asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any further statement on the treatment of British prisoners of war by the Japanese.

I have no further statement to make at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, in view of the statement that he made on this subject in the House a short time ago, of the report in this morning's papers from the Papal Delegate in Tokio, to the effect that the conditions in these camps are not as bad as my right hon. Friend reported?

I have read it, and I am checking up the camps to which the report may refer. I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I need hardly say that, if we get better news, we shall be only too delighted to give it.

Will my right hon. Friend make it very prominent that he is doing all he can? I am receiving hundreds of letters from people asking that the Government should do more, when we know they are doing all they can.

We are really doing all we can and are working in close collaboration with the United States and Netherlands Governments, each trying to help the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the special centre to deal with inquiries from relatives of prisoners of war in the Far East has been set up.

Yes, Sir. The Government have now opened such a bureau. It is called the Prisoner of War (Far East) Inquiry Centre and is situated at Curzon Street House, Curzon Street, London, W.I. As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend of 26th April, it will deal particularly with inquiries from relatives of prisoners of war in the Far East who are uncertain which Department to approach. A handbook for the information of relatives and friends of prisoners of war and interned civilians in the Far East is in course of preparation and copies, when printed, will be placed in the Library of the House. Copies of the handbook will be supplied free to each recorded next-of-kin and it will also be on sale to the public.

Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when they are likely to be available?

I think very soon indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that ground staffs take a personal pride in the pilots and machines which they serve, which makes for maximum efficiency, he will take the necessary steps to stop the growing practice of the pooling of ground staffs.

No, Sir. The system of pooling ground staffs, which has been introduced in varying degrees in the different Commands, has been dictated by the need for the utmost economy in the use of manpower and equipment. I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of the consideration to which he refers has not been overlooked.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that men who have recently returned to this country from Malta, having seen service there for two years and more, are again being posted for oversea service before others who have seen no oversea service; and will he give this his sympathetic consideration.

I sympathise with the object which the hon. Member has in view and can assure him that, wherever possible, an overseas tour is followed by a full period of duty on the home establishment. Operational requirements must, however, remain the decisive factor, and it is sometimes unavoidable that experienced personnel or those possessing particular technical or trade qualifications should be posted for a second overseas tour before others who have not yet been abroad.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a "full period"?

I said a full period of duty on the home establishment. After a man has been oversea, he should have a full period of duty on the home establishment before he goes out again.

How long?

It varies.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is making arrangements with the Government departments, local authorities and various public and private interests concerned to use, after the cessation of hostilities, for educational, instructional and other similar purposes, aerodrome buildings not permanently required by the R.A.F. so that such buildings will not fall into disuse, as after the last war, but will be available during holiday and vacation time for service annual training purposes and for whole-time use in the event of another national emergency.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and can assure him that the considerations to which he refers are being borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that since the recent revision of pay and allowances, an airman who is married and without children and is in the highest paid R.A.F. trade rating (Group I), has to make a compulsory allotment of 1s. 9d. per day as opposed to 1s. 6d. per day previously; and whether, as the allowance in respect of the wife has not been increased, he will reduce the allotment to the previous figure of 1s. 6d. per day.

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Reply given to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on 18th May. As stated in that Reply the changes in the qualifying allotments are necessary to secure broad uniformity as between the three Services, and in no case where the allotment has been changed is there any reduction in the joint receipts of man and wife. Where the wife has a child or children there is in all cases an increase. For administrative reasons, the rates of qualifying allotment must be the same for airmen with childless wives as for other married airmen.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the answer given to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) is not satisfactory and that this matter is causing considerable dissatisfaction? Does the right hon. Gentleman also appreciate that the result of this regulation is that an R.A.F. man who is married and has no children will have less money himself, while his wife will obtain more money out of her husband's money and not from public funds?

This matter was fully explained in the White Paper, and it was available for debate in the House when the White Paper was debated. There was no expression of dissatisfaction then, and I have not received many representations about it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing storm against the way the recent increases are being given, namely, by taking away from people who in many cases are getting no more than when this committee recommended to the Government?

