asked the Secretary of State for War the number of dwelling-houses still requisitioned by his Department in Hale and Bowden.

One, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War why the parents of men killed in action over 15 months ago have not yet received their gratuities; and what steps he is taking to improve this position.

Since the issue of war gratuities in respect of deceased officers and other ranks commenced last Septem- ber, good progress has been made with the task of dealing with the cases involved, numbering upwards of 160,000. The importance of completing these issues as early as possible is fully realised, and my Department has allocated to this work the maximum staff which can usefully be employed upon it, having regard to the other pressing tasks upon which the War Office is now engaged.

Is the Minister aware that parents of men killed in 1940 are now being paid, and can he do something to expedite the matter?

We are doing what we can in the circumstances to speed up this matter.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many cases his Department is dealing with per month?

No, I could not.

asked the Secretary of State for War why the gratuity for service of men who enlisted for the duration of the emergency will only be paid to 15th August and not until the official date of the end of the emergency.

The grant of a war gratuity is not related to the terms of a man's enlistment but to the war service which he has given. The end of the period which is to count as war service for this purpose has therefore been fixed in relation to VJ day, although it has been extended in spite of the cessation of hostilities until the anniversary of that day.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case, submitted to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester, of an N.C.O. who has been refused an O.C.T.U. course for the A.E.C., despite the recommendation of a War Office selection board; whether he will state the reason for the ban on this individual; and whether, in view of the shortage of officers of the A.E.C., he will reconsider the case.

I have reconsidered this case, but I have nothing to add to the letter I sent my hon. and gallant Friend on 11th December, 1945.

Does the Minister consider, having regard to the record and character of this man and his proven abilities, as shown in the documents I have sent, that adequate use is being made of his services at the present time?

As I stated to my hon. and gallant Friend in the letter I wrote, the Army Council, or those they delegate to deal with these matters, cannot abrogate their responsibility in these matters and they are the final authority.

Could it be that the political opinions of this N.C.O. were found not to coincide with the Left Wing leanings of the great majority of members of the Army Educational Corps?

This rule, as I have stated, applies to all, irrespective of opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for War why 7384299 Corporal G. A. Harman, R.A.M.C, who enlisted in August, 1940, embarked for Middle East August, 1941, and returned to United Kingdom under Python on 21st September, 1945, was reposted for service out of the United Kingdom on 15th December, 1945; why this soldier received no embarkation leave; and if he will arrange for his immediate return to home posting.

This non-commissioned officer is a qualified radiographer and was posted as such to a hospital ship in December, 1945. This ship is classed as a home based unit and returns to the United Kingdom at frequent intervals. Personnel joining such a ship are not entitled to embarkation leave, but opportunities for leave are always afforded when the ship returns to this country. When this ship arrives home in the very near future Corporal Harman will be transferred to a home posting.

asked the Secretary of State for War why Soong Kwong, having on two previous occasions been acquitted by the assessors, was tried on 3rd January for the third time for the same offence by a military court at Kuala Lumpur; if he is aware of the protests made against his sentence by the Central Committee of M.P A.J.A. to Lord Louis Mountbatten; and if he will take steps to secure the immediate release of Soong Kwong.

I have called for a report on this case, and as soon as it is received I write to the hon. Member.

On a point of order. Can we have a translation of M.P.A.J.A.?

M.P.A.J.A. means the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Association.

asked the Secretary of state for War whether, in the case of 2371253, Lance-Corporal G. Rabin, particulars of which have been supplied, who was recalled to his unit contrary to the terms of a letter to the hon. Member for Mile End from the Financial Secretary 0 the War Office, dated 27th September, 1945, the immediate return of this soldier to the United Kingdom will be authorised and appropriate action taken to see that lower units do not override an authority from his Department granting compassionate release to a soldier.

