asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is much disquiet among Austrians in the Pioneer Corps at the attempts being made to separate them out into special units; that it is felt that this change will introduce politics into the Pioneer Corps and that the majority of Austrians would rather serve as part of the British Army; and whether he will reconsider this policy?

:It was understood that the formation of Pioneer companies consisting solely of Austrians was in accordance with the wishes of the Austrians themselves. I am aware, however, that certain difficulties have arisen over the formation of these companies, and the matter is now under review.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what is the explanation for only 3,172 parcels of clothing having been received by British prisoners of war in German prison camps when it was understood that over 40,000 clothing parcels had been dispatched by the Red Cross Society; and what has happened to the missing 37,000 clothing parcels;

(2) what is the explanation for only 78,345 parcels of food having so far reached British prisoners of war in German prison camps, which is less than two parcels per man during the whole of the last eight or nine months instead of a weekly parcel per man as it was understood was being sent; and what is the total number of the parcels dispatched which have not arrived?

Up to the end of February, 32,169 parcels of clothing and 981,612 food parcels for British prisoners of war in Germany had been handed over to the General Post Office by the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John, and, of these 3,554 and over 84,000 respectively, had been acknowledged as received. In addition, 34,000 unclassified parcels are known to have been received. The figures for despatches and receipts, however, cannot be properly compared, as the receipts cover the period up to the middle or end of January only and should be compared with the figures of parcels despatched from this country up to, say, the end of November. Of the parcels for which no receipts have yet been received, therefore, a certain number will have reached the camps since the date of the latest receipts, and, apart from 16,000 parcels known to be lost through enemy action, the rest must be presumed to be in transit. In this connection it must be remembered that it takes about eight weeks for a parcel to reach Germany, and about six weeks for the notification of its receipt at the camp to arrive here.

As it is difficult to follow so many figures when read out, can my hon. Friend say that the War Office are now more satisfied regarding the delivery of parcels to the various camps than was the case a little time ago?

Yes, Sir, I think the position is greatly improved.

May I ask whether the transport is now working between Lisbon and Marseilles?

Yes, Sir, that is so.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any guarantee that after the parcels leave the Red Cross and are handed into Germany they get into the hands of the prisoners?

We have no guarantee except that we do get receipts.

When they are delivered?

We get receipts when they are delivered.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee set up to inquire into War Office procedure has concluded its investigations; whether any recommendations have been made; and if so, whether any internal changes in War Office methods have resulted?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The Committee set up by the former Secretary of State for War is a Standing Committee, and the process of overhaul is a continuous and continuing one. A number of changes, large and small, which it has recommended have already been put into effect, and my right hon. Friend has every hope that there will be a continuous improvement in the administrative system of the War Office and the Army.

Is it possible to acquaint Members of this House with some at any rate of the changes which have been effected on the recommendations of this Committee, without, of course, giving information which would be of value to the enemy?

In his Estimates speech the other day my right hon. and gallant Friend did acquaint the House with one major change, when he said that a branch of the War Office, as it were, had been started in the Northern Command. That is a major change, and one from which we hope to derive great benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken to apportion the blame and to penalise those at fault for the construction of part of a road at a certain military camp which has sunk owing to faulty construction, necessitating the work being done twice over?

I understand that my hon. Friend refers to a case where a short length of the new part of a road which was being widened subsided and had to be remade. The subsidence was caused by the fact that the widening had to be done over a sewer, the trench of which was filled in when the road was originally made a year ago. The extra expense amounted to £20. The extent to which any blame can rightly be apportioned to any individual is being examined.

Is the hon. Member not aware that this was gross carelessness, and is he quite sure—I will take his word for it—that the damage amounted to only £20?

Yes, Sir, my information is that it did amount to only £20. I do not think that it can be described as a case of gross carelessness. It so happened that the amount of motor traffic was greater than had been anticipated, and in consequence the road had to be widened after it had been made.

But surely the engineers knew the sewer was there before they started?

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the total commissions given from infantry Officer Cadet Training Units for the period 27th September to 27th December, 1940, was represented by the sample which showed successful pupils in the ratio of 26 from public and 74 from grammar, council or secondary schools?

The figures to which my hon. Friend refers were obtained by taking at random a proportion of the commissions given from infantry Officer Cadet Training Units. The number of commissions considered for this purpose represented about 20 per cent. of the total number of commissions given from infantry Officer Cadet Training Units during the period in question.

Could the hon. Gentleman say how many public schools they were from?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question now.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disinclination of the Army authorities to transfer to the Royal Engineers, or other suitable branches of the Service, qualified and skilled engineers of various types, on the grounds that they have already undergone useful infantry training; and whether he will give instructions that such delay in placing a man in a branch of the Army where he can be most useful is not in itself a reason for refusing to remedy the matter when it becomes apparent?

I am not aware of any such disinclination on the part of the Army authorities. Every effort is made to place officers and other ranks possessing engineering or other technical qualifications in those arms of the Service where their special knowledge will be of most service to the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, however, that for operational reasons it is not always possible for the transfer to be effected immediately.

