is really a great hardship that a man should pay extra postage for quick transit and then not get the service.

The next point I want to put concerns leave from the Forces generally in the Middle East as well as the Fighting Forces in North Africa. It is well known that a great many of these soldiers had served long periods in India before the war broke out. It is not an uncommon thing to have a parent or a wife telling you that the soldier has been away from home for five or six years and has never had any leave. In peace-time they took their leave in India. Many of them have served in various parts of the Far East, being men who were ready trained and experienced, and they have had quite a lot of fighting. They complain and their relatives complain that there does not seem to be any system about the granting of leave. I do not know what truth there is in it, but they say sometimes that soldiers who have not been away from home anything like as long as they have have been granted leave. Everybody understands the difficulties of giving men leave at the present time. It means a long voyage, very often round by the Cape. It is not as though the Mediterranean was clear, so as to give a more direct route. There would be difficulties about the matter then, with so many men with specialist experience in our Armies in North Africa and in the Middle East. But if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us that there is some system designed to give men leave in proportion to the time they have been serving I think it would give some satisfaction; at any rate we should have an understanding of the position. We should like to know just what are the difficulties. Some of us have an idea that we know what they are, but if the right hon. Gentleman could state publicly what the difficulties are it would give a little satisfaction to those concerned.

I want to add only a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said. In regard to the latter part of his speech, there is a class of men serving overseas to whom some consideration ought to be given. A number of men have been drafted overseas without embarkation leave who had engagements to members of the opposite sex and who, in the ordinary course of events, would have married them. The Minister knows the situation quite well. I expect the War Office and he receive as many letters as I and other hon. Members do from the girls themselves as well as from their mothers. All these people are seriously concerned at the impossibility of their daughters marrying the soldiers, who are quite willing to marry, and who, because of certain future events, ought to marry.

It has been suggested that an arrangement might be made for marriage by proxy. I believe there is some sort of system arranged in the German army to that end. This is a serious matter and not one for merriment. The parents especially are concerned that some provision should be made to enable the young people to marry, as people at home have the opportunity of doing, and so avoiding the unpleasant stigma in the future. We do not know how long these troops will be away abroad. It may be a long time. I do suggest that my hon. and learned Friend should try to make some arrangement. Fortunately the people concerned are only a small minority, but it would be well worth while the War Office finding some solution.

The other question is as to the mails. My hon. and learned Friend knows too well from his experience in the last war that the regular delivery of mails is just is important to the morale of the troops is the regular delivery of rations. Great efforts are made to see that rations come up to time, even in battle. It is true that the rations are not addressed to individual soldiers, but equal efforts should be made to see that the men get letters more regularly than they now do. I know the difficulties when troops are on the move, but there are many static troops, particularly in the Middle East, who are not getting their mails. I am aware from the correspondence I receive that it is causing depression of spirits, in men who can see no possibility of getting home, and want to hear from their families. It would be worth while for the War Office to try to speed up the mails. The Army Council are doing their best to see that the morale of the troops is high. The B.B.C. have special weeks to improve the morale of all concerned. This is a method whereby a great effect could be created in the Army. I am glad to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street. Whoever is at fault, whether it is the Post Office or, as I am inclined to think, the Army Post Office at the other end, I hope that efforts will be made to speed up the mails.

A very good case can be made out for marriage by proxy during war-time. I have in mind the unmarried mothers, and I regard the matter with a considerable amount of seriousness. Take the case where a man has gone abroad. Had he remained, he probably would have married the woman who is to have a child. It is because of the unmarried mother and the unborn child that I am wholly in favour of marriage by proxy during war-time. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider whether he is able to reply to-day to the effect that he will give this matter the serious consideration which it merits.

The other matter is the prolonged delay in the postal service from India and the Middle East. Only yesterday I received from India a letter which took a considerable time, no less than three times the normal period taken in peace time. That is very serious. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether anything can be done to expedite the delivery of letters to and from troops in the Middle East.

I intervene to emphasise the importance of keeping up morale by means of the delivery of letters. In India there have been grave reasons for complaint.

I do not think we can pursue the subject any further because it is very far from coming under the Vote we are discussing.

Then I will turn my attention to another matter which concerns the welfare of the troops.

On a point of Order. I would draw attention to the fact that we have been discussing this matter of airgraphs since we began the discussion on the Estimates. These Estimates are not what they used to be, because they are not so detailed. They are more general. We had a Ruling from Mr. Speaker on one occasion—I think it was on the last occasion, although I am not sure—that, in view of the scantiness of the Estimates now, Debates could be rather more general upon the Report stage than they used to be when we got more detailed Estimates.

Yes, that is quite so, so far as a general discussion on Army matters is concerned, but when we get on to the question of the mails we are on matters which concern another Department, and away from the Army. The matter can be discussed so far as the Army is concerned, but not when the matter concerns another Department.

I would put a further point. As a rule, this discussion would be ruled out, but I have made some inquiries about the matter. I gather that the Army have some responsibility for the administration of this matter, and, if that is so, perhaps you would rule that it is within the bounds of Order.

It is only right that I should say here that the Army has a responsibility for the mails that are despatched to the troops abroad, but has no responsibility necessarily for the transportation of the mails. For mails that go by air the responsibility is that of the Air Ministry and for those that go by sea, of the Ministry of War Transport. On the other hand, we take over the mails, for example in London, from the General Post Office, and thereafter they become our responsibility until they are delivered.

My hon. and learned Friend seems to have placed you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rather in the position of having to give a Solomon's judgment. Will you not give the benefit of the doubt to my hon. Friend and allow him to deal with this matter?

I have already given the benefit of the doubt by allowing one short speech on the subject. My point is that, as there is great doubt as to which Department is responsible, I do not think we ought to have speeches of any considerable length on this occasion, or a general Debate upon this particular detail.

I shall not transgress. There has been intolerable delay. I used the word "intolerable." Now it is a matter of great satisfaction that Sir Archibald Wavell has taken the matter under his own care regarding India, thereby making mails definitely an Army matter, not leaving them to the Postmaster-General, who does not like to meet Members of Parliament. Sir Archibald Wavell has recognised the gravity of the delay in Durban, Bombay and other places, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will carry on the good work. This is one side of welfare. Some of us who have been working in welfare, as I have been for three years in the Northern Command, are very sorry at the untimely death, a tragedy, of General Sir H. Willans. So rich is the welfare department, however, in its personnel, that we hope that a proper appointment will be made.

There is the other matter of Army Council Instruction 84. I always call it the "Love, marriage and divorce" Army Council Instruction. It gets us welfare officers to try to reconcile erring wives and to look over the faults of faithless husbands. We do this if the troops are abroad. Then the circumlocution department is set in motion, and what is called the Navy, Army and Airmen's Families Association. One has to go to a dear young lady in Victoria Street. She generally does not know her geography very well. A letter comes, and instead of going from the paymaster to the welfare officer, it goes to this intermediate department, and there is a delay of seven to 10 days. Some of us get letters which ought to go to somebody else, because of this intermediate department run by a very efficient young woman in Victoria Street. Is there any reason why the War Office should not let the welfare department deal with it direct? We have to deal with the paymasters of the regiments in question ultimately, and say whether we have been successful in getting the hearts of husbands and wives to beat once more in general synchrony. We have had remarkable successes, but I do not want to emphasise that angle of it too much.

I would only say that welfare officers, instead of going round to units to see that all is correct, such as the food, or that the men have wireless sets, are now doing work which is completely changed, owing to the legal mind of my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He has evolved this Army Council Instruction 834. We forgive him for that. At any rate, the War Office in these days goes in for a more direct method, and the old red-tape circumlocution office is cut out. I am more than a little hopeful that my hon. and learned Friend will ask why this lady in Victoria Street is doing such a great amount of work. She is overburdened with work. Why should she have to go to the trouble of reposting letters and putting on the wrong addresses, leaving it to us welfare officers, possessed as we are of great initiative, to decipher them and see to what part of Yorkshire we have to go in order to bring about that great reconciliation which we so ardently desire?

I could touch upon another matter, which I am rather afraid might be out of Order. I wish my hon. Friend would tell the House some of the work of the Young Soldiers' Council which some of us started on 17th September, 1942. We went to the anniversary service, and it was a joyous occasion. It covers 85 per cent. of young soldiers under the age of 21, whose chief sin in life is irresponsibility. That is about all that is wrong with them. My hon. and learned Friend can remember from his own not too far distant past when he had a great attack of irresponsibility and like myself and many others took the wrong turning when we should have taken the right one. Detention barracks is a euphomistic term for "clink," which has another alias, because a detention barracks used to be in my own constituency and they were the old prison, reconstituted and rededicated to the Army. Happily, it was bombed almost to bits, and now my hon. and learned Friend and the Army Council have provided a very nice detention barracks for the grown-ups. But it was wrong to send these boys for three or four months into such detention barracks, though I must say that the detention barracks I went to see were almost like going to an OCTU—the lectures and so forth—but that, by the way. These young soldiers' camps are places where the whole purpose is to give a moral background to these lads of under 21. Now, Sir, if in your more leisurely periods you would, not as a task, but as a joy, read the report from some of those camps you would see that 85 per cent. of those lads have made good. I want to congratulate the War Office on breaking away from tradition and allowing these camps to be formed. I could tell you a story of one boy—but I am not allowed to tell stories.

The hon. Member's illustrations have gone rather far, and he began by promising to be very brief.

I am concluding—this was almost my last sentence—by saying that I hope nothing will be allowed to deter the War Office from continuing, not the backward look which was supposed to be the background of the War Office in the bad old days but, under the regime under which it is prospering at the present time, a forward look, and that it will not allow these progressive developments to be discontinued.

May I ask one question, that of damage to the farm crops from military manœuvres? I mean damage that can be prevented. In the old days, of course, when a cavalry regiment swept over a field using a gap in the fence you could go through and reform on the other side. These tanks take a fence or wall three abreast and often do unnecessary damage, though gates have been left open for them. I think that if the Secretary of State for War would allow us to put notices on our farms it would stop a good deal of unnecessary back chat and damage and soldiers going in and wanting water perhaps and talking to the dairy girls, as happened in my own case. If the Secretary of State would allow these notices to be put up round really important places—and after all, food production is really important nowadays, second only to the Army—I think that would stop a lot of unnecessary damage. I ask him to look into that question. It is not the fault of the troops; they do not know what damage can be done on the farms. It is not their fault but their misfortune. If anything can be done to stop unnecessary damage, by means of more notices on the farms issued through the war agricultural committees, I hope the Secretary of State will remember that.