Everything is being done exactly in accordance with the White Paper which was brought before Parliament.

When did the Debate on the White Paper take place?

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme discontent in the R.A.F. over this policy, and does he not agree that it is all the fault of the R.A.F. authorities in not having a compulsory allotment in common with the Army in the past?

I think there is a great deal of force in the last observation of my hon. and gallant Friend, not that I think any fault was due to the Air Ministry. It is true that a different scale of allotment from that of the other two Services had become the practice in the R.A.F., and it was considered necessary —and I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend agrees with me—to bring the scales into conformity.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what adjustments have been made in the pay scales of the R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. personnel to correspond with those announced in the White Paper for other ranks in the Army.

With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate these details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the recent changes in service pay were so badly announced that many of the higher rank and file were led to believe that the Government were acting generously in cases where no real concession was made; and whether, as the whole transaction is viewed by those concerned as misleading, he will see that in future the exact intentions of his Department on these matters are more accurately explained.

As regards pay, the recent White Paper made it clear that increases would be granted only to non-tradesmen, private soldiers and corresponding categories in the other Services.

As regards allowances, it was clearly stated that a substantial improvement would be made in the position of those men with families who were in the lower ranges of pay and that this would be achieved by an additional State contribution to family allowance which would diminish as the man's rate of pay, and consequently his qualifying allotment, increased. For other ranks on the highest rates of pay, there would be no increase in the State contribution.

As regards officers, it was also clearly stated that the greatest assistance towards the discharge of family responsibilities would be provided where it was most needed, that is, in the lower paid ranges. The recent changes were therefore exactly described in the White Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Air Force were misled by the headlines in the newspapers?

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House on what date the Debate on the White Paper to which he referred took place?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I had in my mind the previous Debate. It is true that a Debate has not taken place since the White Paper was laid, but the Paper gives full information about these changes.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he went on to say that no objection was taken to the changes?

I should have said that no objection was taken in this House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure he must be—that over 90 per cent. of the R.A.F. are not on the lower rates of pay, and, therefore, the Air Ministry must have known, in issuing their statements, that the majority of the men would not qualify for the higher allowances.

I am sure that the majority of the men who make qualifying allotments within these ranges of pay, make a higher qualifying allotment than that which they are asked to make under this new scheme. There is no ground for saying that the House has been misled by the White Paper or for suggesting that the newspapers were misled. The White Paper stated with absolute frankness that the scales of allotment will be on a similar basis in all three Services and will result for the most part in a reduction of the present scales, though there will be some increases in the R.A.F.

Now that my right hon. Friend realises that there is discontent in the House, which reflects the feeling of a large number of men in the R.A.F., as exemplified in letters sent to Members, will he reconsider the whole position?

No, Sir, because I have so carefully considered it and because it has been the subject of so much patient consideration. If I may put the position briefly to my hon. Friend, the position is this. If the qualifying allotment of the R.A.F. was not to be brought into line with the Army allotment, we should have to do one of two things. We should either have to pay the wife less, which we think is undesirable, as wives of R.A.F. men would be receiving less than the wives of men similarly placed in the other two Services; or we should have to increase the basic pay of the men in the R.A.F., which would give them a higher basic rate than men in a similar position in the other Services.

The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to give the impression to the House that the White Paper is accurate, and that the allowances in the R.A.F. are brought into line with those in the Army. That is not so. May I ask, therefore, whether we have any power to stop the right hon. Gentleman doing that?

It cannot be done by question and answer. It is a matter for debate.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the situation, and in view of the fact that the Air Ministry has had to issue to its pay offices instructions that pay issues are to be restored to their former level forthwith—thus indicating the unsatisfactory nature of the position—I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

The hon. Member's suggestion is quite misleading.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that corporals who are married without children and flight-sergeants who are married without children are having 6d. and 3d. a day, respectively, compulsorily deducted from their pay for the increased allotment to their wives without the wives getting any corresponding increases in their allowances; and whether he will reconsider the recent changes in pay of which complaint is made.