I am afraid that I must raise a point of Order before this Question is answered. Alterations which have been made in the Question have—quite unintentionally, no doubt—cast a rather serious reflection on a most admirable, hard-working and efficient body of men. In my Question as submitted, instead of "Department" in the second line, I had written "the financial authorities in the War Office." My reason for putting it in that way was that the word "Department" takes in the military staff of the War Office, for whom I have, naturally, a high regard and respect. My intention was to criticise the financial authorities, and I should like to know how I can make this clear and remedy this misconception in the minds of the military staff?

It seems that the hon. and gallant Member's explanation has achieved its object.

I am grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's explanation, but I must warn him that it does not materially affect the terms of the reply which I propose to give him. I am unable to accept as facts the generalisations in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Does my hon. Friend realise that I do not accept his statement on either side as an answer? Will he consider not restricting the powers of senior officers with regard to money when they are actually entrusted with far more important business, namely, the question of men's lives? This is a very, very grave challenge that I make.

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary Question is a little bit out of date, because as long ago as November last considerable powers were given to senior officers for dealing with financial matters.

Can my hon. Friend say exactly how much a divisional commander or a corps commander is allowed to authorise in the way of expenditure without reference to higher authorities?

I should like to have notice of that question.

Can the hon. Member assure the House that his conventional reassurance by no means prejudges the consideration by the War Office of the very serious allegations made by the Select Committee, which this House has not yet had an opportunity to debate?

Certainly, it does not prejudge any such consideration. We had in fact been considering all the points made by the Select Committee for some months before they reported.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken to accelerate the settlement of claims for compensation arising out of the requisitioning of premises by military authorities?

The settlement of claims has been considerably accelerated in recent months as a result of large increases of professional staff and various administrative adjustments designed to equalise the burden between and within Commands, and I anticipate further improvement in the near future.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable hardship that is being caused to large numbers of people whose claims have been outstanding for anything up to a year?

I do not think there is any reason why anybody should suffer hardship, because the Claims Commission has authority to make a grant even before settlement of the claim if hardship is being experienced. If my hon. Friend has any particular case which he cares to bring to my notice, I will look into it.

One claim was put in four months ago and has not been heard of since.

Does my hon. Friend not think that the War Office should continue to pay rent on commandeered houses until they are ready for occupation again, so that a person who is dependent on the rent of the house should not lose income when he is not getting rent from the War Office or from an incoming tenant?

The War Office is governed in these matters by an Act of Parliament. Obviously it is not possible for us to go beyond the limits which Parliament has set.

The method for the payment of claims by the War Office is not being followed by the Air Ministry. It is true that there are many claims against the War Office made over six months ago, and is it not about time to hasten this matter?

As I have tried to explain, it is being expedited very greatly. Already a large percentage of these claims have been settled, and I hope that that percentage will be rapidly increased.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the practice of imposing collective punishment on a group of soldiers for the offence of an individual; that this frequently induces the group in turn to punish the culprit who has involved them in the collective penalty; and whether he is satisfied that this process should continue?

If, as I assume, my hon. Friend refers to the system whereby barrack damages which cannot be traced to individuals become a general charge against the men of the unit, I see no reason to discard this provision, which is a necessary safeguard against unwarranted expenditure of public funds. Every effort is made to fix responsibility on individuals, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not always possible with regard to damage of this kind.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his Reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in fact this system of collective punishment is imposed not merely in regard to damage to barracks but in regard to other matters as well; and will he make some inquiry?

Certainly I will; if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I shall be very glad of them.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the desire of many of those serving in the Pioneer Corps to join the Fighting Services, especially as air pilots; and will he permit such transfer, commissioned or otherwise, and under what circumstances, conditions and safeguards?

The Answer to the first part of the Question is, in the affirmative. Transfer to other arms or corps of the Army and to the other two Services is open to suitable personnel of the Pioneer Corps. The conditions applicable to such transfers consist of certain qualifications in respect of age, nationality, medical category and technical proficiency which vary according to the arm, corps or Service to which transfer is sought.

Does the qualification about nationality rule out enemy aliens who are friendly to this country and who are allowed in the Pioneer Corps?

No, Sir, I do not think it would. Every case is considered on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances under which much of the land of Scotland has passed into the hands of the present owners, with a view to action to bring it into the fullest measure of cultivation?

:I am not quite clear as to how an inquiry into titles to land ownership would have any bearing upon the bringing into better cultivation of the soil. Agricultural Executive Committees already have the power to require owners and occupiers to carry out cultivation or other measures necessary to secure, in accordance with Government directions, the proper utilisation of the land in war time irrespective of by whom, or the method by which, it was acquired.

Is the Minister prepared to consider an investigation made by Mr. Thomas Johnston, who declared that this land was acquired by graft, rapine and murder, and is it not desirable that this land should be taken back out of the hands of those who have got it by such means? If the Minister would like to look at the investigation, I will give him a copy of the report.