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the War Office is always endeavouring to ensure that a minimum of damage is done by the troops when they are carrying out their exercises. The concrete suggestion he has made will be considered.

The hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) will not expect me to follow him in his reference to the young soldiers' battalions. If he had been in his place two weeks ago when the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" was discussed, he would have heard me deal at great length with the work of the young soldiers' battalions. Perhaps I might content myself by saying that I entirely agree with him as to the excellent work being done and the complete justification of the experiment which these young soldiers' battalions represent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), with other hon. Members, has raised the very important question of mails for troops overseas. I can assure them that we have been very much concerned with this particular problem, and I am not going for one moment to attempt to suggest to the House that we are entirely satisfied with the time that is taken to deliver the various types of mail to the various parts of the world in which our troops are at present serving. Perhaps I might be allowed to give to the House some picture of the problem that we have to deal with in relation to postal services for overseas Forces. Surface mails to the Middle East, East Africa, Persia, Iraq, and India are of necessity conveyed by the long sea route via the Cape, and I must admit at once that transit times are usually protracted and arrivals irregular. This is, of course, explained by the fact that dispatches depend upon sailings, which under present circumstances are irregular.

As an alternative to the surface mail, some time ago a special light air letter was introduced which is taken at a charge of 6d. Normally, as one would expect from the name used—light air letter—these letters are conveyed throughout by air, but unfortunately on occasions it has been found necessary to send consignments by sea for part of the journey when aircraft accommodation has been required for other priority traffic. I am glad to say, however, that the situation has recently improved, as the Air Ministry have provided additional planes, and now air letter services have been established not only for the countries to which I have just referred, but on an experimental basis to and from North Africa. As a result it has been found possible to accelerate air letters to the Eighth Army which hitherto circulated via the Middle East.

In addition, an air letter service to West Africa, where the troops are even more desirous of receiving communications from home, from the very nature of their environment, was also introduced recently. It is also hoped that as a result of the setting-up by the Secretary of State for Air of the Air Transport Command of the R.A.F. we may be able to secure a further considerable improvement generally in air-mail services to the Forces overseas. My hon. Friend introduced his speech with a reference to airgraphs. As regards the particular case to which he referred, if he will be good enough to let me have the particulars—the time it was posted and other details—I will certainly be glad to look into that special case.

How long is it since the new system was established? How long has it been in operation?

Cannot one send airgraphs for 3d. per letter?

That is much better, if they go all the way by air, than sending a letter?

Obviously the intention is that the airgraph letter should go more quickly, but the difficulty has been that the airgraphs to certain parts of the Middle East have had to go by the long route rather than by what is called the short route, and that very much increases the time. Each week 1,250,000 airgraph letters are sent from this country, and approximately the same number are received, and about 1,500,000 air letters are dispatched each week and about the same number received.

If my hon. Friend means the short route, the last return I received indicated that about 50 per cent. of that particular week's consignment of 1,250,000 airgraph letters travelled by the long route and 50 per cent. by the short route, but it depends upon a number of factors, including, so far as aircraft are concerned, weather conditions, and it may be desirable not to wait but to send them immediately by sea. As regards the small weight of airgraphs, the House will be interested to know that 4,500 airgraph letters weigh approximately 1 lb., which is the same as the weight of 180 air letters, so that the small weight of airgraph films does not present the same difficulties, and transmission by air can usually be guaranteed, but transmission by air perhaps by the long route as well as the short route. The intervals, of course, between airgraph despatches vary considerably, and consequently the average time of transmission covers a wide range. As regards North Africa, it is hoped to start an airgraph service from there within a month. At the moment airgraphs from this country to North Africa are being printed in this country and are being delivered as letters until such time as there is equipment available in North Africa for the necessary processing which has to take place.

The House might be interested to have some indication of the approximate transit times in the case of airgraphs, which to the Middle East is 5½ days by the short route and 10 to 12 days by the long route.

That is from the home postal centre to the base where the processing has to take place. Members know the system which is operated in relation to airgraphs. An airgraph to the Middle East takes 5½ days, to India 12 days, and to Persia and Iraq 5½ days; an air letter to the Middle East 16 days, to India 22 days, and to Persia and Iraq 17 days. For surface mails—the ordinary letter which goes the whole way by ship from this country to the Middle East, for example—the times are, to the Middle East 77½ days, and to India 75 days. The return transit times of mails from the various theatres of war are practically the same except in relation to surface mails, for which there is an increase of 10 or 12 days in respect of India and of Persia and Iraq. I can assure the House that the whole question of overseas mails, of postal services to overseas stations, receives the constant consideration of the War Office, and we are only too anxious to do everything possible to secure improvements. But we are faced with certain difficulties to which I have alluded, such as the question of convoys, the question of shipping, and the availability of aeroplanes, which depends to some extent on weather and other conditions. It is impossible to maintain a perfect system in every case, although I think that, taking it on an average, and having regard to the vast volume of mail taken from and brought into this country, the position is relatively satisfactory.

We are very much obliged for the detailed and clear explanation my hon. and learned Friend has given, including his explanation of the difference between the long route and the short route; but is he sure that most of the delay does not occur between the unit and the base? Would he give his attention to that matter?

Some weeks ago I went very carefully into the problem from the point of view of the time it takes for mail to go from the base, say in Egypt, to the front line. I do not think I am giving away any information when I say that 100 per cent. of that mail for the Eighth Army has been taken up by air and that the average time has been 24 hours. There is a very frequent air service from the base to the front line, or the equivalent of the rail head, and I do not think there has been any difficulty about that. Hon. Members who have been taking part in campaigns know that things go wrong and that there may be operational difficulties to prevent any system functioning normally at all times.

The second point to which my hon. Friend referred was the question of leave from the Middle East and from India. At the moment soldiers with six or more years' continuous service overseas may be considered for transfer to the home establishment. Release is considered on its merits, and the final decision rests with the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Forces, in the case of those serving in that theatre. It depends, of course, on two very vital considerations, the military situation and the availability of shipping. With the best intentions in the world, it is a very difficult problem, and I think it would be wrong for me to convey the impression that there is much likelihood of any drastic reduction in the time limit, say from six years to two or three years at present. My hon. Friend suggested that there were cases in which some sort of preference was given. It is true that men are occasionally brought home on compassionate grounds where their physical presence is absolutely vital. That depends on the circumstances of each case. I think that where doctors took the view that in order to save the life of an individual a surgical operation was necessary and for family reasons a soldier had to be brought home, permission would be given.

In cases of six years' service or more are cases always considered individually or are units ever considered as units?

Each case would be considered individually, and not on the basis of a unit. If there were a unit in which 50, 100 or 150 men had more than six years' service abroad, all those men would be entitled to apply to be sent home; but, of course, permission is contingent on the military situation and on the availability of shipping, and I cannot think that the military situation up to date has been such that a Commander-in-Chief would be willing to send home a well-trained and efficient fighting unit. From time to time it has been necessary to bring home a few officers from the Middle East, to give the Army at home the benefit of their military experience and technical knowledge. For that reason we have brought home experienced tank officers who fought in Libya and in Tripolitania. They have been brought home to lecture at the various training establishments.

I see no reason why in principle any other rank, if he be well qualified to lecture in factories on his experiences as a fighting soldier, a tank driver or whatever he may be, should not be brought home. There is certainly no intention of making a dividing line between soldiers and officers.

We have brought home non-commissioned officers: I am not sure about private soldiers. The House will realise that, while it may be a poor substitute for leave to come home, facilities are given to our troops abroad to enjoy some amount of leave. The conditions are practically the same as in this country. Troops serving abroad are given up to 28 days a year of what is called local recuperative leave. They are given free travel to the nearest health resorts; and I am told that there are some excellent health resorts available to our troops in Persia, Iraq and the Middle East.

I would not like to answer that without consideration. Troops in this country, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, are not entitled to take a greater number of days than 14. But I will look into the point, and let him know.

I spent two years in the Middle East, and this information about the 28 days is news to me. The troops there are entitled to five days' leave periodically; but those days are not allowed as a right, and if they miss them at the time they do not get them later.

Whether it is true or not that the troops get this 28 days, will my hon. and learned Friend look into the opportunities, especially in the Cairo area, for men to have a real leave at a reduced cost? He will find that facilities for British troops are nowhere comparable to those given, for example, to the New Zealand Forces. I have that information from officers who have come home.

If my hon. Friend will give me his information, I will, of course, look into it. As regards the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull), even in this country leave is always given as a privilege, and if for any reason an operational or tactical situation develops—and we have all experienced it—as a result of which leave is cancelled you are not allowed to store that leave up and take it as a credit later on. I have no doubt that when my hon. Friend missed his leave he was well up in the front line, probably at El Alamein, and that the situation was such as to prevent leave being given. In normal times 28 days is the entitlement each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will no doubt know that in the Middle East we have, in addition to providing facilities for going to the various health resorts, set up rest camps in various areas, where officers and men can have rest and change. I have no reason to believe that those rest camps are not serving a most useful purpose.

On the question of marriage by proxy, I am sure my hon. Friends will not expect me to reply now. It involves other Departments besides the War Office. But I feel that my hon. Friends, on consideration, will realise that it is an extremely difficult problem, liable to lead to various repercussions and considerable controversy; and, while I sympathise with the individual problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw referred, I do not hold out any hope of legislation being introduced to remedy the situation. No doubt those who are responsible for dealing with the question of marriage will give consideration to the views that my hon. Friends have expressed.

Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that it would create any difficulty or controversy if the proposal were limited to the case of the unmarried mother?

I have been sufficiently long in this House to know that the proposal would lead to considerable controversy. I need make no comment as to whether it is good or bad. It would be a very big innovation in the marriage laws of this country.

What would happen in respect of compensation to the unmarried mother?

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [11 th March]

Resolutions reported:

Air Estimates, 1943

Number For Air Force Service

1. "That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

Pay, &C, Of The Air Force

2. "That a sum, not exceeding ¢100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944."