There was no question of a lower unit overriding the authority of the War Office in this case. Before the release authority had reached the unit the soldier had returned overseas. If it had been realised that the soldier was simply on leave in this country and not on the Home Establishment, steps would have been taken to retain him while the case was being considered. I do not consider that the circumstances of this case are sufficiently serious to warrant any recommendation for repatriation on compassionate grounds being sent to the overseas Command.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has just provided to us does not tally with the information provided to me in the course of the correspondence with his Department, and that at one time, in September, this leave was granted, and that subsequently the man was found to have returned to the unit from which he had come to this country? How does he explain that a decision of the War Office on the one hand, as indicated in that letter, is overridden by the unit Commander on the other?

In these cases, where a man has come home from overseas and a case is put up for the compassionate release of that man, we endeavour, at the War Office, to hold him here while the case is being considered. In this case the man, unfortunately, left this country and went back to his unit before we could come to a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the R.A.S.C. in the Middle East have been deferred a second time; and how many groups of these officers would have qualified for home leave, under the L.I.A.P. scheme, if these deferments had been duly foreseen in September, 1945.

I am making inquiries and as soon as they are completed I will write to my hon. Friend.

Is it not a fact that R.A.S.C. officers of Group 23 were refused leave five months ago on the ground that they were to be released soon and that since then that release has twice been postponed?

I am making inquiries upon this matter, but they are in no different position from that of other ranks on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers in C.M.F. have been informed that for the purposes of L.I.A.P. all officers in age and service Groups 24-29 would be considered as deferred; and whether he has any statement to make.

There is no question of any general deferment of the release of all officers in Groups 24 to 29 serving with C.M.F. It is, however, possible and reasonable that officers in these Groups should be debarred from L.I.A.P. on the grounds that they would be unlikely to be able to give a useful period of service after their return from leave before they become due to go home for release. This would be within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, who must make an estimate of the probable dates of release of various Groups in order to interpret the L.I.A.P. scheme reasonably.

asked the Secretary of State for War the dates for release, in the United Kingdom, of officers and other ranks in C.M.F. in age and service Groups 25 and 26.

The programme for release in the United Kingdom of officers and other ranks serving in C.M.F. is the same as for other stations at home and overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that time-expired men who are released in Class B lose the 28 days' S.E.W.L.R.O.M. leave to which they are normally entitled; and whether, in order to encourage all men to accept Class B release when it is offered, he will remove this disability.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask if you could discourage Members from using so many initials in their Questions? I am sure many Members do not know what S.E.W.L.R.O.M. means.

Perhaps it would make the Question too long if all these words were inserted.

It does not make sense.

I must say I had to inquire about this matter myself, and 1 think anyone else in my position would have had to do so also. S.E.W.L.R.O.M. means Special End of War Leave for Regular Officers and Men. Twenty-eight days' special end of the war leave is only given to Regular soldiers who have at least a further 12 months to serve. Time-expired men who have not re-engaged or deferred their release are not eligible for this leave, and the point raised in my hon. Friend's Question does not therefore arise.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the current or the proposed deferment of release of R.A.S.C. officers.

asked the Secretary of State for War what extra period of deferment is being applied to the release of R.A.S.C. officers in the Middle East, over and above the deferment already announced for offices of other arms.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain G. Barnett, R.A.S.C., 3 Field Ambulance, M.E.F., who is in release Group 25 has been informed that he is to be deferred for three months; whether he will state the number of officers in release Group 25 who are being similarly deferred; and whether he will reconsider such deferments.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that R.A.S.C. officers in age and service Group 23 in the M.E.F have had their demobilisation deferred en bloc; what other groups have been deferred and for how long; is it confined to M.E.F.; and when will the release of R.A.S.C officers catch up with the general release plan.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 5th February.

Could my right hon. Friend say, approximately, how long it takes to train an R.A.S.C. officer? Is it not a comparatively short time, and does that not have some bearing on this deferment?

I cannot answer that now, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War why release Group 27 has been deferred; and how long he anticipates the deferment will continue.

Group 27 has never been deferred. The release of other ranks in this Group is due to begin on 7th March and to be completed by 20th April. The release of officers is due to take place between 6th and 22nd May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men serving with the B.A.O.R. who are in Group 27 have been informed that their release is to be deferred? If I send him particulars of such cases, will he look into them?

