asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that, having regard to the information furnished by the hon. Member for South-East Leeds by letter, dated 24th May, the arrangements made for the defence of the War Office are, at all times, adequate against every form of enemy activity?

Yes, Sir.

:Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us that it is sufficient during certain hours, at one entrance to the War Office, for only one policeman to be on duty?

I do not want to go into details of the protection afforded at the War Office against possible unwanted intruders, but I have looked into this matter, and that is why I gave the answer I did.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give me, confidentially, the information on this matter, because it is one of considerable concern, and I am far from satisfied?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider a complete reconstruction of the Ministry of Information?

:This matter is to be debated on an early day, when a statement will be made on behalf of the Government.

Till it is debated can the Prime Minister say whether, in view of the lack of effort that is being made, he himself will see whether some real reorganisation can be introduced?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have not been able to keep outside of this discussion.

In view of the possibility of a change of Business this week, will the Prime Minister not wait until the Debate on propaganda before making any announcement of contemplated changes in the Ministry of Information?

Will my hon. Friend not wait until he hears the arrangements?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the great amount of time spent by manufacturers in filling up forms issued by the various Government Departments; and will he see whether it is possible to reduce the demands in this direction by co-ordination?

I am aware that the various schemes of Government control entail the completion of a large number of forms by manufacturers, but I have not heard of any unnecessary duplication. If the hon. Member will inform me in what instances he thinks there is lack of co-ordination, I will gladly have the matter examined.

Is the Minister aware that various Government Departments are asking for similar information through different channels at practically the same time, and can he assure the House that the best use is being made of the information received?

I think the hon. Member had better let me have instances, because it is a question of Government co-ordination and is not purely a Treasury affair.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in requisitioning premises for State purposes, he will cause prior inquiry to be made as to the volume of unavoidable charges payable by the tenant on the building thus requisitioned; and whether such charges, at least, will be met by the State in taking over the premises compulsorily?

:Before premises are requisitioned for official purposes, inquiries are made as to their suitability in various respects and consideration is given to the amount of compensation likely to be payable; but it would be impracticable to delay the taking of possession pending investigation of the exact charges payable by tenants. By unavoidable charges I presume the hon. Member refers to rent, rates and services. The rent, if reasonable, is covered by the compensation payable under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and the Department endeavours to relieve the tenant of liability for rates and services from the date the premises are taken over. If he pays a rent inclusive of rates and services, there is an adjustment with the landlord with a view to his being relieved of such charges. If for any reason this is impracticable, the tenant's claim for compensation would cover rates and services. There are other charges which arise in connection with the requisitioning of premises, e.g., cost of telephones, wages of staff, etc. Allowances are made under Section 2 (1) (d) towards the cost incurred in cancelling arrangements under this head.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that no tenant will be out of pocket?

I cannot guarantee that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when property is taken in the ordinary way it is taken with all its liabilities attached to it? If there are liabilities attached to a property taken by the Government, surely the Government should make arrangements with the persons to whom the liabilities are payable or due and not leave it to the unfortunate tenant whose property is taken?

Every endeavour is made.

Is the Minister aware that, although tenants are deprived of beneficial occupation, they are still liable for the rent, and that, in a number of cases where buildings have been requisitioned more than once, the tenants have been deprived of beneficial occupation more than once, and are still liable for both rents? Does the Minister consider it fair that such arrangements should be made?

Is it not a fact that when premises are requisitioned by the War Office the rents paid by the occupier or owner are not covered by the War Office?

I have given a number of cases where a person is having to pay £50, £60 or £100 more than he is receiving from the people who have taken his property.

Will the Prime Minister ask the Attorney-General to look into the question?

asked the Minister of Economic Warfare how many persons are now employed on the staff of his Department?

The number on 1st June was 1,209.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think this enormous staff necessary in view of the fact that Germany is in occupation of practically the whole of Europe?

I do not regard the staff as enormous. Recent developments have necessitated an increase of the staff, which has to be set against reductions made in other directions. I would mention, for instance, a considerable increase in recent months in the development of shipping control as a weapon of economic warfare, and the establishment of a surpluses department under Sir F. Leith Ross. There has also been a large increase in the number of navicerts since the Government made these compulsory, and finally a large and very welcome increase in the amount of intelligence material handled in the Ministry of Economic Warfare.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the importance of a Government Department is denoted by the number of personnel?

No, I do not say that.

Is it not the case that this is one of the most efficient Departments in the whole of the Government?

asked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds an officer commanding a Home Guard zone, when travelling in uniform on duty, is accorded only a third-class railway warrant when his adjutant, a junior officer of the Army, travelling on the same duty and on the same train, is accorded a first-class warrant: why, when in order to save petrol he travels by railway, he is not even allowed to pay the difference out of his own pocket for a first-class fare; and whether he is aware that it is prejudicial to military discipline to permit such an anomalous position between a senior officer and his junior?