Air Services Supplementary Estimate, 1942

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

Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants.Appropriations in Aid.
1. Pay, &c., of the Air Force.1060,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

When the Estimates were presented the Secretary of State made a very comprehensive and full statement, and it is unnecessary to burden the Debate with anything more beyond just one point, which I would like to present to the Under-Secretary. We have seen the Report of the appointment of Air Marshal Bowhill as head of the Transport Command. My recollection of Air Marshal Bowhill at the Air Ministry is of such a character that I am sure that the appointment is an admirable one. I think the Under-Secretary of State will welcome my invitation to him to expand, in the light of that appointment, what has been said about the Transport Command and its work in the future. Very little was said the other day upon matters of policy, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us a little more in detail than has as yet been vouchsafed to the House about what the Transport Command is going to accomplish in the way of the development of this subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) has asked me whether I can say anything about Air Marshal Bowhill's appointment and whether I can say anything further with regard to the functions of the Royal Air Force Transport Command. I am indeed glad that my hon. Friend welcomes Air Marshal Bowhill's appointment, because this appointment was given to an officer who, after due consideration, we consider the most qualified officer for this particular post. He is particularly suitable because he has pioneered the operational control of the North Atlantic Service. He has pioneered the technique that we must now develop of integrating the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the civil line services in aid of the war effort with the service which Transport Command will run. He has made himself very popular with the United States Air Transport Command, with whom he will have to work in close association. I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend when he says that his personal experience when he held the office that I now hold led him to feel that this appointment is suitable. It may interest the House to know that we have accomplished some 344 regular scheduled trips across the North Atlantic in all weathers on this North Atlantic Ferry Service operated by British Overseas Airways Corporation to the requirements of the Air Officer Commanding Ferry Command, who was Air Marshal Bowhill. It is an accomplishment which reflects great credit upon those who produce the aeroplanes and upon those who control the wireless and meteorological service and not least upon those who navigate and fly the aircraft. I cannot elaborate in any detail the functions of Transport Command, because my hon. Friend will find that that was done, beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air in his opening speech, in the winding-up speech I made in answer to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), when I took each of the functions of the Transport Command and elaborated them. I will not repeat them here—I do not think it would be in Order to repeat them—but if there is any further information which my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wants, I will do my best to furnish it on any specific point.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Army And Air Force (Annual)

Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force; ordered to be brought in by Sir James Grigg, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Arthur Henderson and Captain Harold Balfour.

Army And Air Force (Annual) Bill

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force;" presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 19].

REPORT [11 th March]

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [2 nd March]

Resolutions reported:

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1942

Class Ii

Diplomatic And Consular Services

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £93,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

Class V

Old Age Pensions

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.

Class I

Ministry Of Town And Country Planning

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,086, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning."

Resolutions agreed to.

Ways And Means

[REPORT, 11 th March]

Resolutions reported:

1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £12,001,057 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, the sum of £208,773,300 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Assheton.

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three and one thousand nine hundred and forty-four"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

British Nationality And Status Of Aliens Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill deals with a number of matters, none of which is contentious in character, and on some of which it was intended to legislate before the war if Parliamentary time had been available. Circumstances arising out of the war have, however, made more urgent the changes that were then in contemplation and certain other matters have arisen directly out of the war. The conception of British nationality is based partly on common law and partly on Statute. The common code of law on this subject is one of the most important links which bind together the British Commonwealth of Nations, and in regard to any change in our nationality laws we attach, and shall continue to attach, the greatest importance to securing the assent of the self-governing Dominions; and, as hon Members know, this is a subject which is almost invariably placed on the agenda when an Imperial conference takes place. In so far as changes in our domestic law proposed by this Bill have not already been agreed by past Imperial Conferences consultation with the Dominions has taken place through the usual channels and their agreement has been secured.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the nationality of persons who are born abroad of British parents. Under the common law the only test of British nationality was whether or not the person concerned had been born within the King's allegiance. From the year 1730 onwards, however, our Statute law has made provision for the recognition as British subjects of persons born of British parents outside His Majesty's Dominions. Before the year 1914 these provisions extended to the second generation born abroad; by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, however, the transmission of British nationality was limited to the first generation born outside His Majesty's Dominions. The effect of this limitation was to exclude from British nationality many persons born and brought up abroad in British homes and communities who felt themselves to be, in all essentials, British and were animated by strong sentiments of loyalty to the Crown. To treat such persons as aliens was obviously to make the law inconsistent with the facts, and accordingly in 1922 the law was amended so as to enable British nationality to be transmitted from parents to children, subject to two conditions. The first condition was that the birth must be registered at a consulate within one year, or at the most within two years, of its occurrence and the second was that a person whose birth was so registered should make a formal declaration of his desire to retain British nationality within one year of attaining the age of 21.

Experience, however, has shown that these rigid requirements as to the time within which registrations of birth and declarations of British nationality had to be made caused serious difficulty to many persons residing abroad and resulted in the exclusion from British nationality of many individuals who in origin, upbringing and sentiment are completely British. Some time ago agreement was reached with the Dominions that these limiting provisions ought to be amended and the importance of amending them without delay has now been emphasised by the fact that a number of young men of British origin who have come to the United Kingdom for the purpose of assisting us in the war are found to be aliens in law, although their essentially British character and loyalty to the Crown has been demonstrated by their eagerness to join His Majesty's Forces or render help in some other way to the war effort.

Clause 1 while re-enacting the general principle embodied in the Act of 1922, namely, the principle that British families while remaining abroad can retain their British nationality from generation to generation by the continuous process of registering birth and declarations of their British nationality, gives the necessary elasticity to the limiting conditions by providing that while the normal period within which a birth must be registered is to be one year this period may be extended by the permission of the Secretary of State and that persons so registered by the permission of the Secretary of State shall be deemed to be, and always to have been, British subjects by birth. Clause 1 must be read in conjunction with Clause 6. This Clause re-enacts the existing law as to a declaration of British nationality at the time when the person born abroad attains his majority, but provides that the period within which he must make this declaration may be extended by the permission of a Secretary of State. The Clause also provides that as regards persons who have joined His Majesty's Forces or become engaged in work of national importance during the present war the necessity for such a declaration is dispensed with.

Clause 2 corrects a drafting error in the existing law, namely, the first proviso of sub-section (1) of the Act of 1914. The main object of that proviso was to give statutory authority to the long recognised practice that a child born of a British father in a country where His Majesty exercises jurisdiction over British subjects is as much a British subject as if he had been born on British soil. The Government has been advised that the proviso did not, for technical reasons, carry out the object originally intended.

Clause 3 is incorporated in order to clear up the position in regard to posthumous children. In many places in the Nationality Acts, and indeed in the two preceding Clauses of this Bill, the words are to be found:
"…whose father was at the time of the birth a British subject…"
But the person who is deceased does not possess British or indeed any other nationality. The status of posthumous children has therefore been a matter for doubt. To remove this doubt, Clause 3 provides that they shall be in the same position as children whose fathers have survived their birth.

Clause 4 deals with a matter of some importance, although the number of persons affected is comparatively small. At the time of the collapse of France in 1940, the Prime Minister, with the universal assent and unanimous approval of the House of Commons and of the country, made a specific offer of the grant of British nationality to members of the French Navy who threw in their lot with us and were prepared to continue in the fight against Nazi Germany. These men joined His Majesty's Forces, and in fulfilment of the pledge it is proposed to entertain applications for naturalisation from them, although they do not fulfil the ordinary statutory condition that an applicant must have resided in His Majesty's Dominions or been in the Service of the Crown for at least five years. Clause 4, therefore, enables the statutory period of residence to be dispensed with in the case of French nationals who are, or have at any time during the war been, members of His Majesty's Forces. The large number of Frenchmen who are fighting or serving in French units are not affected by this provision, which is limited to those Frenchmen who have elected to serve with the British Forces.

Clause 5 provides for the recognition by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of certificates of naturalisation granted in the Dominions in consideration of services rendered in connection with the prosecution of the war.

Clause 7 confers a discretion on the Secretary of State not provided under the existing law so as to enable him to refuse to register any declaration of alienage made during war time by a British subject. Where the person in question has also the nationality of an enemy state, such declarations are under the general law invalid. Some of the Dominions have under war legislation prohibited declarations of alienage altogether. It is considered, however, that for the purposes of the United Kingdom a discretionary power is more suitable. Clause 7 provides that such declarations shall be of no effect until they have been registered by permission of the Home Secretary in accordance with regulations. Clause 8 provides a general power for making regulations necessary to implement the foregoing provisions of the Bill, and Clause 9 provides for the registration of births in countries where His Majesty has no diplomatic representation owing to war conditions.

I think I have said enough to make clear to hon. Members the meaning and the purpose of a Bill the Clauses of which are necessarily somewhat technical in character. The Bill, I think, fulfils the pledges given in regard to war-time legislation. It is necessary, it is useful, and it is non-contentious, and any criticism that it may encounter will, I imagine, be directed more to what it does not contain than to what it does. Some hon. Members, I know, desire to see changes of a far-reaching character in our nationality laws. I would, however, remind them that changes of a radical character, whatever their merits or demerits, would undoubtedly give rise to contention. They would require prolonged and detailed discussion between Members of the British Commonwealth, and they would involve the greatest possible administrative inconvenience if introduced in the middle of the life and death struggle in which we are now engaged. I trust, therefore, that the advocates of change, whether for better or for worse, in this legislative field will content themselves with a demonstration and a display of their banners, and give us their co-operation in passing these harmless and necessary changes into law.

This is a small Bill dealing with a small part of a very large subject. Like so many other matters, the question of nationality appears to be a very simple one to the unsophisticated, but the more it is studied the more complicated it becomes. As an illustration of the simple view, I think I may quote the eloquent words written by Gilbert in "H.M.S. Pinafore":

"For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps I-ta-li-an!
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman."
This simple view, moreover, tends to confuse nationality with race, and assumes that it will be easy to decide for each person. Of course, in the great majority of cases no doubt this is so, but exceptions are sufficiently numerous to present a real problem. What, for instance, is the nationality of a German-Polish Jew domiciled in the United States, or of his wife, herself originally an American citizen, or of one of their offspring, born perhaps during a visit to Italy, or let us say on a Dutch ship in Portuguese waters? In peace time the answer to such questions as these may seem to be mainly academic, though undoubtedly it affects the question of voting rights; but in war time the answer has serious consequences to the lives and liberties of the person concerned, as many hon. Members in touch with the residents in their constituencies have, no doubt, occasion to know.