I am aware that some corporals and some flight-sergeants who are married without children are to have an additional 6d. and 3d. a day respectively deducted from their pay but the wives will get the full benefit of these increased allotments. As was stated in the reply to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) by my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State on 18th May, changes in qualifying allotments are necessary to secure broad uniformity as between the three Services and for administrative reasons the rates of qualifying allotment must be the same for airmen with childless wives as for other married airmen.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wives are not getting this benefit? How long is this state of affairs likely to continue?

The wives are getting the benefit. There will be some delay in making the payments. That brings me to the question which was put by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The men will not be asked to make a larger deduction from their pay in respect of the qualifying allotment, until the wives get the cash under the new scheme.

Is the Minister aware that this House was represented at a conference of Ministers at which there was no proposal for the elimination of the qualifying allotment, and that there was never any suggestion about any of the allotment being increased?

It was clearly stated in the White Paper.

rose—

We cannot have further questions or it will become a Debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will arrange that Northern Ireland members of air crews in training shall be granted the same privilege as trained members are being permitted to spend their leave at home.

The general restrictions on travel to Northern Ireland which were recently announced apply to ordinary leave for all Royal Air Force personnel, including aircrew, whether under training or not.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious dissatisfaction that exists about this differentiation between trained and untrained crews?

I think that my hon. Friend cannot have heard my answer. These restrictions apply to ordinary leave for all R.A.F. personnel, including air crews, whether in training or not.

I am advised differently.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will expedite the issue of chevrons to members of the R.O.C.

So far as I am aware, the issue of chevrons to members of the Royal Observer Corps is proceeding satisfactorily. Demands from a small number of groups are still outstanding and these are now being expedited.

Will my right hon. Friend not make it clear to the R.A.F. whether these chevrons are compulsory or not? There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding on the subject.

I will certainly look into that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why non-commissioned ranks, returning to this country from training courses in Canada, are granted substantially shorter periods of disembarkation leave than officers who have been on the same courses.

Officers and airmen returning to this country from training in Canada are eligible for the same period of disembarkation leave. Owing to accommodation difficulties however, it is occasionally necessary, particularly in the case of officers, to allow an additional leave period.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a dozen sergeants at one station have recently had 19 days' embarkation leave, while officers who were on precisely the same course have had 28 days and that this is not an isolated instance?

I can quite understand that it is not an isolated instance, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of differentiation in favour of officers.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what information he has regarding the number of officers and men in the R.A.F. who have so far completed the arrangements to apply for the Parliamentary franchise.

None, Sir; no record is kept of the number of officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force who have applied for registration under the Parliament (Elections and Meetings) Act.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the distribution of the application cards has not been satisfactory? Does he also realise that nobody will get a vote in the Forces, even if he was on the old Register, unless he applies under this procedure?

Those are very different points from the points in my hon. Friend's Question. If he has any evidence that there is anything unsatisfactory about the distribution of cards, I shall be very glad if he will give it to me. My only anxiety is to make this distribution as successful as I can.

As a central Register is to be prepared of Service voters, will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions in his Department that statistics shall be kept of those registered, so that we can put questions to ensure that the R.A.F., at least, shall be properly brought on to the Register?

No, Sir, that is an obligation which Parliament, in its wisdom, did not place upon the Service. Registration has already started.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the scale of entertainment allowance for senior officers in the Royal Navy and the extent to which such allowances exceed the cost of the entertainment which the recipients are normally called upon to provide.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the allowance known as table money, which is payable only to those flag officers who fly their personal flags symbolising command over a station or squadron or other operational command. The maximum rate, payable to a Commander-in-Chief, is £4 10s. a day; lower rates for other flag officers are fixed according to the circumstances of the individual appointment. Flag officers commanding are inevitably called upon to do a considerable amount of entertaining, and I have no reason to suppose that the present scale is in any way out of proportion.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that naval recruits were urged to indulge in racial discrimination against negroes in a compulsory lecture by a British officer in a British naval establishment, of which he has been informed; and what steps he is taking to prevent incitement of this sort in future.