The answer to the first part of the Supplementary Question is in the affirmative. The second part of the Supplementary Question does not arise.

Would it not meet the desire of the hon. Member if the Secretary of State for Scotland made arrangements to collect an economic rent?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that on 28th July, 1938, his predecessor stated, in reply to a Question, that in Edinburgh, out of approximately 27,000 children inoculated against diphtheria since 1924, 140 had suffered from diphtheria and three had died; and, in view of the availability of the figures at that time, can he explain why they are not available to-day with the additional figures for the remainder of 1938, 1939 and 1940?

As explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 4th March, the figures available were approximate only. At my request, however, the medical officer of health for Edinburgh has extracted from his records corresponding figures for the years 1938, 1939 and 1940 which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the Official Report. These figures are also approximate, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, complete statistics are now being kept for Edinburgh.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is conversant with the arrangements regarding the assistance to be given to farmers in Fife by children in the ingathering of crops; whether he is satisfied that the arrangements will permit of a continuous summer holiday for the children; whether any age limits have been fixed for the children to be employed; and whether any machinery will be devised for the adjustment of wage standards and hours of labour?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The arrangements made in Fife by the county council do not permit of a continuous summer holiday for the children in all schools, since, in the interests of food production, a break is necessary in certain areas; but the total period of the holiday will not be curtailed. The minimum age limit of employment is 12 years. The question of wages is for the district wages committee to consider, and maximum hours of labour are fixed by the county by-laws. I am, however, making inquiries as to wages paid to young children.

I take it that there is no suggestion of a shortage of adult labour in this county?

I could not answer that Question without notice.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can explain the recent shortage of coal experienced in West Lothian; and whether effective steps are being taken to ensure adequate supplies in future?

From the inquiries I have so far been able to make, I am satisfied that there has been no general shortage of coal in West Lothian. Supplies have been coming forward regularly from the collieries and it would appear that any local shortages which may have occurred have been effectively met. I have no reason to believe that supplies of coal for current consumption will not be maintained. Investigations are still being made in certain cases which my hon. Friend has brought to my notice.

Is the Minister aware that certain co-operative societies who had considerable stocks have had those stocks depleted, because of the lack of supplies; and is he also aware that, while stocks are not coming forward, the public look to him to ensure their supplies?

I am surprised that the hon. Member should rise to give me that information. It is perfectly true that stocks are being used in all parts of the country. They were built up for the purpose of securing a reserve which would be available in the difficult winter period.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now indicate the result of the meeting between the coalowners of Scotland and the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers for the adoption of a policy of 100 per cent. organisation in Scotland?

This matter is still under discussion, and I am going to Glasgow to-morrow to attend a further meeting of the parties, at which it is hoped that it may be found possible to arrive at a reasonable settlement.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the city of Bath Electricity Department had con tracts for coal supplies from the Forest of Dean and South Wales coalfields; that they have now been informed that these contracts cannot be fulfilled and that they must obtain coal from Durham coalfields; and, in view of the transport difficulties, and, as freightage costs alone will amount to 18s. per ton and the price of coal has already risen 5s. 9d. per ton since the outbreak of war, he will see that the original contracts are fulfilled?

Deliveries under the current contracts with these two colliery districts are proceeding and there is every expectation that the colliery companies concerned will be able to meet these contractual obligations in full. I am afraid, however, that it would not be practicable to require them to make good deficiencies that may be outstanding on contracts which have already expired. Further, it may not be possible to provide adequate supplies for undertakings in the South Western area except from the Northern districts, where suitable coal is available.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to enable renters or exhibitors to conform with quota requirements under the Films Act, he can state what steps are being taken to maintain British production of feature or short films at the highest possible level?

I am well aware of the difficulties facing all sections of the film trade in present circumstances and of the need to maintain the production of British films at the highest level consistent with the national interest. The whole question is under active consideration, and I will make a statement on the subject as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that sufficient man-power is made available to keep alive this most important industry?

I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the subject at this moment.

Will the Minister remember that, if film technicians are called up, it will be impossible to make long films or short films, and will he make the strongest representations about it to the Minister of Labour?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as a result of the curtailment of supplies, many women and men above military age carrying on business as small shopkeepers are under-employed; and whether, to ensure full use of their services, he will divert to them, for distribution, the goods now being sold by Woolworth's, Marks and Spencer and similar stores, thus releasing large numbers of young women well suited by age for war work, and making available large open ground-floor premises for storage or industrial purposes?

I am aware that there are some small shopkeepers who are now under-employed. I think that the remedy suggested by my hon. Friend is not in the public interest; I have every reason to suppose that the chain stores will make their appropriate contribution towards the demand for munitions labour.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of small shopkeepers have been compelled to close their businesses to take up military service, and will he give an assurance that the chain stores will not be more leniently treated?