Yes, certainly. I am not aware of any such order.

asked the Secretary of State for War when serving men in Groups 26 and 27 will leave India; and by what date it is anticipated that they will arrive in the United Kingdom and be demobilised

I hope that all men in Groups 26 and 27 serving in India will arrive back in this country in time for release within the periods laid down for their groups, but the exact date of the arrival in England and the departure from India of any individual must, of course, depend on the particular ship in which he sails.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these lads are getting very concerned about whether they are going to get back in time or not, and will he make it known that there will be no difficulty about bringing them home in time?

I am aware that men do get disturbed about these matters and that rumours get abroad. The soldier is subject to rumour where there is no definite information to be had, but the answer is that no difficulty will be put in the way.

The Minister has got it the wrong way about. I would not have known about this if the soldiers had not written to me; I did not write to the soldiers.

I am in no doubt about this matter. I am merely pointing out that I am only too well aware how these rumours get abroad. I realised that when I was in the Far East.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable amount of correspondence is being received by hon. Members in reference to an article which appeared in the "Daily Express"? That article may be the source of the rumour.

I gave an answer to that a few days ago.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men and of what Groups have left India for return to the United Kingdom for demobilisation since nth December, 1945.

Ten thousand and three officers and other ranks left India during the period nth December, 1945, to 6th February, 1946, for release in the United Kingdom. I have no information as to the number in each age and service group.

asked the Secretary of State for War when it will be possible for 14868612 Gunner R. D. Wayland, to be released in order to help in his father's building business.

This case has been investigated but it is not one where compassionate release would be justified. No application for. this soldier's release under Class B has been received from the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Would it be in Order, Mr. Speaker, for all hon. Members to put down individual cases?

It would be in Order, but I would deprecate unnecessary Questions of this kind without due cause.

Arising out of that point of Order, may I point out that the facts of this case have been presented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) to the right hon. Gentleman's Department on three or four occasions since last August, and that is the reason why the Question has been put down again?

asked the Secretary of State for War the planned release group dates for officers up to 30th June, 1946

I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for War if instructions have been issued or will be issued without delay, to all overseas commands including C.M.F., relative to Class B block releases for agricultural workers.

The procedure for the release of agricultural workers under Class B is the same as for the bulk release of other classes of men, and I do not see any necessity for issuing any special instructions on the subject.

Could not the matter be speeded up as the Class B block releases are working extremely slowly? Could there not be another release group for agricultural workers?

All I can say is that we are dealing with them with despatch.

Where, then, does the delay occur?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will confirm that the power to retain officers and other ranks, due for release in their age and service groups, remains vested in commanders-in-chief only and may not be delegated by them to, or exercised by, subordinate officers.

The competent authorities to authorise the retention of officers or other ranks beyond their normal release date on grounds of military necessity are laid down in release regulations. They are: the War Office; the G.O.C.-in-C. of a Command in the United Kingdom; the G.O.C.-in-C. or G.O.C. of an overseas Command and the C.-in-C, India. The overseas authorities may, at their discretion, delegate their powers to any officer not below the rank of Brigadier.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that notices have been posted in orders in M.E.F. to the effect that it is estimated that Group 38 will not be released before the end of October, 1946; whether these notices have been posted with his authority; and whether he has any statement to make.

I am sure that no such notices would have been published with the authority of the C.-in-C. Middle East. At the same time when allotments are made for granting leave to soldiers during their foreign tour, the overseas theatre has to estimate the progress of release some months ahead in order to ensure leave is granted to such men only as have a reasonable period to serve in the theatre on completion. In making such an estimate all units are reminded that this estimate is based on incomplete information and liable to error. There would be no effect on the despatch to this country of men shortly due for release.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several of the unofficial broadcasts on demobilisation have appeared in Army Orders in the Mediterranean Forces? Will he issue instructions that this practice should cease?

Before the Minister replies, may I ask him whether it is not an extraordinary coincidence that similar information has been circulated in S.E.A.C. and India at the same time as this information was circulated as is mentioned in the Question?