I have received a report upon the only lecture which can be identified with that referred to by the hon. Member. I am satisfied that he has been misinformed as to its purport, and that it contained no incitement to racial discrimination against negroes. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the following words were used in that lecture:

"In the States, negroes are separated from white men. The Americans regard a negro as a child, and not the equal of the white races. Please conform to that idea."

Is he aware that that was taken down in shorthand in that lecture, and that it was an incitement to racial discrimination?

I have told the hon. Member that that report is incorrect. So far from the lecture being given from the point of view of inciting racial discrimination, it was given to our troops in order to enable them to guard against any ill-disposed people who may be out to use the colour question as a means to stir up trouble with our Allies.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what information he has regarding the numbers of officers and men in the R.N. who have applied for registration for the Parliamentary franchise.

I regret that it would not be practicable to keep a record of the numbers of officers and men who have applied for registration.

Has my right hon. Friend drawn the attention of the officers and men to the fact that, even if they are on the old Register, they will not get the vote unless they complete these arrangements; and has he satisfied himself that a reasonable proportion are, in fact, taking this course?

The fact is that the Admiralty are taking particular steps to try to make this Act a success. Officers are specially detailed to explain the provisions of the 1943 Act. Of course, we cannot exercise any compulsion upon either officer or man to make his application. In the case of ratings in shore establishments, we do not know, with regard to large numbers of them, whether they have applied or not.

Has my right hon. Friend no information on how this application is going? Has he no information at all to tell the Hause?

That is not the Question on the Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men of the R.M. who served in the Middle East and are qualified for the Africa Star have received their ribbons; and whether members of the R.M. who served overseas have been issued with the ribbon of the 1939–43 Star if not qualified for the Africa Star.

It is intended to issue the Africa Star ribbon to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines as soon as the qualifications for the 1939–43 Star have been finally settled. For the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, the 1939–43 Star takes precedence over the Africa Star, which will therefore not be issued to naval or marine personnel who qualify for the 1939–43 Star. With regard to the second part of the Question, the ribbon of the 1939–43 Star has been issued to Royal Marines qualified under the conditions at present approved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the marines are qualified to wear the Eighth Army distinctive mark on the ribbon of their Africa Stars and that they have not yet received the ribbon of the Star? Is he also aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in all three Services on the subject of the issue of these ribbons, both of the 1939–43 Star and the Africa Star?

I have already said that they will be issued as soon as the qualifications have been finally settled.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Admiralty is going to reach this decision?

It is a decision which will be general for the Fighting Services, and not confined to the Admiralty alone.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision is made for the destitute workless in Jamaica when no work can be given them; and what is the estimated number of such persons.

The destitute workless, for whom no employment can be found, are afforded temporary relief on application to the parochial boards. Some 11,000 persons who would otherwise be destitute workless are employed under various Government schemes. Though there is no complete record of the number of destitute workless not so provided with em- ployment this number seems to be inconsiderable.

Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what sort of provision is made for the people who cannot be given relief work?

As I have said, they are afforded temporary relief on application to the parochial boards.

What is the extent of that relief ?

If the hon. Member wants the actual details, I will get them, but he will realise that it takes some time to get the figures from the Colonies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the suspicion which has been aroused in Jamaica by the refusal of the Government to publish the new draft Constitution until it has been accepted by the Legislative Council; and will he take steps to have it published so that adequate public consideration can be given to its provisions before being adopted.

I would refer to the reply which I gave to the Honourable Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 17th May, to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Minister of Supply how persons who are granted petrol rations for their motor-car on the ground of hardship may apply for new tyres when their existing ones become worn out.

As stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) on 24th June last, cases of hardship are considered, on application, through the Regional Petroleum Officers.

Does that apply to tyres as well as petrol?