Although they constitute the headache principally of the Home Secretary, as the presence of the Under-Secretary of State bears witness, they also affect the Minister of Labour, the Service Ministers, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Pensions, and I think the Foreign Office. In his desire to increase the man-power and woman-power of this country, the Home Secretary would, naturally, like to have the net of British citizenship flung as widely as possible, but the Minister of Home Security will also naturally be anxious to exclude from citizenship any one who may be a danger to this country, and the two Ministers have to commune together to come to a suitable decision. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who is not present at the moment, will have no difficulty in meeting his colleague in that way. In these circumstances, the Bill before us has had something in the nature of an hermaphrodite birth.

It is the business of the House to be sure, as far as possible, that the possession of. British nationality is coincident with the sentiment of loyalty to the British Crown and to the British tradition. We desire this because the rights, privileges and responsibilities of British nationality should belong to those who are fundamentally loyal, and for this purpose we assume that those who are born of British stock and have resided all their lives in this country will be loyal and, fortunately, with very few exceptions that is the case. We assume, further, that those who have gone through the protracted operation of naturalisation will also be loyal and, though we have to look with a little more caution on those persons, again we are generally right. Clause 4 of the Bill removes the protracted character of the formalities required to naturalise and substitute for it some special provisions. The Under-Secretary spoke of it, I think, as affecting only French sailors but—perhaps I misheard him—there is no such limitation, as I read it, in the Clause. It applies to any Frenchman, and not only to the past but to the future as long as the war lasts. Therefore, if some Frenchman, when a Second Front should be developed, should take a desire to get enlisted in the British Forces—I do not know whether he could—he would have the right to become a British subject. I do not think there is any limitation imposed except in so far as there may be a difficulty in a Frenchman actually enlisting in the British Forces.

With regard to those who may be domiciled in this country but have never gone to the trouble of taking out naturalisation, we assume that they remain aliens in sympathy. That assumption, of course, is not always correct, as I have good reason to know. There are a great many aliens in my constituency who have resided there a very long time, some of them thoroughly loyal to this country, but we assume that they are aliens and we treat them as such. Of course, it is, technically, their fault if they have not taken the trouble to naturalise and they are responsible for it. At the same time the Home Office in many cases has been reasonable and has not imposed very strictly the conditions of alienage when it would seem that those people are loyal to the country of their adoption.

It is when we come to the people whose nationality has been decided vicariously for them, where there is more difficulty, and to some extent more debatable ground. In this category come the children of British parents born while those parents are in foreign countries or in British Protectorates, and Clauses 1, 2 and 3 enlarge their means of being recognised as British subjects. I imagine that this slight change which is being made in the law will be approved in all quarters of the House, also Clause 6, which ensures that vicariously acquired citizenship needs to be reaffirmed by the person himself. But in this category of persons whose nationality is, by British law, altered for them without their own volition, are women in consequence of their marriage. A British-born woman marrying an alien automatically loses her British citizenship and becomes an alien. This may seem reasonable when she goes to reside in the country of her husband who is domiciled there and when, with him, she falls into the ways and habits of life of the foreign country, but the law remains the same even when the husband is domiciled in this country and she and he continue to reside here. They are, to all intents and purposes, regarded as British, yet she is treated as an alien, and everything the Under-Secretary said with regard to the children of parents born abroad, about their being in accord with the traditions of this country and being loyal in every respect, is equally true of the wife married to an alien who is domiciled but who has never been naturalised in this country.

On the other hand, a foreign woman who comes here and marries a British subject—it may be merely a formal marriage entered into for the express purpose—becomes, automatically, a British subject and, unless the attention of the Home Secretary is specifically called to her, she is free to roam all over the country and has all the privileges, rights and responsibilities of a British subject. There is a great and growing feeling here, and certainly also in Australia and New Zealand, where they have brought in special legislation dealing with these matters, that these anomalies should be brought to a speedy termination. I see from the Order Paper that an attempt is to be made to amend the Bill so as to incorporate these changes and I hope that, if possible, that will be done, but I expect, following on the pronouncement that we have already heard from the Under-Secretary, that certain objections will be taken by the Government. The first, of course, is that such an alteration would be outside the intentionally narrow scope of the Bill, and that may be true, but it would be no reason why, if the matter is not only of equal importance with the small matters referred to in the Bill but is very much more important, it should not be the subject of a separate Bill, and the Government might make that promise. The Under-Secretary has also put forward the objection that any change in that direction must be taken in step with the Dominions. I think it is common knowledge that some of the Dominions, notably Australia and New Zealand, have shown more anxiety than has been shown in this country to take this step. I would, therefore, ask whether we must really wait till all the Dominions, the least progressively inclined in the matter, are agreed before action is taken.

A further objection is that it would create world difficulties. That has been said for a very long time and, when it was first said, there was abundance of truth in it, because practically all the world had the same views about nationality as we had, but since that objection was originally taken, there have been very large changes, not only in world views but in world legislation. The backward attitude of the British Government, instead of being in line with world practice, is rapidly becoming behind the centre of gravity of world practice, and is causing great difficulty by creating the anomalous position of State-less persons and the double nationality of persons.

Finally it is said, as I anticipated it would be, that this is not the time. That is a very easy thing to say. It has been said for many years; it was not the time in the last war, it was not the time after the last war, it was not the time between the two wars, it was not the time when this war was in sight, and it is not the time when the war is on. Some of us are beginning to wonder when it will be the time. The anomalies that are being created at the present moment are very serious and are likely to be serious when the war comes to an end. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that they should think again on this matter. It may be that this change would be inappropriately spatchcocked into a very small Bill, but I am afraid that it brings us to this conclusion. Though this Bill will, I imagine, be unanimously approved by the House, all the same the one great anomaly in the attempt to assimilate nationality with loyalty is this treatment of the married women. Therefore, the Bill, although useful, lacks the change most needed, and for that reason is defective in a way that I believe a considerable number of persons in the House and a great number in the country and in His Majesty's Dominions regard as of supreme importance.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is nothing in this Bill that will not be accepted generally by the House and that any criticism that may be made of it is directed not so much to what is in it as to what might have been in it. It cannot be denied that even when all the anomalies which this Bill corrects have been corrected, there will still be gaps, anomalies, inadequacies and deficiencies in our naturalisation laws which, by common consent and without controversy, could be repaired now. It seems rather a pity if the Government are devoting some of the time of the House to correcting anomalies that they have not taken the opportunity of correcting all those which could have been corrected without any of the difficulties which the Under-Secretary mentioned. I want to direct attention to one point only and to make as strong and urgent a plea as I can, upon it, to the Home Secretary. It arises under Clause 4. Nationality in ordinary times is a matter of importance, but it is a very intricate and difficult study, abounding in technicalities of all kinds. There are times when it becomes a matter of extreme urgency involving questions of life and death, not after the war, but now. My right hon. Friend referred to a well known quotation from W. S. Gilbert about people who might have been of other nationalities but who chose our own. I am reminded that there are naturalised persons who proudly claim that they are much better British subjects than the natural-born ones, for whereas the natural-born British subject is as by accident of birth, the naturalised one is a British subject by choice. I am not concerned with that kind of consideration.

We have in this country a great many people whose nationality of origin is German but who are serving in our Forces, most but not all in the Pioneer Corps. There are others of Austrian nationality to whom some consideration ought to be given, and there are many of them on active service overseas. All these men are of military age, and, being nationals of countries which have conscription, they are, technically, deserters from the German Army. They are fighting on our side willingly as volunteers, taking all the risks that others take but taking in addition a risk which others—our own people—are not asked to take. They may be taken prisoner; if they are, they will certainly be shot as traitors and deserters from the armed forces of their country of origin. Though no compulsion can be applied to them here, they are serving the same cause as we are, serving in our ranks and taking the risks that we call upon them to take. We have no right to omit any step which we could take to protect them from that extra danger. We have every right to expect that a certain recognition—not more than we give to our own people—should be given to the fact that these people are prepared to take all the normal risks of war. We have no right to call upon them to take abnormal risks. If they are taken prisoner they are liable to immediate death, and as our law now stands we shall have no right to intervene, no right to be heard and no right to call upon the Protecting Power to act in our name in the protection of these men. The Germans, if we attempted to do it, would reply that no Convention about the treatment of prisoners of war applies to these people.

I want my hon. Friend to get his mind on to the main point here. Does he really think that these people would be in any better position, if they fell into German hands, if they had committed the additional offence of acquiring an enemy nationality during war-time?

If a man has committed a capital offence already, he cannot worsen his position by committing another capital offence. Therefore in this case he will be in no worse position if we make him a British national, so far as the law of Germany is concerned. To be candid, I doubt very much whether these people would be much better off. It may very well be that the German authorities would ignore the fact that we recognise those people as nationals of ours and would say to them "You were nationals of Germany when you deserted Germany and took service with the Armed Forces of Great Britain," and therefore any intervention that we might claim to exercise, either directly or through the protecting Power, might be brushed aside by those who now oppress Europe and the German people. But that fact cannot justify us in omitting to take a step which might afford a hope, however forlorn, of protection or intervention. We have no right to desert them, and thus leave ourselves in a position where we should have no legal right to intervene. It may be that if we give ourselves a legal right to intervene, Germany will not recognise that right, but that fact cannot justify us in omitting to arm ourselves with the power and the right to intervene.

Let us look at what is done by Clause 4. It deals with a limited class of people who might be in the position that I have just described. It is said that if such a person satisfies two conditions (1) that he is or has at any time during the period of the present war been a member of His Majesty's Forces, and (2) is a proper person to be naturalised as a British subject the Home Secretary has power to dispense with the normal conditions of naturalisation and grant a naturalisation certificate. All I am asking is that the principles on which naturalisation may be granted to that class of French nationals may be applied to anyone of any nationality of origin or of no nationality now who fulfils those conditions. I do not see why it cannot be done generally, but if it cannot be done generally, can it, at least, be done in the case of every individual who either by direction or by his own initiative serves overseas, where he may be taken prisoner?