I should think units everywhere are making unofficial guesses at the progress of release in the future. They must be governed by something of this nature in order to make their plans for sending their men home on L.I.A.P.

Why are the Forces' newspapers, which we control, allowed to circulate information of this kind, which is mischievous and dangerous?

There is a difference between- official information and unofficial information We control official information as far as we possibly can.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that incorrect information of this kind is kept out of official Orders?

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that any such estimate mentioned in the Question must be utterly wrong and represents an incorrect rate of release?

asked the Secretary of State for War at what date officers and other ranks who left the United Kingdom in November, 1942, and are now in India Command, will be repatriated.

British Service officers and other ranks who left the United Kingdom in November, 1942, and are now serving in India Command will become eligible for repatriation on grounds of long service overseas in March this year, when they have completed three years four months overseas. Large numbers of those who left this country in November, 1942. will, of course, have been re- patriated before they qualify under the Python scheme because they have become eligible for release.

While I thank the Minister for that reply, is he aware that the main point of my Question is not when they become eligible for repatriation, but when, in fact, they will be repatriated? This group would be due for repatriation during this month. The point of the Question is to ask the Minister when, in fact, they will return.

As far as I know, repatriation is up to date, but I want to draw attention to the fact that Indian Army officers are the concern of the India Office and not mine.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a fairly recent Order which has indicated to the men out there that Python entitlement has been increased to three years, five months; and that there is to be no repatriation during the month of March?

I am not aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for War why officers, men and A.T.S. personnel are being kept on in the Service month by month, thus impeding promotion and causing injustice to those who have decided to sign on for two years and who are liable to be sent overseas, while those who are retained from month to month are not so liable.

The arrangement whereby certain officers and other ranks are allowed to extend their service beyond their normal dates for release for short periods is intended to cover those cases where replacements are not immediately available or where the appointments they hold are very shortly to be abolished. It follows that there is no question of promotion of others being impeded or of any injustice to those who have voluntarily deferred their release for periods of six months, a year or two years, as the case may be.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that proposals have recently been made for the use of a part of the Malvern Hills as a military training area; and whether he will undertake that recognised beauty spots such as this which have escaped destruction during the war shall not be acquired for such a purpose.

I am aware that a small acreage of ground near the Malvern Hills has been obtained recently for military training purposes. It is the Government's policy to avoid any fresh requisitions of land wherever possible. This area has had, however, to be brought into use because of a serious outbreak of scarlet fever in the locality where the unit concerned had previously been carrying out essential training. There is no proposal for permanent acquisition of the area.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say for how long it is proposed to hold this ground?

No, I cannot, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will notice that it is due to an incidental matter—an outbreak of scarlet fever.

Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, as soon as the epidemic has disappeared, the unit concerned will return to its former home?

I could not answer that question. All I can say is I am watching this matter of land. I am against the acquisition of any more land in this country I think many Members know that I am examining this matter closely with regard even to the land already held.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that, in the postwar Army, service in Europe will count as foreign service and not as home service.

I am not at present in a position to give any definite assurance on this matter so far as the ultimate postwar Army is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of dissatisfaction in Singapore over present food rations, and what steps are being taken to improve the general conditions there.

As regards the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 29th January. Since I gave that answer, a report has been received that a reduced scale of rations has been brought into effect from 1st February to meet the current critical food situation. The effects of this reduction are at present being examined. As regards conditions generally at Singapore, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the military authorities concerned are doing their utmost to improve matters wherever possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Polish liaison officers are attached to the British troops in Germany;why they are frequently asked to act as interpreters for British officers in conversations with our Soviet allies; and what proportion of them originally came from the Polish Second Corps or other units under the command of General Anders.

:The total number of Polish liaison officers employed in the British Zone in Germany is 179. Polish liaison officers are occasionally used as Russian interpreters if they happen to be the only persons available who speak Russian. I understand that none of them come from the Polish 2nd Corps or have served under the command of General Anders.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he would consider issuing instructions to discontinue the use of Polish liaison officers, in any circumstances, in view of their bitterly anti-Soviet views?