That is a matter for the Ministry of Labour. I understand that discussions are now in progress with certain chain stores on the subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the scheme for the concentration of industry has no application whatever to retail industry, that the retail industries' hardships will be greatly added to by the concentration of manufacturing industry, and can he say what steps he proposes to take to meet those additional hardships, which are undoubtedly going to fall upon retail industries of all kinds?

I think my hon. Friend is misinformed on that subject. The concentration of industries does not reduce production below present figures.

What steps are being taken to find jobs for those people who will lose their employment before these businesses are closed?

I beg to give notice of my intention to raise the matter at an early date.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the copy of a resolution passed at a quarterly meeting of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, representing 900,000 families, urging the more equitable distribution of foodstuffs by rationing of all essential foodstuffs at present non-rationed; and whether he has any statement to make?

My Noble Friend recognises the necessity of ensuring equitable distribution of important foodstuffs that are at present unrationed. A scheme for jam, marmalade, treacle and syrup was brought into operation on 17th March. Plans for controlling the distribution of other foodstuffs are being formulated, but it is not practicable to apply the same methods of control in all cases or to bring all the controls into operation at the same time.

Will the Minister consider the rationing of goods such as cheese or sweetened milk, to avoid the necessity for people to stand in queues and also to enable poor people who cannot afford to buy in advance to get their share?

I think that point was covered in my answer.

Is the Minister aware that multiple shops have a great advantage over Co-operative stores in respect of restricted goods and that Co-operative stores are demanding the rationing of these and other goods on the basis of actual registrations?

(for Mr. Graham White) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether consideration has been given to the advisability of instituting one or more meatless days a week in restaurants and catering establishments generally?

Yes, Sir, but, as I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 17th December, any necessary restriction in the consumption of meat in restaurants and catering establishments can best be secured by controlling the issue of meat to them.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that the maximum assistance is being given to the bee-keeping industry, in view of the potentialities of Scotland for the production of honey?

I do not know what kind of assistance my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but if he could let me have any suggestions, I can promise that they will be carefully considered. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that the Ministry of Food already makes available to bee-keepers supplies of sugar for the purpose of winter and spring feeding, and that the staffs of each of the agricultural colleges in Scotland include lecturers in bee-keeping, who, with their assistants, are available to give instruction and advice to bee-keepers throughout the country.

Will the Minister bear in mind that bee-keeping is still regarded in many quarters as on the same level as the keeping of rabbits or white mice and that it would be well if a definite campaign were started, possibly with a subsidy, to convince people that honey is an easily assimilated and valuable food for infants and children, as well as for ordinary grown-ups? Something is definitely required to bring home to the people that honey is a valuable war-time and peace-time food.

Will the Minister also consider whether this is the proper time to carry out such a campaign?

Is the Minister aware of the potentialities of heather honey?

I have heard of heather honey.

asked the Post master-General whether he has any information regarding the non-receipt of letters by Private Haydn Hayward, British prisoner of war 20202, Llullay XXA, (2-A), Germany, since last July, although at least two each week have been sent from home since that date; and whether he will make further inquiries with a view to remedying this grievance?

The correct title of this camp in which Private Hayward is a prisoner of war is Stalag XXA (2A). I cannot say whether the use of the incorrect title quoted by my hon. Friend accounts for the non-receipt of letters, but I have been unable to discover any other reason. A few other cases have been brought to my notice where the inward service is working satisfactorily but none of the outward letters appear to reach the prisoner. I have initiated special inquiries in these cases and I will do the same in the case of Private Hayward.

Does the hon. Member appreciate that in my own constituency quite a number of parents are suffering extreme anxiety through the reason mentioned in the Question?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is also very anxious that everything should be done to alleviate the lot of our prisoners of war in regard to postal matters, and if my hon. Friend will bring to my notice cases similar to that of Private Hayward, we will have special inquiries made.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the clearness of his enunciation, and express the hope that other Ministers will copy it?

Can the hon. Member have provided in all post offices notices and leaflets instructing people wishing to communicate with prisoners of war abroad how they may do so, as there is very wide ignorance on the subject?

This information can be obtained at any post office, but the hon. Lady's reference to this matter will be borne in mind.

Have the revised leaflets giving particulars of the sending of letters and parcels now been distributed to the post offices throughout the country? There has been a great delay in letting some of the post offices have them.

I think that is another question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Whitaker's Almanack contains full particulars of how to write to German prisoners in this country but not a word about how to write to British prisoners in Germany?

asked the Postmaster- General whether he is aware of the great delay in the delivery of letters from officers and men serving in the Middle East; and whether he will take immediate steps to have such delivery expedited and thus allay the anxieties of wives and relatives in this country?

I am aware that, owing to the interruption of the normal routes, the time of transmission of both surface and air mails from the Middle East has, unfortunately, been increased. This matter is engaging the constant attention of my right hon. Friend who is considering various expedients for improvement with the Departments concerned.

Is the hon. Member aware that in many cases relatives in this country have received no word at all from serving soldiers in the Middle East since last September?