So far as I can see there is no understandable differentiation between the case of the French nationals and the case of other nationals in the like position. My hon. Friend said that there is a difference because the Prime Minister did give a pledge in the case of Frenchmen and that this Clause honours that pledge. Very well; but the fact that we did not pledge ourselves to do what we obviously ought to do is not a reason for not doing it. If the matter had been considered can it be thought possible that such a pledge would have been refused in those cases too? If we have given a pledge to one section of a common class can we in honour refuse the same protection to all members of that class? I suggest that we cannot. This question does not raise controversy, cannot raise controversy. No Member of this House would willingly be guilty of the blood of one of these men, and we should be guilty of it if we had taken no steps to prevent his being murdered by the Germans because he had served us. There is no need to consult the Dominions. We are not introducing any new principle but merely applying the principle of Clause 4 to all those people, without distinction of race or nation or creed, to whom the condition applies. I cannot promise that if my hon. Friend makes no concession we will allow the Bill to go through without a challenge. I do not propose to challenge the Second Reading, because it is a good Bill in any case, and it ought to be on the Statute Book, but on the Committee stage I propose to move to leave out the limiting words in Clause 4 and to give this House, in Committee, an opportunity of indicating to the Home Secretary that it sees no reason in practice and no justification in principle for excepting these others from the protection given to the French.

I support very heartily what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has said. I, like others, welcome what is in the Bill. A few crumbs are, I suppose, better than nothing at all, but the Minister was wise when he said that these few crumbs would probably whet the appetites of those who have been interested in this problem for some time. I have read the Debate on this subject in another place, and I realise that our appetite is not going to be satisfied very fully by the Government. I welcome this Bill because, first of all it fulfils a promise, and also because it removes in some degree certain anomalies and anxieties under which people were suffering and thereby helps them to make a greater contribution to the war effort; but, like others, I regret very sincerely that the opportunity has not been taken to remedy certain other long-standing grievances which are very germane to the matters dealt with in the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister would be surprised if I were to tell him how many letters I have received from women all over the country who, owing to existing regulations, find themselves in an impossible position, women who are contributing 100 per cent. to the war effort by factory work or in some other capacity. He would also be surprised if he know how many Members of this House, Members of all parties, have offered me their support in any Amendments that I can get the Government to accept.

I think it is 15 years since I introduced, with the assent of Members in all parties, a Bill dealing with the nationality of married women. I have no desire to deal at length with the pros and cons of that admittedly complicated question, but I feel now, as I felt then, that it is wrong that a woman's nationality should be, as it were, merely a by-product of marriage. It ought to be a thing standing on its own basis and rights, and within the option of the woman herself. That is why I regret that the Bill, which could so easily have been made to cover some, although perhaps not all, of the points which we should have liked, has not been utilised for that purpose.

Although the acts of the Government since the war and the introduction of the Bill have removed certain anomalies, this very Bill and the Government's own action in the past have created new anomalies. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1933, upon the declaration of war by this country British wives of enemy aliens have been able, with the consent of the Home Secretary, to regain their British nationality. I am not quite sure what "enemy aliens" means. Is the British wife of a Finn, a Rumanian or a Hungarian also entitled to the same privileges? That provision was a good thing. It was wise and right in itself, but, strange as it may seem, the British wives of friendly aliens, finding themselves in exactly the same position, have not been able to go to the Home Secretary and demand their British nationality. These women are still subject to certain restrictions and to Home Office Regulations. The Home Office have gone a certain way to remove the restrictions, but a British woman married to a Czech or a Pole working in a factory and who has a family, has to go to a police station in order to get permission every time she wants to move from one district to another. The permission is readily given, but I do not think the Home Secretary realises what a stigma it places on such a woman. It has been pointed out that the Bill gives privileges to a number of Frenchmen who are serving in our Forces, chiefly in the Navy. We are very glad that these privileges should be given to those who gallantly risked everything in a crisis in the history of their country to come over and help us; but it has been pointed out that, if those Frenchmen are worthy of those privileges, surely the large number of Czechs, Poles and others, many of whom have been living in this country for years and have been serving in the British Army from the very beginning of the war, must be entitled to the same privileges. It is the wives of some of these men who are restricted in their movements and are subject to Regulations.

I can mention the case of a Czech who enlisted at the very beginning of the war. He gave up a position of considerable profit in which he was making a good living, and he joined up at once. He was accepted in those days, but he had not taken out his naturalisation papers. To-day he is an alien and his wife is subject to limitations. I have laid the individual case before the Home Secretary and the Home Office numerous times, but the answer is always the same: "We do not intend to consider the naturalisation of any of these men until the war is over." If the Home Office has power to consider the nationality of some 500 Frenchmen, about whose antecedents they can know very little—I am not, of course, questioning those antecedents—it is not asking very much that the Home Office should consider the cases of people to whom I refer. The argument that the time of the Home Office is so occupied that they cannot consider one case is now completely given away. I ask the Home Secretary to make a beginning and thus to give hope to others that their time for consideration will come. We might go some way towards the custom of America, which is, I understand, that where an individual who has not yet become an American citizen has served a certain period of time in the American Forces, he ipso facto has the right to demand American citizenship.

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is aware that we ourselves adopted that principle in the last war and gave naturalisation as a right to aliens who served in our Forces. We have abandoned it in this war.

I did know it, and I am very glad to be reminded of it. It reinforces my argument and also the case, which, the Home Office will find, has warm support in all quarters. If a man is willing to fight and die for a country, he has at least a right to demand the privileges of citizenship of that country. There is another point which should be included in the Bill. A good many of us cannot help remembering that foreign women who marry British citizens automatically receive all the privileges of British citizenship. This is something which was grossly abused just before the war, and I believe that now is the time when some qualification of residence ought to be demanded before a foreign woman who marries a British citizen should acquire the full rights of British citizenship. Again, the custom by regulation in America, under what is, I believe, called the Cable Act, is that a foreign woman marrying an American citizen has to have so many months or years of domicile in the United States before she gets her American citizenship. I put forward these suggestions, and I ask the Government to support them. After all, it is their own policy. In 1931, the Government, at the League of Nations, declared their policy in this matter—and I will read it if I may. It was as follows:

"The British Government considers that it is right that all the disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that, in so far as nationality is concerned, a married woman should be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or as a single woman."
This declaration was read in the House of Commons in 1933, during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government Bill, and was acknowledged to be the continued policy of the Government by the then Home Secretary, It has never been denounced, repudiated or modified by any subsequent Government. To declare a policy and then to refuse to implement it is absolutely meaningless. What is the Government's answer? I have read the Debates in the other House. The Government have now put the same answer forward again: "We must not move any faster than the Dominions in this matter. We must all keep in line, which is very important from an Imperial point of view." That is a very old argument, which seems on the surface a wise one, but it always enables the Government to do nothing.

However, in this matter, the Home Office apears to be plus royaliste que le roi. The Dominions of Australia and New Zealand have already passed legislation dealing with the rights of their own women who have married foreigners. The Irish Free State gives its own passports to its own people in various parts of the world without any consideration for our Regulations at all. So much for Empire unity on this matter. I recognise that this affects only a small minority of people in this country. It is difficult for many of them to raise their voices, but it is only once in every few years that we get an opportunity of discussing this matter. In my humble judgment, there is a grievance here which the Government, by their declaration of policy, have admitted. No one is more aware of the complications and difficulties of this problem than I am. I hope that the Minister will be moved by the very considerable support which is given to our views and that he will report to the Minister that there is strong feeling on this matter. I recognise the appeal made by the Minister that we should not oppose the Bill. I shall submit to the appeal because, among other reasons, I am afraid I cannot do anything else. My opposition would be quite ineffective. I hope, however, that if we give the Minister this Second Reading, and support him in the final stages of the Bill, he will bear in mind our co-operative spirit on this occasion, and when that day comes that we ask him to put right what is now an ancient and admitted wrong, he will listen to our request with sympathy.

The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has a long and honourable record as a champion in this House of ladies' rights in this matter. We cannot in advance discuss the Amendments which he and other have put down on the Order Paper and to which various ladies have asked us in the Lobbies to give our signature. I have had some experience of this question of aliens in another capacity, which I should like to mention, as chairman of a small Aliens Sub-Committee that deals with medical manpower. We have had several very hard cases to deal with. We have worked in conjunction with representatives of the Ministry of Health and of the Home Office and have found them most helpful in the matter, most forward looking, considering the actual difficulties in each case, trying to do what is best for the public interest and at the same time to meet hard cases. I should like to pay that little tribute for what I have seen of the administration in the Home Office. That does not come into this Bill, however. There are other points in this Measure which are to deal with hard cases which arouse our sympathy. Similarly, I do not want to touch on them except that when we examine them more closely in Committee I hope I shall be able to give my support.

When we come to the proposed enlargement of this Measure, I want to bring forward one particular point in respect to which I know I shall be thought to be an enemy by those with whom I desire to co-operate in this House. That is the question of the division of interests between husband and wife. There are particularly hard cases at the present time, during the war. I have always believed in having laws laid down as a generalisation which must be broken for particular cases. But I want to lay it down most strongly that the time has come to revise during the war a good many of our principles and practices, and one of these points we have to revise is the whole status of marriage. We have recognised now the appalling position into which this country and other countries are getting through the decline of the birth-rate for some time past. What is the real basis of marriage? That basis, going right back to pre-Christian times, is in order to provide for the future of the race, and therefore it is well that we should consider the question of the children, as it is considered in one of the Clauses of the Bill. The children are too often forgotten when we are dealing with marriage questions, divorce and so on. The children are considered a by-product whom we really need not worry about; it is considered to be only a matter between the two principal partners, husband and wife; and that is wrong.

But when it comes to a question of nationality, what greater rift can you imagine between husband and wife than if they are to have separate nationalities? I can imagine no greater separation of interest than that, with all its implications. I can imagine nothing, with all its implications, which would be, and is, in so many instances of which we know such a subject of absolute division between husband and wife, with all the miseries that implies to the family, and to the children, as that of a divided nationality. We should proceed on that kind of line instead of promoting what is called the right of the British woman to have British nationality, regardless of her husband, or the disabling of a foreign wife to have what are considered the advantages or disadvantages of the English nationality of her husband. These discords, I think, ought to be soft-pedalled a good deal. I believe that the more you can help—I like putting the word "help"—a woman to be true to her husband in his strong national feeling as well as in his personal relations, the better. The more you can help a husband to be true and sympathetic to his wife in those relations, the better. I say that marriage must always be that you marry for better or for worse; and that means that, if you are considering marrying into another race and country strongly divided from your own, you have to reckon out the position. You have to do it whole-heartedly and marry into the nationality of the spouse you have chosen to marry. Anything else is belittling marriage vows, and it is belittling the real future of the race. It is the future, as well as the safety, of the race which I contend should be the main objective in this legislation; seeking to maintain the common nationality of a married couple and putting great difficulties in the way of making exceptions to the general rule.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). I realise that he and I belong to different generations.