I regret that I cannot give any undertaking of that kind, and I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the answer states that the men concerned who are used have not been under General Anders, and that there are very few, as a matter of fact, serving in that capacity.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason for the introduction of the provision of charging for admission to Army cinemas in C.M.F.

Before the war, amenities generally were paid for by all ranks. During the war conditions of battle justified the provision of amenities without charge. But as these conditions have now ceased to exist it is, in my opinion, right and reasonable that the peace time practice of payment should gradually be resumed.

In view of the conditions under which many of these men are, in fact, serving, which would not be tolerated in peace time, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider that decision?

I may state that, as I informed the House on a previous occasion, these amenities were made possible in part by substantial concessions made by the cinema and entertainment industry which they are now unable or unwilling to continue.

asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for not instituting periodical leave of personnel of C.M.F. on the same lines as that enjoyed by personnel of B.A.O.R.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider increasing the leave granted to the Forces serving with C.M.F., in order that they may receive the same treatment in this respect as those serving with B.A.O.R.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) on 29th January.

As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is already daily railway and air communication with Northern Italy, will he not reconsider this matter?

Questions of distance and transport, which are involved in this matter, are kept under consideration, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member.

Is the Minister aware that troops in C.M.F. consider it a very great hardship and that it is unfair to them?

I have looked into this matter and do not see how I can make an improvement, any more than I can in other Commands, for example, the M.E.F.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider introducing a Foreign Enlistment Bill with the object of raising for the service of this country, a legion composed of foreigners who, as the result of the war are unable or unwilling to return to their own countries, and who, by serving in such a legion, would help us to find the numbers of troops required for overseas service under post-war conditions.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 29th January.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the raising of such a legion would not be in accordance with precedent—the precedent of the King's German Legion—and whether, in view of the fact that foreign soldiers are now being paid for by this country although not serving this country, he will reconsider his decision?

As my right hon. Friend stated, in the answer which I have quoted, this matter was being considered at the time.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the accident which took place off Dover on 9th January when a number of men serving in 630 Water Transport Company, R.A.S.C., were in danger of drowning; and on the treatment subsequently accorded to these men, details of which have been communicated to his Department.

I have made a full report on the allegation that the men in question did not receive proper treatment after this accident. The complaint appears to be quite unfounded. The Officer Commanding the unit concerned left for Dover immediately he heard of the accident and arrived there on the afternoon of the day of the accident, not three days later as has been suggested. He ensured that adequate arrangements were made for the accommodation of the crew and authority was given for the majority of them to be sent on a short period of leave two days after the accident. It has also been suggested that the accident itself might have been averted if permission had been given for the vessel to enter the inner harbour, but as the inner harbour was already full it was not possible to allow the vessel to enter.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has had an opportunity of investigating the circumstances in which the relatives of Driver Maguire, who is at present serving a sentence of imprisonment at Shepton Mallet, Somerset, were only permitted to see him for 10 minutes after travelling7½ hours, on 22nd December, 1945; and will he take the necessary steps to see that relatives of those serving such sentences are treated with more consideration.

This soldier's relatives were allowed to see him for the full normal period of 20 minutes. No application was made for an extension of the visit, and as the authorities were unaware of the distance Driver Maguire's relatives had travelled they had no reason to suppose that an, extension would be required. If an extension had been applied for it would, in fact, have been granted in accordance with the normal practice of allowing extra time in cases where relatives have travelled for a considerable distance.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the statements in the Question, the relatives of this soldier alleged that not only were they not allowed more than 10 minutes, but that they were told by an official not to come again? Will he also consider the further allegation that the mother had to wait six months, from June to December, before she could obtain any information about what had happened to her son, which caused considerable anxiety? Will he give further consideration to this matter with a view to obviating such anxiety to parents of soldiers serving sentences?

I can tell my hon. Friend that I will give careful attention to his points, but, as a matter of fact, I have gone thoroughly into this matter so far as I could with the information at my disposal, and the answer I have given is the only one possible in the circumstances.

Is the Minister aware that there is a regulation that any prisoner being far away from home will be transferred from the prison he is in to the prison nearest to his home while he is having a visit and will he say whether this also applies to military prisoners?