As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden) on 17th June, it is an accepted principle in the Home Guard that officers and other ranks should be treated alike as regards financial privileges. I do not consider that the present practice whereby officers in the Home Guard are given third-class warrants can seriously be regarded as prejudicial to military discipline. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. So far as I am aware, there is no reason why members of the Home Guard should not make up at their own expense the difference between the third-class fare at military rates and the first-class fare at ordinary public rates, if they so desire.

asked the Secretary of State for War why J. K. Wallace, a British-born subject of alien parents, who enlisted in the 340th Company, 35th Anti-Aircraft Battalion, Royal Engineers, Territorial Association, 1st Surrey Rifles, on or about 26th September, 1938, was sent to Nutley, Sussex, and, on 2nd October, 1938, was granted indefinite leave subject to 24 hours' notice of recall, was verbally discharged early in 1939; why this man, having returned his equipment and having been in the pay of the Army, received no discharge papers; and will he take steps to see that this man lies no longer under the suspicion of having been discharged from the Army for improper conduct?

I am having inquiries made into this; case, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

May I remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that in making these inquiries I have a copy of the notification of leave of absence?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any alteration in the date of the publication of Lord Gort's Despatches?

Yes, Sir. Since informing my hon. and gallant Friend on 6th May that Lord Gort's Despatches would be published in the middle of June, I have given very anxious and careful consideration to the date on which publication should take place. I have now come to the conclusion that the present is not an opportune moment, and as a consequence publication will be postponed for the time being.

:Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that no authentic account of these operations has ever been published, and does he not consider that in justice to the troops who were engaged some account of their exploits and feats ought to be published? Is there any special reason why the Despatches should not be published?

I did not consider, after very careful consideration, that the present was an opportune moment for the publication of Lord Gort's Despatches, but I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and when the moment is opportune the Despatches will be published.

Were not all these considerations taken into account when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made his original statement that these Despatches would be published? Has the situation so altered in the meantime as to induce him to make the change he has made?

Broadly speaking, I think that is so. Every consideration was given to this matter when I made my statement, but times do change, and I have looked into the matter from the broadest aspect.

Is not the Minister aware that a good many people were of the opinion that when he made his statement on the Army Estimates it was premature and dangerous?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that military vehicles taking part in military exercises on Derby Day were impeded in a traffic jam; and what steps were taken to prevent this?

I have seen reports in the Press that vehicles taking part in military exercises were held up by traffic congestion on the roads near Newmarket. No military exercises were in fact held in the Newmarket area on the day in question, and I have been unable to discover any foundation for these reports.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial officers since the outbreak of war, have been promoted to the rank of general; and also, how many temporary officer shave reached the same rank?

:One Territorial Army officer has been promoted to the temporary rank of lieutenant-general since the outbreak of war and five Territorial Army officers have been promoted to the acting or local rank of major-general. Three temporary officers have been promoted to the acting or local rank of major-general.

Can the Minister say how this compares with the number of officers promoted in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand contingents?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of his permission for the mention of specific names of regiments engaged in fighting and the heartening effect that these announcements have had on public opinion, it will be possible to include the Regular, yeomanry and mechanised cavalry regiments by name in precisely the same way as that adopted in connection with other branches of the service?

:As I have stated on previous occasions, I am anxious to make public as much information as possible regarding units taking part in active operations, provided that no assistance is thereby afforded to the enemy. As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, the mention of individual cavalry regiments raises rather different problems from the mention of the names of infantry regiments as a result of their different organisation, but I am looking into this aspect of the question further and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the continuous withholding of the individuality of certain regiments is having a very depressing effect on officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men? They think there is a general feeling against the retention of individuality by cavalry regiments.

I am a cavalry officer myself—or, at least, I was—andI cannot believe that any officer, warrant officer or other rank would really wish information which would be of assistance to the enemy to be given away. As I have said, I am looking into the matter further to see whether we can make some improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether all members pf the Territorial Army were medically examined on mobilisation and, if not, for what reasons; and whether medical examination has been omitted in respect of any other and what classes of men in the Army?

The Regulations for the mobilisation of the Territorial Army provide that officers and men of the Territorial Army should undergo a preliminary medical inspection on the first day of mobilisation, and a detailed medical examination as soon as possible after embodiment. All other classes of Army personnel are medically examined on enlistment, with the exception of members of the National Defence Companies who were not medically examined on enlistment in peace but should have been examined on embodiment. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any individual in whose case medical examination was for any reason omitted, I shall be glad to look into it.

Is it not a fact that Territorials were not medically examined in accordance with that regulation, and has it not caused difficulty in connection with pensions and other matters?

I am not aware of that point. I understood that men of the Territorial Army were medically examined in the same way as others, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any case in mind, I will gladly look into it.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my Question, which was whether they have or have not been examined?