I am shocked to find the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has given much thought to marriage, having been married for a long time himself, and also, as a doctor, to population problems, has come to the conclusion that if we remedy this injustice which is being discussed in the House, we shall cause marital disharmony. Has he considered this point, that a British woman who during this century has enjoyed the rights and privileges of equal citizenship, who has, since the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, been allowed to enter all the professions of the country with the exception of the Church and the Foreign Office, when she is married to a man and is deprived of her nationality, becomes in many cases a woman who is resentful and discontented because she is deprived of her rights?

The hon. Member, I am afraid, is only looking at marriage from the aspect of the husband who is anxious for his wife to identify herself fully with himself. But he has forgotten that the modern woman views this matter in an entirely different manner. I want to remind him of a case of which he has probably heard. There is a lady in Surrey married to a member of the Fighting French Forces. She has two sons fighting with our Forces and a daughter with the Auxiliary Services. Her ancestors have lived in Surrey for generations. They have served on the local councils, but this woman is compelled, because she is married to her husband, to report to her local police station.

On two occasions she has refused to do this and has been fined. On the last occasion she said she would go to prison, but a relative prevailed on her, because she is delicate, to pay the fine. Does the hon. Member think that she is happily married? Can he think that that kind of treatment will promote marital harmony? I venture to suggest that if this Bill was amended, perhaps it might have more effect on the improvement of the population problem than the hon. Gentleman thinks. It is very difficult for the women of this country to understand how the Government can draft a Bill of this kind and totally ignore the representations which have been made to them by the women of the country during the last few months. We are heartily tired of taking deputations to Ministers. I myself am nauseated when I think of the number of times Ministers have said to me, "Yes, we approve in principle of what you ask." Then Bills are introduced in this House, and we find that our demands have been ignored. I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why women are ignored in this fashion.

In the Gallery of this House to-day there are many women who are suffering because they have married aliens and have been denied their civil rights. The position, in my opinion, is reminiscent of the days when the wife was indeed a chattel, when her husband had the right to thrash her, so long as the stick was no larger than his thumb, when all her property belonged to her husband after marriage, and when she lost all rights to her individuality. Surely, it is an anachronism, since the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, for a wife to be deprived of her nationality on marriage. Last week we heard an hon. and gallant Member ask that the son of a man showing pro-Nazi sympathies should be debarred from the Royal Air Force. A Member, quite rightly, rose and said that a son must not be held responsible for the sentiments of his father; and the whole House cheered. Why should a wife be punished because she does not belong to the same country as her husband? Why should she be penalised because her husband belongs to another country? I know that many people argue that the marriage relationship is closer than that of father and son, and that the influence exerted by a husband upon his wife is so great that it would be wrong to allow a British woman married to an alien to retain her civil rights. If that is right, why do we allow an alien woman to take the nationality of her British husband? Surely the influence exerted by an alien wife on her British husband is as great as the influence exerted by an alien husband on his Briitsh wife. The famous spies of the past have all been women. Yet we find the paradoxical position that an alien woman can marry a British man and enjoy all the rights of which the British woman is denied if she is married to an alien. I ask the Government to introduce another Bill to remove this injustice. I am sure that they would have the support of the whole House.

I do not want to delay the House long on this matter, as I imagine hon. Members are merely giving the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary advance notice of what is likely to take place on the Committee stage. I will only give one or two illustrations of the sort of anomaly with which the Bill fails to deal. There can be hardly a Member of this House who has not at some time or another during the war gone to the Home Office about the naturalisation of someone serving in His Majesty's Forces. I have done so on several occasions, but without much effect. The attitude of the Home Office on this problem is revealed not only in the Bill itself, or in what is not in the Bill, but in the fact that even aliens who can prove more than four years' residence in Great Britain find it practically impossible to obtain naturalisation at present, except when there is a very strong Government departmental recommendation behind the application. I know many doctors in this country who are denied the full employment of their professional capacities because they are aliens, and I can imagine, therefore, that behind the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) there lay perhaps some professional defences which he did not disclose. The fact is that the Home Office has taken up towards this matter a most reactionary stand.

Not only are there the instances that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) mentioned, but there is an anomaly which I think has not yet been mentioned in the Debate. At the beginning of the war a number of aliens volunteered for His Majesty's Forces. They were immediately put in the Pioneer Corps, and there they are now. Aliens who did not volunteer are able to remain in civil employment, and where they can satisfy the police regulations they have perfect freedom of movement; but those aliens who were sufficiently enthusiastic about our cause to enlist in the Forces remain there, suffering disabilities all the time. In point of fact, it now has become an action to be punished if you volunteer to fight in His Majesty's Forces, and the less enthusiastic an alien is about our cause the greater freedom of action he has and the less disability he suffers. I believe that if the Home Secretary removed all these anomalies he would have the approval of the whole House. Why does he not do so? The reason is that the most reactionary Department of all is the Home Office.

Perhaps the hon. Lady knows Departments which are worse; but at any rate the Home Office is a good runner-up.

It fights a stubborn rearguard action against progress. I understand that America takes an entirely different attitude. Every alien recruited into the American Army immediately gets full citizen rights. Is not that so? Why are we backward? The British Government waste good human material in the Pioneer Corps at the present time. Men do nothing but dig trenches, fill them up again and then dig them again. A very considerable number of men of great professional capacity, with distinguished careers in fighting against Fascism, enthusiastic supporters of our cause, are being wasted by the stupidity of the Home Office on this matter.

I must interrupt the hon. Member. What happens to an alien once he is in the Pioneer Corps has nothing whatever to do with the Home Office. It has wholly to do with the War Office.

That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman misses the point absolutely. The fact is that, if we conferred British citizenship upon all these people who have volunteered for enlistment in His Majesty's Forces, at once we would be able to bring more reasonable pressure to bear upon the War Office to make fuller use of the men who are there at the present time. That is the point. Of course it is true that once the Home Office take up a reactionary stand of this sort the War Office enthusiastically follow their example. We know that very well. The men must go into the Pioneer Corps if they enlist, and so the right hon. Gentleman sets a bad example to a Department already too enthusiastic in following examples of that kind. I therefore suggest seriously to the House and the Government that here is a matter in which they lag hopelessly behind public opinion and the opinion of the House as a whole.

We have been told that the chief obstacle towards having these reforms carried out now is that we have not the consent of the Dominions. What steps have the Home Office taken to obtain that consent? Are they taking any steps at all? They can say they have taken some provisional steps, but have they really treated this as a matter of urgency? We know that Australia and New Zealand have done it, but what about Canada and South Africa? Have they done it? The Government can send missions and right hon. Members all over the world for various purposes, but have they sent anybody at all to Canada or South Africa to implore the Governments there to fall into line with the rest of the British Empire? Of course they have not, because the Government want an alibi for not moving. We are told that one reason why it is not done is because it would involve a great deal of work by the Home Office in tracing the histories of people who want to be naturalised. This has already been done in many cases. What better evidence could you have of the sincerity and worthwhileness of a man than the fact that he is prepared to fight for the cause in which he enlists? What better evidence have you than that? I submit that an overwhelming case has been made out against the Government, and when we come to the Committee stage we shall try to implement the point of view of the House in Amendments.

I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, and I will only keep the House for a few moments. I would not have intervened had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). He has told us that in the interests of increasing the population and of unity in marriage it was essential that husband and wife should have the same nationality. He said, truly, that you marry for better or for worse.

It is delightful at least to be able to agree on some slight point with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). The hon. Member for St. Albans also said that a husband and wife should have exactly the same outlook. May I ask him to consider for one moment the position of a woman who married a German who was an advanced member of the Weimar Republic when Germany came under Nazi rule? Supposing her husband became one of Hitler's most faithful followers, changing his opinion, is that women immediately to agree with all that is done in the name of Nazi Germany? The hon. Member for St. Albans laid it down that a woman, the moment she married, should give up all power of thinking and deciding for herself what is right and what is wrong. That is the only interpretation of the speech of the hon. Member. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Colonel Cazalet) that women as well as men should be proud of their nationality. If you have any faith in your own nation, then your nationality bears with it a responsibility to engender within the world a certain way of thought. I believe in the British nation; I believe that British nationality is an honour and an obligation. I would wish women to have a full sense of their responsibilities as British citizens. That is why I greatly deplore the fact that British nationality in some cases has been obtained by paying a small sum of money to a British man who has been met abroad.

To condemn a woman for life to a nationality other than her own because in the first flush of youth she married an alien at a time when the changing course of history leaves one with little power to foretell all that will evolve is, in my opinion, wholly wrong. It is difficult to understand why the Government, who have thought it fit to bring forward this Bill to-day, should have brought it forward without having set that position right, in view of the repeated and forcible arguments which have ceaselessly been put before them. A strong case will have to be made by the Under-Secretary if we are to approve the Government's policy— a stronger case than there is any possibility of my right hon. Friend being able to make.

A few minutes only are required by me in order to supplement what has been so admirably put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet) and so ably supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). I welcome the Bill so far as it goes; it is an excellent Measure, but in my opinion it represents slow-motion legislation, which is out of tune with the fast-moving times in which we live. I have not heard one comment which faces the real issue, the one thing which is omitted from the Bill—that a British woman who marries an American or a Frenchman should lose her nationality. The time is overdue for that situation to be remedied, and I am sorry it has not been remedied in this Bill. In these days many women are brought into contact with men of other nationalities, and when they have fallen in love and want to carry it a step further by marriage, it is most embarrassing for them to have to make up their minds on the question, "Am I to lose my nationality?" For women to be placed in that position in 1943, when they are asked to bear the full burden of life in war time, is indeed most unfortunate. Therefore, I sincerely support the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham with regard to this omission and other omissions from the Bill, and I hope the Government will take notice of these matters now that we are so generously supporting the Bill.