That raises another question.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he pro poses to introduce arrangements under which relatives of soldiers in Italy who are dangerously ill will be able to visit them.

The possibility of introducing such a scheme is at present being examined.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of luggage that officers and private soldiers are allowed to bring with them from overseas and the amount also allowed to their respective wives and for each child.

As the answer is necessarily long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does that answer indicate that the amount of luggage which an officer is allowed to bring home is very considerably in excess of that allowed to private soldiers—four or five times the amount—and, in view of the fact that private soldiers have served a good many years overseas, could the Minister not allow a larger amount to be taken home?

That is rather a different question to the one that is on the Paper. The facts that I am now giving the hon. Gentleman are derived from statistics which are nearly as big as the Chancellor's Budget, I can assure him.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a letter written on his behalf to the hon. Member for Twickenham about the complaint of a soldier, stated that the commander-in-chief was of the opinion that the officer commanding the unit adopted an unfortunate attitude; whether he is aware that the letter was not marked confidential and enclosed a carbon copy for despatch to the soldier; and whether, in the interests of good order and military discipline, he will give directions for such information to be marked "Confidential" in future.

While the general practice is for letters to be marked "Confidential" when certain types of information are given, I must emphasise that letters addressed to hon. Members are intended for them. A carbon copy is enclosed for the convenience of hon. Members but I must continue to rely on their judgment in these matters.

Does not the Minister know that, when information is sent to an hon. Member which is not to be passed on, the custom of most Government Departments is to mark it "Confidential"?

There are certain cases in which I do that, as hon. Members know. I am not so sure whether it has been overlooked in this matter or not, but I still depend on hon. Members to use their own judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet able to make a statement on restoring to British Service men the right to marry whom they please, of whatsoever nationality; and if he will clarify the circumstances of and the authority for the existing ban.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 12th February.

Will the Minister tell the House why, in view of the fact that no questions of military security can any longer be involved, it is not possible for him to give a straight answer to this straight question, and whether, moreover, this so-called ban has, in fact, any legal validity whatever?

As the hon. Member and the House know, it is not a matter for me to settle at all. It is outside my Department.

If it is outside my right hon. Friend's Department, I must really protest that I should have been referred to his Department when my Question was originally put down to the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of former Balts, Esthonians, Latvians and Lithuanians employed as Russian interpreters by His Majesty's forces in Europe; and how many of these Balts were in the Wehrmacht, the Todt Organisation, Rosenberg's propaganda department or worked for the German Government in some capacity during the war.

I regret that the information asked for is not readily available and could not be obtained without a great deal of research.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the military authorities in the American Zone in Germany have recently declared that a very large proportion of the Russian interpreters in their Zone have proved to have very bad collaborationist records, and will he make searching inquiry in regard to them to ensure that no persons who have been in the Wehrmacht, the Todt Organisation or Rosenberg's propaganda department shall be employed by His Majesty's Government as interpreters?

I will take note of the hon. Member's observations.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Japanese troops in Indonesia are still bearing arms; and if he will supply full particulars of any British arms or guns, including tanks, supplied to any Japanese forces in Indonesia.

I am making inquiries and as soon as they are completed I will write to the hon. Member.

In the meantime, if my right hon. Friend finds that Japanese are still in possession of British arms, will he see they are taken away from them?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that other ranks in British women's Services are being excluded from British officers' clubs in Germany, whereas German civilian women are admitted; and what steps he will take to lift this ban.

Germans are in no circumstances allowed to be entertained in British officers' clubs or messes in Germany. It is not the normal practice for other ranks of the women's Services to be invited to officers' clubs.

If I give the right hon. Gentleman information I have where German women were dancing with British officers while British other ranks were not allowed in, will he look into the matter closely?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers in hospital for treatment are being required to pay 22s. a week expenses; and whether any portion of this amount is being placed to the credit of the individuals concerned.

I am not aware of any such charges. If my hon Friend will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will gladly look into them.

Would not this question and the penultimate question have been saved if the hon. Member had taken the trouble of writing to the Secretary of State for War first, instead of bringing these charges forward?