I am afraid that there have been unfortunate delays, but my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates that there are many factors out with the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend, and until he has completed his consultation with the other Departments concerned no further announcement can be made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the claims made by the Engineering Industries' Association that, as a result of an interview with a member of the Cabinet, they have secured important concessions in connection with Excess Profits Tax; and whether he will furnish details of these concessions?

I am not aware that any claim has been made by the Engineering Industries' Association that they have secured important concessions in connection with Excess Profits Tax. I may say that I have been approached with a view to receiving a deputation from the association about certain questions in connection with Excess Profits Tax, but the request has been refused on the grounds that I have already received representations from bodies such as the Federation of British Industries and the Chambers of Commerce which cover the whole field of industry on the subject of the effect of E.P.T. on production.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation is seeking to obtain members on the basis that, through the intervention of Cabinet Ministers, they had secured from the right hon. Gentleman concessions in respect of Excess Profits Tax?

No, Sir. I have looked into this document, and I do not think it bears out the statement which the hon. Member makes.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the receipts from the Purchase Tax to the latest available date in respect of clothing, footwear and furniture, respectively?

Separate figures in respect of the articles mentioned by my hon. Friend are not available.

Although the House recognises that it is not possible on the occasions of the Defence Estimates being presented to enter into elaborate discussion, as we might desire to do, nevertheless, we ought not to let these Estimates pass without bringing to the attention of the Secretary of State for War and the War Office certain internal matters affecting the Army. We are, however, limited in our Debate. Many of us would, of course, like to know something about the strategical aspects of the situation but, obviously, we cannot discuss matters which would be of considerable interest to the enemy. But I suggest there are matters of great importance to serving men and officers which this House ought to consider and to which the Secretary of State for War ought to give his sympathetic consideration, towards effecting some improvements in the conditions under which the Army is serving.

Before I come to these detailed aspects, I would like to say that I welcomed the remarks of the Secretary of State which he made on the last occasion when these Estimates were before the House that Lord Gort's Despatches would shortly be publish. Those members of the British Expeditionary Force who served under Lord Gort's command will welcome that statement, and, although reasons have been given in the past for not publishing these despatches, namely, that they might convey some information of use to the enemy, there is now being published a growing volume of books of reminiscences by members of that Force who are disclosing various events which took place during that campaign which must be known to the enemy, and, therefore, I think the publication of Lord Gort's Despatches will serve a very useful purpose and one in which the whole of the British Expeditionary Force will be interested. The Secretary of State could not say when these despatches will be published, but I hope that it will be very soon.

The first point I wish to bring before the House is the question of pay and allowances of all ranks. This was touched upon briefly by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Leeds (Major V. Adams) when the Estimates were previously before the House, and it is a very delicate subject. We know that those of us who advocate an increase of pay for the private soldier are asking for something which would be a burden upon the Treasury, but, nevertheless, I do not think that we ought to be stopped from advocating that increase merely because of that reason. It is evident to those of us who follow the public Press that large increases in pay are being granted to all ranks and trades now serving the country in the civilian sphere.

We know that fire-watchers, whose job is very similar to the job undertaken by members of the Army in so far as the risk is concerned, are demanding, and are often getting, quite large rates of pay for it. I do not wish to bring down the level of wages but to increase it in so far as it is commensurate with the public weal—but, nevertheless, I think that if we are going to allow these continued demands from civil industry, often working close to or even shoulder to shoulder with the soldier, then, unless we recompense the soldier to some extent, we shall create conditions which will cause some discontent in the ranks of the Army.

Consider the pay of the private soldier. He gets 2s. 6d. a day, and after six months' service, if he is proficient, he gets an extra 6d. per day war proficiency pay, that is, 21s. a week. I do not say that in the case of the single man that is not adequate. Naturally he would like more, and if we could afford it, we ought to pay more because his service is very arduous and often very dangerous, but in the case of married soldiers, I believe that the rates of pay and the allowances to the dependants, whether they be wives or mothers and fathers, are totally inadequate. At the present moment we have fixed scales laid down by Parliament. In addition, there is a Committee which is administered by the Minister of Pensions for granting some supplementary allowance in the case of dependants who can prove that they are in need of some additional allowance, and it is very disquieting to know that of the 300,000 or more cases which have come before the Hardship Committee one-third have been turned down. There is no doubt that a considerable proportion of that one-third has been turned down because of the application of the household means test which we are now in the process of partly eliminating in the case of those who are not connected with the Army.