A detailed mastery of the Clauses of this Bill would not have assisted me very much in replying to the Debate. As far as the Bill is concerned, I would like, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to express appreciation of the reception it has had, the promise to co-operate which has been given, and the approval of its principles, subject, of course, to the objections taken on what it does not contain. The objections have fallen under two main heads. The first is the objection that opportunity has not been taken to amend the law of British nationality with regard to married women, whether one is considering the case of a British woman who marries a foreigner or the case of a foreign woman who marries a British subject. The other objection has been with regard to the limited application of Clause 4.

The House will not expect me to go into any very detailed examination of the merits of the first question, and indeed those hon. Members who have spoken have not developed it in detail. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Colonel Cazalet), who, as has been acknowledged already, has taken a great interest in this question and been a strong protagonist of the change for many years, said quite frankly, as one would expect, that it is a complicated subject. Although no reference has been made to it in this Debate, there is one question which would no doubt have to be considered if and when a change was made—what would be the effect on the children of preserving the nationality of the mother? But the broad ground, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend, is that questions of principle affecting British nationality have always been regarded, and rightly regarded, by all parties in this House, as matters in which we should move with the Dominions, and the Dominions, if they are to move, should move wth us. As far as this matter is concerned, reference has been made to the statement that was made at Geneva in September, 1931, by the then Home Secretary. It is right to point out that that statement as made at Geneva was followed, as one would expect, by a statement that in these matters His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom did not move alone, but that changes affecting British nationality in the past had been made, and it was hoped always in the future would be made, as a matter of agreement with and common action by the Dominions. That was made quite clear at Geneva. At the Imperial Conference of 1930 the matter was discussed and agreement was not reached. The Conference was satisfied that any proposals for further modification of the pre-existing law beyond what had been agreed to at the Hague would fail to secure unanimous agreement. It followed that the Conference was unable to make any recommendation for a substantive amendment of the law on the subject.

Would it be possible to tell the House what attitude the Government took at the Imperial Conference?

We, therefore, do not know whether the failure to agree was the fault of the Government.

No. [Interruption.] I am not saying whose fault it was. I am recording the fact that the statement having been made on behalf of the Government in 1931 to which reference has been made, the previous Imperial Conference had failed to come to agreement on the matter. It came up at the Imperial Conference in 1937 but it was not found possible to arrive at agreement in favour of any change in the existing law. That being so, I think that during war time it would be difficult to justify, and would certainly be departing altogether from existing principles, for this country to make a change unless we were able to carry all the self-governing Dominions with us and that is the reason why, though we agree that this is a matter of importance and one on which strong views are held, though the Government in the United Kingdom have made a statement, on the whole favourable to the views which hon. Members have put forward, we feel that it would be impracticable to deal with the matter in this Bill or at this time.

In view of the great importance of this question during the war and because of the war, have the Government taken any step to ascertain whether agreement could not be reached in the only Dominions which are standing out against this reform? Have they, since the war began, made any fresh effort to get agreement on the subject?

I am told there is no indication of any change of view on the part of the Dominions. It is not a matter which greatly comes within my Department. We will take notice of what has been said, but I do not think there is any indication of any possibility of agreement on the matter. That is all I can say at the moment. With regard to Clause 4, I should like to assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that, on the point he raised with regard to taking action through the Protecting Power, he was under a misapprehension. There is a right of intervention on behalf of a prisoner of war who belongs to the British Forces whether he possesses British nationality or not.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not wish to mislead himself or anyone else. The question is not whether we will have the right to speak but whether our voice will be heard. The German Government must, inevitably, say of such a man, "This man is not a prisoner of war but a German citizen who has violated German law, and we are dealing with him, not as a prisoner of war but as one of our own citizens under our own law." You would take that right away by clothing him with British nationality.

We do not want anybody to be under a misapprehension. I understood my hon. Friend to make the point that the man's not being a British subject would prevent representations being made through the Protecting Power.

I thought my hon. Friend said "being made," but if there is a mistake let us get the position clear. The fact that a man in our Forces does not have British nationality does not affect the position under the Prisoner of War Convention with regard to the right to make representations about him. That, of course, is what one would expect. It is well-known that many forces have aliens in them, and the right to make representations does not depend on nationality. My hon. Friend also suggested that we were putting the man at a disadvantage by not allowing him to become a British subject. In my view, so far from that putting him at a disadvantage, the act of applying for and obtaining enemy nationality is an added act, under the normal laws of all countries, of treason—an act added to the offence of being taken in arms against one's own country.

The French are not fighting against us. I cannot think that there is anything in that point. There was a case under our own law, which some hon. Members may remember, of a man who during the Boer War applied for Boer nationality and was taken in arms against us. It was said that the application itself was an act of treason. Every one appreciates the services of these people and appreciates, too, their added danger, and I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's background. Everybody must appreciate the added danger which a man runs when, being of enemy nationality and therefore committing treason under his own law, he joins our Forces in fighting against the Germans. The fact of naturalising would be an additional act of treason, from the point of view of German law, to that which he has already committed by being in arms against Germany.

Would the Attorney-General allow the men concerned to choose for themselves whether they would rather be without British nationality or would rather run the extra risks of having it?

That is a different question. I was trying to deal with my hon. Friend's point that we were putting these men under some disadvantage by declining to give them British nationality. I think that that is a profound misconception of the position. With regard to the extension of Clause 4, as my right hon. Friend pointed out the pledge given by the Prime Minister was given, of course, in very exceptional circumstances. The position of Frenchmen who are in the Forces—with the Vichy Government in the position in which it was—was quite an exceptional one. There, the administrative problem involved, which has an importance in this connection, is a comparatively small one. It really is not right to say that because you may be able to deal with 500 cases, and I believe that is the outside number, therefore you can deal with this, that and the other class, which might involve up to 20,000 or 30,000 cases. I think there will be a difficulty in drawing a line between those who are serving and those who are not serving.

It is just the distinction that this Clause gives in the case of French citizens. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that you cannot draw a distinction between those who serve and those who do not serve, but in Clause 4 that very distinction is drawn in the case of the French nationals.

Does not the hon. Member think that if we were as persistent about British women getting their nationality as he is about these cases——

Of course you can draw the distinction. It is drawn in the Clause. A specific pledge was given on those terms and this is honouring the pledge and no one is suggesting that we cannot honour the pledge; but on the grounds put forward by many hon. Members in this discussion, I think it would be difficult to draw a distinction between those who are serving in the Forces and those who are giving valuable services in other ways. The broad reason why the Government have restricted Clause 4 to the pledge which was given is that if we were to go beyond it, it would open up a very big administrative problem. I am sure that everyone is agreed that it is vital to see that British nationality is not given except in cases where the loyalty to and identification with this country of those who apply is undoubted. That can be done in the case of the very limited number of people covered by the pledge, but if we go beyond that we are going to place upon those who have to deal with the administrative problem a burden which really is impracticable, owing to the numbers involved, in war-time.

There is one point which I want to correct. It was said that in the last war service in the Forces was regarded as qualifying. That is a misapprehension. After the last war no alteration was made in the normal conditions of naturalisation, except that the fee was remitted in respect of those who had served in the Army. I think that is right. I realise that my observations will not, of course, satisfy all those who have taken part in this Debate. I have put before the House the reasons which have led the Government to restrict this Bill to matters which I agree are subsidiary but in themselves are important, and not to attempt to deal with the wider problem or to adopt the wider suggestions which have been made in the course of this discussion.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[ Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Training Battalion Officer, Matlock (Complaints)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[ Sir J. Edmondson.]

I raised this matter last September, when I made a complaint to the Financial Secretary to the War Office that a certain Lieut.-Colonel Gates, who was then in command of No. 8 Training Battalion at the Drill Hall, Matlock, was ill treating his men, that he had instructed his officers and warrant officers to ignore Army Council Instructions and had instructed them to break King's Regulations which were framed for the purpose of protecting the private soldier from cruel treatment.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Beechman.]

I received a letter from a constituent of mine who told me that her brother had been cruelly ill treated in this battalion. He was a man of 43. I went over to make an investigation. I found that the men were continually made to do pack drill for various slight offences, that it was quite common to put them on "stiff C.B.," as the commanding-officer himself termed it, and that it was quite common to punish non-commissioned officers in the presence of the men and thereby to make them to some extent ridiculous. The War Office made no attempt to remedy this matter for some weeks. At last the brigadier himself suspended this officer, but when the War Office examined the case they actually promoted this man instead of rebuking or reprimanding him.

It seems that when these men joined the training battalion they were promised seven days' leave after the first four weeks' training. That was a War Office Instruction. Lieut.-Colonel Gates decided that he would "larn 'em" that they were in the Army, and he issued instructions that, no matter how high their standard of training was, at least 15 men had to have their leave stopped. These men had to travel all over the country. Their passes were made out, and they had promised their relations that they would be home; but no, this little Hitler down in Matlock had to put his foot down and to say, "No; at least 15 of you, no matter how high your standard may be, have to stay behind." He was not satisfied with making the men's life a misery. He had to make them ridiculous in the eyes of the whole population, and in Matlock the battalion became known as the "Flanagan and Allen" battalion. The lieut.-colonel actually issued an instruction to all the officers of the battalion that when a squad of men met an officer in the street, no matter what duty they were on, the officer had to spring to attention and say "Hi-de-hi," and the men had to reply, promptly and smartly, "Ho-de-ho." I do not know what the reasons were, and Lieut.-Colonel Gates does not seem to know them himself. His battalion became known by the name I have mentioned, and as they passed along the street the kids used to shout "Hi-de-hi, Ho-de-ho," and the poor soldiers did not know whether they had to spring to attention or not. There was something worse. When Lieut.-Colonel Gates appeared, if men did not spring to attention smartly enough and reply to his "Hi-de-hi," they were punished. They got "stiff C.B." for it. I cannot find anything in British Army Regulations which entitles an officer to treat men in that way.