I was unaware that the regulation had been broken, and that is why I answered the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question in that way.

asked the Secretary for Mines what steps he is taking to improve the supplies of coal at medium prices for household use in West Lothian and the Edinburgh district; and whether he will arrange that less of this type of coal will be commandeered by priority measures for stocking for future use while householders go short?

The supply of coal for all purposes in Scotland will not equal the full demand for consumption and stocking purposes unless there is a substantial improvement in output. The requirements of essential industrial and transport undertakings must be met even if this involves the diversion of coal from other uses and the only solution to the problem lies in the increased output for which I am appealing.

Would it be possible for the Minister to ensure that when priority orders have been given effect to, they will not completely cut off the supplies of household coal, and with regard to output may we have an assurance that we shall have his assistance in getting men back to the mines when they want to return, for example, from the Army?

With regard to the first point, I can give that assurance, but it may be that later on there will be announced a limitation of supplies. With regard to the second point, I am not to determine where the men come from, but I maintain the view that the men who have gone away from the mining industry will have to return if we are to get the necessary output.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements stated by the Minister of Labour in his broadcast recently will serve to meet the needs of the coming winter?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the difficulties experienced by the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Electricity Company in replenishing their reserve stocks of coal; and whether, since factories and works engaged in essential production rely on this company for their supplies of electricity, he will get into touch with the Central Electricity Board in order that steps may be taken to avoid the possibility of a curtailment of supply to these users?

I understand that this electricity company have hitherto drawn their current from the main grid supply of the Central Electricity Board. Steps are being taken to improve the coal stocks held by grid stations, and I have no reason to believe that these are in any danger of failure or curtailment of supply through shortage of coal. The position at the company's new station, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, is that there is already a substantial tonnage of coal in stock, and the necessary steps will be taken to provide the supplies required when the station comes into operation.

asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he is prepared, as an essential measure for increasing coal production, to end the present county basis of organisation and deal with the coal industry as a national industry;

The Government's position in this matter was clearly stated by the President of the Board of Trade to the Executive Committee of the Mine-workers' Federation on 30th April, as follows:

"The Government regard the subject of rates of wages as a matter for negotiation under the existing machinery, and could therefore not agree to introduce legislation which would compel the establishment of a national board."

Is not the Minister aware that in the discussion on the Essential Work Order the Minister of Labour asked the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) whether he would assist the Ministry in getting transference placed on a national basis instead of a county basis, and is not the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend had to make that request because the mine-owners refused to have this great industry treated as a national industry.

I was not in the House when that Question was put to the hon. Member for Ince, but I have read the report of it. I do not think the two matters are closely related, and I am sure they are not related in the way that the hon. Member suggests.

Is the Minister aware that I asked him whether it is not the case that this is the only major industry—

The hon. Member may not put the same question twice.

With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the same question. Is it not the case that this is the only major industry in the country that is on a county basis, and is it not the Government's responsibility to put an end to that disastrous position?

There are organisations representing both sides, and it is for them to make an approach to any changes in the wage structure in the industry.

Does the Minister recognise that a serious position will occur three months from now, more especially in connection with gas works and electricity works?

Is the Minister aware that, owing to the county scheme, statements have been made in South Yorkshire during the past three days that men placed on emergency work are paid at the rate of only 7s. 6d. a shift, and therefore, lose at least is. 9d. on the basic rate?

That Supplementary Question goes far beyond the Question on the Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any report to make on the progress of the mission undertaken by Mr. Israel Moses Sief, who was granted an exit permit on 12th August, 1940, to enable him to travel to the United States of America and Canada for the purpose of developing export trade from the United Kingdom to the United States of America and Canada?

Yes, Sir. I understand that very considerable orders have been received for delivery to the United States.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the period for which this exit permit was granted?

:It is not an official mission. It is merely an exit permit for business purposes, and so long as business continues to be on a satisfactory scale Mr. Sief will remain in the United States.

Am I to understand that Mr. Sief is not in the United States on behalf of any Department of the Government?

Mr. Sief is there as a representative of his firm and not of the Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Combined Products, Limited, applied, in October, 1940, for a licence to export to Turkey 3,000 boxes of tin-plates needed by a company who are agents for the Turkish Government, and that this licence was repeatedly refused; that United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, in February, 1941, urged Combined Products, Limited to fulfil their contract, but, despite this, the Board of Trade continued to refuse an export licence, and this order was, in effect, executed by the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation; and if he will state why a licence was granted to the corporation which was refused to the company?

I have not completed my inquiries into this matter, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have done so.

:Is it not desirable to exercise great caution in exporting commodities to Turkey in view of the state of neutrality that country has assumed, and having regard, in particular. to the recent pact between Turkey and Germany?

All exports have to be scrutinised in these times, but the Question on the Order Paper refers to some time ago.

Can the Minister indicate when he will be in a position to furnish the information, so that I can re-table the Question?

I think this week.