I quite recognise that the Secretary of State for War has told the House that he is now considering an alteration of the circumstances under which the dependants of serving soldiers who apply to that Hardship Committee will get treatment somewhat similar to that which old age pensioners, and others who come before the Assistance Board will get when the Determination of Needs Bill is passed through Parliament. I welcome that statement, and I hope it will be effective, but whether it will or not, I suggest that the Secretary of State ought to look into the question of allowances to dependants of serving soldiers. With the liabilities which a wife, mother or father may have to continue while a husband or son is serving in the Army, I do not think the allowance is sufficient, and I hope we shall have an opportunity at no late date of considering the matter again. I may say, in passing, that I do not expect the Secretary of State to give me an elaborate answer to all the points I am putting before him to-day, but I do ask that the War Office should investigate these points which are brought before the House of Commons and not merely leave them to be filed until a Member, or a number of Members, or some of those serving in the Army, bring them to his notice in a forcible manner. The Secretary of State for War and the House must not forget that civilians have a powerful influence behind them when they make demands on this House or on industry for increases of pay. They have trade union organisations which at the present time are very powerful indeed, and all of us know that any representations by responsible trade union officials to-day are very carefully considered. In the Army there is nothing of that sort—and we do not ask for that—but, nevertheless, the Army should not be in a position of being, as it were, forgotten men merely because they have no organisation to represent their views.

It is interesting, on this question of pay and allowances, to note something which appeared in yesterday's "Daily Telegraph." It was a piece of news which was given out by a Swedish Member of Parliament who has just returned from Germany. Among other things he says this:

"In cases where employés are serving with the colours their former employers are compelled to continue to pay 80 per cent. of the employe's earnings to his family."

That is happening in Germany. Many of us have dismissed the New Order in that country completely and—although I have not checked this information, I well believe it, from my knowledge of Germany—if 80 per cent. of civilian earnings are paid by employers in Germany to the dependants of serving soldiers, then I suggest that the Secretary of State for War might consider introducing a little of that New Order into this country, although perhaps we might adopt different methods of enforcing it. The House knows that at the present time a number of employers do quite voluntarily make up a soldier's pay to his civilian earnings, and it is a matter of discontent, where one soldier is doing the same work as another, to find that he is getting considerably less pay through circumstances over which he has no control, namely, that he was either unemployed before he joined up or his employer is not sufficiently well off to make up his pay to what he earned in civilian life.

I would like to say something, quite briefly, about officers. I think the time has come when we ought to consider the position of the married officer under 30. The House probably knows that a married officer under that age, if he is a subaltern, gets 3s. a day marriage allowance, and I say that that bears very hardly on many young married officers who incurred serious liabilities while they were earning good salaries in civil life before joining up. Many of them were not called up; they voluntarily enlisted. Let us compare the marriage allowance for a subaltern officer under 30 with the marriage allowance of a private soldier. A private soldier's wife gets 18s. a week, while the subaltern's wife receives 21s. a week. There is a large discrepancy there, and I do know that many of these younger officers feel they are not being fairly treated. I can say this from the knowledge I have of these officers and the correspondence I receive. They are very reticent about voicing their grievances in the same way as a private soldier who does not always understand King's Regulations and, even if he does, has no hesitation in writing to a Member of Parliament or getting his wife to do so. The officer does hesitate to write in the same way to a Member of Parliament or to get somebody to place his views before the Secretary of State, but that does not mean to say that we should neglect his interests.

There is one other matter concerning officers, and that is the outfit allowance granted to newly commissioned officers. I think that at the moment it is £30. I was looking at the pass-book I had when I was promoted to commissioned rank in the last war, and I find that on 18th April, 1917, I was credited with £42 for outfit allowance. There is a big margin between the amount which was granted to me then and the amount which a subaltern receives in these days. Now, with the Purchase Tax superimposed on the charge made by those who make his kit, the newly commissioned officer cannot possibly equip himself properly on the money which is at present granted to him. If it were possible to put the officer on the same basis as other ranks and grant him a free kit, that might solve the problem, but so long as you allow officers to buy their clothes and equipment from a variety of private suppliers, who have a variety of charges, I think you ought to fix a sum which will not place them under a burden merely because they take the King's commission instead of remaining in the ranks.

There are a few points I wish to raise on the question of pay accounting. In the case of officers there has been a considerable improvement by centralising the accounts of officers at Manchester. There remains, however, the anomaly that an officer can draw his pay, either through the Army agents, or through his own private bank, or directly from the Command paymaster. The result is that when the question crops up—as it often does, though less frequently now than formerly—of an officer not having received his pay properly, and when the matter goes to the War Office, they have, first of all, to consider how that officer should be drawing his pay. Now that we are having standardisation and rationalisation in industry the War Office might consider whether it would not be well to insist on officers being credited with their pay through one channel only, instead of allowing the variations which now exist. It does not matter to the officer whether he gets his pay through the Army agents, which is probably the best method, or, through a private bank or through the Command paymaster, but for the sake of simplicity and the better working of the machinery, and in the interests of the War Office itself, it would be worth considering whether all officers' pay should not be issued from one source.