I would not make these charges against anybody without substantiating them, but I have a circular here. This lieut.-colonel is a psychologist. He has the notion that he can sit in an office and run a battalion from there by issuing circulars, and he always puts into the circular something about psychology. I have read two or three of them. This is one of them:
"The starting point is to set a high standard and allow no man to fall short from the very first minute that man enters the wing, and to close the mind to feelings of pity or excuse."
"With a lazy disinterested squad or individual man, as a last resort and when all other methods as set out in Notes of Administration of Discipline, 1941, have been tried and failed the 'big stick' must be used."
Do not forget that this circular was issued to warrant officers. What glorious opportunities it gives to a brutal warrant officer. It says this:
"With such types the following are some of the methods which are useful:
  • (1) Extra parade with article to be better cleaned. Recruits parading outside Sergeants' Mess so that squad N.C.O. has least possible trouble.
  • (2) Really stiff C.B.
  • (3) Extra guards.
  • (4) Pack parades as in (1).
  • These are only a few of many ways of making a man's life a misery until he toes the line and does what is required of him properly."
    I have had a comment on that from a lady, who says:
    "The abominable treatment of the soldiers"—
    at the Matlock Drill Hall—
    "makes my blood boil at times. So much so that I have to close my doors to try to avoid seeing and hearing what is going on."
    An old soldier who knows what pack drill is says that he is nauseated almost daily
    ".…at the torture meted out to men on pack drill. These exhibitions are having a demoralising effect on the whole vicinity. Mothers with sons in the Army are wondering if their lads are suffering a like fate."
    This officer then went on to give another instruction. He said that it was to be considered whether in some cases, despite original squadding by age—and do not forget that these men were 35 to 43 years of age—it would not be advisable to weed out the dull, the idle and bloody-minded and put them under an instructor known to be a "killer." Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this man was suspended by his brigadier for misconduct in the treatment of his men. While he was under suspension, he stayed in Matlock. He went about boasting that nobody could touch him because he had "pull," influence, at the War Office. On 12th November I wrote the Under-Secretary of State for War and told him that this man was boasting in Matlock that he was going to be promoted for this ill-treatment of the men, not reprimanded, and that he would be given a job in the supply and transport or a staff appointment which was selective promotion. This was denied by the War Office, but five months after I made the original complaint he was given the precise appointment that he boasted that he would get, despite the complaints made against him. It seems to me that this man has pull at the War Office. They wrote and told me he had been promoted and that the punishment, and the ill-treatment of the men, was merely the failing of a zealous officer who wanted to bring his men up to a high standard. I want to ask one or two questions. Who suspended this man, and on what evidence? If it was the brigadier who suspended him, was the evidence on which he suspended him before the Army Council when they promoted him? Had the Army Council the brigadier's report and this circular before them when they promoted him? I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the proper course is to remove this man from this appointment. He ought to be reprimanded and rebuked for his cruelty and for the breaking of King's Regulations and the ignoring of Army Council Instructions. I want it made clear to the mothers and wives of these men, in Matlock and elsewhere, that cruelty to the private soldier is not the high road to promotion in the British Army.

    I did not know that this matter was going to be raised to-day. Personally I deplore the idea that serving officers' names, whether they are right or whether they are wrong—and I do not propose to argue on that point—should be dragged out in public like this.

    I actually wrote to the War Office and said that I would not give this man's name because I did not want to injure his innocent relatives, or even friends who are financially linked up with him, but the War Office said to me in a letter that I should give his name, otherwise the preceding and succeeding commanding officers would get the backwash. I did not want innocent men to suffer for a guilty man.

    I accept the hon. Member's explanation, but I feel that had he persisted with the War Office they would not have been slow in taking action on the case. This Colonel Gates is, in peace-time, a colleague of mine in industry. He was a Regular officer, and served with considerable distinction at the end of the last war. He resigned his commission, and was called up at the beginning of this war, being on the Reserve of Officers. I understand that he served with considerable success and distinction at Dunkirk. He was commended for his action, he was mentioned in despatches, and in many ways he was considered to be a really good officer. I do hot want to go into the merits of this case, but, as I have said, I think it is very unfortunate if we are to bandy the names of officers, or of other individuals, about in this House, when they have no right of reply. If there is a complaint against an officer in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, it is, I suggest, the duty of an hon. Member to persist with the Department concerned and see that the complaint is investigated behind the scenes, and that such an unfortunate accusation as this is not made. Personally, I had never before heard of any "Hi-de-hi's" or "Ho-de-ho's" but I heard hon. Members discussing the question——

    I have not yet learnt what they are, but I am told that the phrases, whatever they mean, are mentioned in a book called "They Died With Their Boots Clean." I have not read the book, but I am told that, according to the book, it is the practice in certain regiments to have this call sound, or whatever term you would use to describe it. It seems an absurd and ridiculous thing. We have a very special duty to perform. We have great privileges in discussing matters in this House, when we do not give individuals a right to reply.

    There is a proper way of dealing with this which would give the officer in question his right of reply and of making an explanation and a statement. He would not be either hounded out of the Army or hounded into it. I hope that hon. Members will pay particular attention to this aspect and, before raising a matter of this nature, will investigate their facts very fully and take every possible alternative in raising it with the powers-that-be in the War Office before they raise it in this House.

    I make no complaint against my hon. Friend in connection with this case, because he came to me early in October and brought the facts of the case to my attention. I thereupon asked for a report, and I propose to give to the House the salient features of the report or reports received in connection with this particular officer. My hon. Friend is incorrect, however, in suggesting to the House that nothing was done in relation to this case until it had been brought to my attention by him. I find that early in September the brigadier who was over this officer warned Colonel Gates, expressing his dissatisfaction with the methods of training which were in operation in this particular training centre. Following that, on 8th October, a special report was forwarded to the War Office by this brigadier, and on 28th October Colonel Gates was suspended. So that whatever dissatisfaction my hon. Friend may feel as to the ultimate outcome of this case, I can assure him that the incidents that were taking place and the situation that had arisen at this particular training centre, had come to the knowledge of his superior officers some time before he himself was made acquainted with them.

    My hon. Friend has quoted from a training circular that was issued by Colonel Gates to his officers and his warrant officers. I would not for one moment attempt to defend some of the contents of that circular. It contained many objectionable phrases, and I think it is a document which is likely to give a dangerous lead to the officers and warrant officers to whom it was addressed. Far be it from me to attempt to justify its issue. My hon. Friend also drew my attention to the fact that pack-drill had been ordered in the case of those who were defaulters. Pack-drill was abolished years ago throughout the British Army, and I frankly say that it was most improper for this officer to award pack-drill in relation to defaulters. In case there are hon. Members who do not know what pack-drill is, it means that a soldier parades in full marching order with his loaded pack and when he has to do drill in that condition it is called pack-drill. It is wrong for any officer to order pack-drill.

    Pack-drill which was in operation some years ago was awarded only to defaulters, and defaulters were usually confined to privates and excluded officers and non-commissioned officers. But pack-drill, as such, is not permissible in the Army to-day.

    Pack-drill, as such, is forbidden throughout the British Army, which would include soldiers who are in detention barracks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor) has explained the phrases "Hi-de-hi" and "Ho-de-ho," which were phrases used in the novel "They Died With Their Boots Clean." I have not been able to ascertain how they originated but apparently they were phrases used by an instructor in the Guards to his recruits as some means of keeping them on their toes.

    It has been reported that leave was stopped, as alleged by my hon. Friend, in the case of 15 of the most backward men. They were kept back from leave at every passing-out parade and, of course, that was quite contrary to the regulations. In the light of the reports that were made it was decided that this officer was unsuitable to command men. On 27th October he was suspended from his command. At the same time, my information is not quite on all fours with my hon. Friend's information. I am informed—and my informants were not officers connected with the War Office but officers who knew the unit in question—that the unit we are talking about was considered to be a smart unit, and that a good standard of training and discipline characterised the unit as a whole. Be that as it may, the War Office authorities endorsed the suspension of this commanding officer and eventually he was appointed to the staff at the same rank. He was not promoted. [An HON. MEMBER: "I would put him back into the ranks."] That is another matter but I will put the facts before the House so that hon. Members can judge for themselves. It is a matter of great argument whether an officer, who was in command of a unit and who has been taken away and appointed to a position on the staff at the same rank has been promoted. Those of us who have had a little experience of the Army know perfectly well that the average Regular officer of the rank of lieut.-colonel much prefers to be in command of a unit than to have an appointment on the staff——

    Then the mere fact that he loses his regimental appointment means that he would revert to war substantive rank, which would probably be that of major, so that when he took a staff appointment and resumed the rank of lieut.-colonel he was, in fact, promoted.

    That is not quite what happened. He was suspended, and not dismissed, from his post. He was suspended pending the investigation, and as a result of the investigation he was not reinstated in his position as commander of the training unit, because the view was taken—and I think hon. Members will agree rightly taken—that he was not a suitable person to be in command of men. On the other hand, undoubtedly he is an efficient officer, he is extremely experienced, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne has said, he has had some considerable war experience.

    Does he now get an extra 5s. a day over and above what he had before?

    No. He now gets 5s. staff pay, but when commanding a unit he would get command pay which would probably be greater than the 5s. a day staff pay; so that he is worse off financially than he was. The point I am making is that, however strongly one feels about the way in which Colonel Gates conducted the unit when in command of this training centre, it is right to say that most military officers would take the view that he has been punished, strange as it may seem, because he has been deprived of what the average lieutenant-colonel would much prefer to do, and that is command a unit rather than occupy a position on the staff.

    Has the War Office now laid it down as a principle that the staff is to be recruited from officers unfit to command units?

    I do not know whether my hon. Friend is familiar with these problems, but I, like other hon. Members, have had the honour of serving both in a unit and on the staff, and I think every military person would agree that it is quite conceivable that an officer might be unsuitable to be in command of men and yet make a first-class staff officer, and vice versa. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend is not scoring a bull's eye. I have endeavoured to put the facts clearly and objectively before the House, without in any way seeking to extenuate or justify the conduct of this particular officer at the time he commanded this unit. On the other hand, I hope the House will realise that it is asking a good deal to suggest that this officer should have been court-martialled and dismissed from the Army. He has rendered good service in the past and I hope he will do so in the future, and that he will have learned a lesson as a result of the way his case has been dealt with in relation to the complaints of my hon. Friend.

    May I explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman, since he seems to be unaware of the fact, that the terms "Hi-de-hi" and "Ho-de-ho" are part of the ordinary jargon of swing music?

    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.