In the case of officers' allowances there is a different system. These come through the Command paymasters. The result is that when an officer is changing from one Command to another there is delay and sometimes even confusion with regard to these allowances. Many officers live up to the hilt, as it were, of their pay and allowances. Many of them have no private resources and they want their allowances whether travelling allowances, or field allowances, or lodging, fuel and light allowances, paid quickly and on the nail. I suggest that some different method might be adopted, so that officers' allowances could be dealt with in the same way as officers' pay through one channel and not necessarily through the various Commands. As to the men's pay accounts, I have no hesitation in saying that there is considerable delay and confusion under the existing system. I wonder how many of the pay accounts of "other ranks"—N.C.O.'s and men—are really up to date. I had a letter the other day, only one of many on this subject, which said:

"Ninety or more of our chaps, myself included, are notified that we are in debt, the amounts ranging from a few shillings to £15."

That sort of thing ought not to happen. Consider the case of a private soldier, who is making an allotment to his wife and who, possibly, has only 10s. 6d. left for himself, if he is confronted with a piece of paper, which has come down from the regimental paymaster, telling him that he is in debt to the extent of £15. Away goes the best part of his pay for many weeks. This matter has been complicated by the accounts of the British Expeditionary Force in France, but the system adopted by the regimental paymasters is, in any case, I submit, hopelessly out of date. The unit, whether it is a battery, squadron or a battalion is more or less self-contained for operational purposes, but when it comes to the question of pay, there is a pay clerk, an N.C.O. in that unit and in his hands is left the whole question of the pay of that unit. Over him there is the regimental paymaster and when any question of pay arises the matter has to be sent through the usual channels to the paymaster, and it may be six weeks before a reply is received showing the state of a man's account. I was speaking recently to a battery commander who brought his battery back from France and he told me that when he got the accounts from the regimental paymaster they almost caused a riot among the men, and he had to send officers to the regimental paymaster's office to straighten things out.

The method of accountancy could be improved in various ways. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into that question now, but I would put this point to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Commanding officers have quite enough to do in the training of their men, especially in these days when training is so rigorous. All these jobs connected with pay and welfare and the rest of it which are imposed on commanding officers and for which only limited facilities are at their disposal, are interfering to a certain extent with training. I believe it would be possible to relieve commanding officers of many of these duties. In the days of the Crimean War or the Boer War the commanding Officer was looked upon, so to speak, as a kind of father to his men, but if we are to move with the times, we should relieve the commanding officer of many of the responsibilities to which I have referred so that he can devote more attention to the training of the men. Speaking from my own knowledge of commanding officers, I feel sure that none of them would object to the responsibility for matters such as I have indicated, being taken off their shoulders. An hon. Member seated near me has reminded me of the circumstances which prevail in industry in regard to the payment of men. I will not take up time in going into that comparison, but I feel sure that if civilian workers found on a Friday that there was not in their pay envelopes what they regarded as sufficient, they would be very annoyed and would not hesitate to raise the question at the pay office. I suggest that these matters in relation to Army pay require examination.

I turn now to another question, namely, that of traffic control which has been brought prominently before the House by recent Questions and answers. Reference has been made to the rate of accidents to civilians, and I admit that that is a serious problem, but there is another aspect, namely, the operational side, which I would like to stress on this occasion. I saw something of this traffic difficulty while I was in France. It is true that in a retreat one cannot expect to have the same well-ordered arrangements for traffic as would be possible when an army is stationary or is advancing, but I think if one were to generalise about the reasons for the defeat of the Allied forces in France one could put one's finger on a vital spot in singling out the lack of control of traffic. I suggest that, apart from the question of damage to life and property, the right hon. Gentleman should look into this matter from the point of view of its operational importance. We should have a larger corps of mobile military police in order to control traffic. Accidents, I believe, are mainly caused not by large columns but by small groups and isolated vehicles charging about the country apparently with no idea of where they are going or how they are to get there. As one who served in France on the staff of a corps, I believe there is not enough supervision by both divisional and corps staff officers of the traffic problem and that more attention ought to be paid to it. Very elaborate movement tables are issued, but one can safely say that they are not always rigidly adhered to. Some improvement in this connection is possible.

We have heard little about the committee which was set up to inquire into the administration of the War Office. I would say in passing that it might be a good idea to bring back from the Forces some of those Members of Parliament who are now serving. They have acquired a large volume of experience and I would go so far as to say that at present quite a few of them are doing jobs which it is not necessary that they should be doing. The regimental officer is no doubt doing a good job of work, but many of the Members of Parliament who are now serving are doing purely administrative jobs that could be just as well done from the Army itself.

Does the hon. Member consider that a Member of Parliament does better work here than in the Army?

I am expressing my point of view, which is based on my experience in this war as well as in the last war. Some of the Members of Parliament who are now serving could be of more use to the Secretary of State if they were in the House or were co-opted on to a committee of the sort to which I have referred. I feel that much more centralization should be carried down from the higher formations to divisions and areas. I believe that too much power is kept up above instead of being decentralised down below. It may interest the House to know that the amount of money granted to a corps headquarters for the purpose of buying incidentals before proceeding overseas is £60. When one remembers that a corps headquarters controls from 70,000 to 75,000 troops, a grant of £60 for buying very essential incidentals that are not issued through the Ordnance is a very small amount. The attitude of the War Office is, and has been for many years past, not to trust the smaller formation commanders. I want to make a plea for a wider decentralisation of powers.

I should like in passing to make some remarks about the amounts paid to housewives when soldiers are billeted on them. Those rates were fixed on 31st March, 1939, before war broke out and before prices rose. I remember that even at that time some hon. Members voiced their apprehensions about the scale of rates, which I do not think have been increased since then, and which are 8d. for breakfast, 11d. for dinner, 3d. for tea, and 5d. for supper. If one compares these rates with the charges made by local authorities which have set up communal restaurants, one must agree that the housewives are not paid sufficient. If one wants to have a good dinner in a communal restaurant, one has to pay something like 9d. or 10d. These communal restaurants have the advantage of being highly organised, and do not do their catering on the small scale of the housewife. I believe that housewives willingly do their best for the soldiers and give them the best possible fare which they can provide out of their own resources, but it is not equitable to impose in this way on the generosity of the housewives. If soldiers are to be billeted on them, the housewives should be paid a fair price for feeding the soldiers. It is the job of the Army to feed the troops, and they should not throw that job on to the housewife.

I want to say a few words, without going into details, about Army welfare. At the present time, it is very scrappy, but it is growing up. In the main it has been left to voluntary organisations, which are doing their job very well indeed; and it is only recently that the War Office have made a grant to those voluntary organisations, a grant which is very small in comparison with the work that is being carried out by them. At the present time, N.A.A.F.I. are making huge profits. At the end of the last war the profits made by N.A.A.F.I. were distributed to various Army institutions, and the amount so divided was a very large one. Why not link up now the profits which N.A.A.F.I. make—and which are provided by the troops—with the welfare of the Army? Now is the time when the troops want the welfare, and it is now that these millions of soldiers should have the benefit of any profits that are being made by N.A.A.F.I. These profits should not be left to accumulate for distribution, apparently in some haphazard manner and according to how the War Office feel, after the war. In this connection I should welcome, as I think the House would—and as I know the Army would—a little more light on the subject of the profit-making capacities of N.A.A.F.I. The matter seems to be wrapped in mystery, and when it is a question of such a big organisation, a trading monopoly frequently given to the exclusion of private traders who probably could often do better than N.A.A.F.I., I think we ought to know more about the operations of this Institute.

I could bring before the House other matters which I believe are a source of trouble, confusion, grousing or grievance. At the present time the troops are first-class material. They are as good as any troops that we had from 1914 to 1918. There is this difference, that most of them have been called up instead of having volunteered, as they did at the outbreak of the last war, but that does not mean that they are not as good and willing soldiers as were the soldiers in the last war. They are willing because they believe that there was no alternative but to submit themselves voluntarily to Army discipline for the purpose of winning the war. But they have their grievances, and no amount of King's Regulations will stop them voicing their grievances. It is impossible for the commanding officer of the unit to deal with all of them. In his statement last week, the Secretary of State said that officers are told to assist their men as far as possible in welfare and social matters. What does this amount to? What instruction does the young officer get in finding his way through all these different matters which at times confuse even Members of Parliament? Probably they hear a couple of lectures on social welfare. It is impossible to expect an officer, in the course of his job of training his men, to deal with matters of this sort. That is why I bring these matters before the House, and that is why the House ought to consider them. They ought not to be neglected merely because there is no reference to them in the Press. I know how many letters are being received by the different welfare organisations in different parts of the country. Thousands of letters are sent to those organisations concerning matters of the sort I have brought to the attention of the House.

The Secretary of State had a very good reception when he introduced the Estimates. In spite of our feelings in bygone days, we want to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman every opportunity of proving himself to be a first-class administrator of the War Office. We realise the difficulties in which he is working in war time conditions, we know the truth of the saying that one must not swop horses while crossing a stream, but I believe that many of the matters to which I have referred can be remedied, and it is on this basis that we shall judge the Secretary of State if he holds his position until the time when the Estimates are introduced next year.

I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), but he made a general speech on War Office matters, and, therefore, I think it right that I should remind the House that the practice which applies in Committee of Supply for a wide Debate on Vote A does not apply to the Report stage. On a previous occasion, at the request of hon. Members, Mr. Speaker expressly agreed that he would allow a general Debate on Vote A provided there was no Debate in Committee upon it, and provided that the House desired or assented to that course. On this occasion there has been no Debate in Committee on Vote A; and I have some reason to assume that it is with the general desire of the House that there should be a wide Debate on the Vote to-day. But I must point out to hon. Members that in future, strictly speaking, a Debate on any other matters than the numbers of men would be out of Order on the Report stage of Vote A.

I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have agreed to a wide Debate on this matter. May I say that it is particularly necessary, in view of the fact that we have no detailed Estimates which would give Members an opportunity of specifying the heads under which they are speaking? I think that the House will agree that you, Sir, have been very generous in your Ruling.

That is quite right, but hon. Members will understand that I felt bound to point out that the Debate ought not to be allowed to proceed without my mentioning that point.