I did not hear clearly the right hon. Gentleman's question.

I am suggesting that a number of questions might be saved if hon. Members carried out your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that they should write to the appropriate Minister.

This is a question of principle

I quite agree, but there are cases when hon. Members have written and have failed to get satisfactory answers, so an oral Question is put down to bring the problem to public attention.

asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Cambridge can expect to receive the further communication, promised him on 18th December last, in connection with the tank fatality which occurred in Cambridge on 22nd October, 1945.

I very much regret the delay in sending my hon. and gallant Friend a final answer about this case. I have, however, now considered both the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry in connection with this accident and also the reports of the related proceedings at Cambridge Petty Sessions. As civil proceedings have already either been taken against the other ranks concerned or were not proceeded with, I do not consider that any further action is called for in their case. I understand that the Officer Commanding the unit has never at any time given instructions for convoys to ignore traffic lights, nor so far as can be ascertained have any of his officers. No action is, therefore, called for so far as any officer is concerned. As I stated in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question on 13th November, military drivers must at all times conform to normal traffic signals and road signs.

Arising out of that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that at the inquest proceedings it was stated by an officer of the unit concerned that the men, in disregarding traffic lights, were simply obeying instructions, and is he really satisfied that only the men in the tank crew alone are responsible for what occurred?

I made inquiries on that point and I found that in the report of the inquest, the officer commanding the depot from which the tank came is reported as having said that it was the practice of despatch-riders to see a convoy through irrespective of lights, and that he thought there was an order in respect of that, but had not checked up. It was this report which drew the attention of the Press to the case.

asked the Secretary of State for War the amount which has been estimated, in assessing postwar pay and allowances, as the minimum sum the unmarried man would otherwise have to spend on the items of living with which he is provided free.

No precise estimate has been made of the "home saving" of the single man but as my hon. Friend will appreciate it will be larger than that of his married colleague.

In view of the fact that 35s. was laid down in the 1942 White Paper as representing this Service, could we not now know what the figure will be under the new arrangement?

I think my hon. Friend was not in the House when that figure was hotly debated and contested when it first appeared. This figure of 20s. is perhaps nearer the mark.

The question is not whether it was hotly debated or not but whether the figure in the new set-up is going to approximate the 1942 figure of 35s. rather than 20s.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. I think you have omitted Question Number 68.

I have not overlooked it but that would have been the fourth Question put down by the hon. Member and hon. Members are only allowed three on one day.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what reasons compassionate posting has now been limited to cases of extreme distress or dangerous illness; and whether this new ruling affects the conditions of compassionate release.

No new ruling on compassionate postings has been given and the only new ruling on compassionate release has been in the direction of relaxation. Compassionate postings are necessarily being much limited owing to the reduction in the number of units at home and the corresponding difficulty of finding a suitable unit to which the man could be posted. Generally speaking, compassionate release is found to provide a more satisfactory solution.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State had written to me to the effect that compassionate posting had been limited owing to the large number of cases which were coming forward claiming that privilege? Will he now quite definitely state that is not so?

Obviously, I must consult with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend. The position is as I have stated it in my reply.

asked the Secretary of State for War what are the conditions under which all ranks of allied armies, serving in complete allied units and not filling individual appointments in British War Establishments, may be considered to have qualified for British campaign medals in respect of service during the 1939-45 war; and whether such conditions apply equally to all operational theatres.

The question whether British campagn stars should be awarded to those of our allies who are serving, or who have served, in their own national land contingents in a theatre of operations under British command is being examined.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the regulations under which prisoners of war are obliged to relinquish, after arrival in this country, the rank which they held throughout the war as prisoners of war; and whether, in view of the fact that there was no possibility of their obtaining substantive rank during the period they were prisoners of war, arrangements can be made to apply special conditions.

Prisoners of war were by a special concession allowed to retain then-acting and temporary ranks while in captivity and continued to receive the pay of their paid acting or temporary rank for 61 days after repatriation. When they cease to be prisoners of war they must be subject to the normal wartime promotion rules like any other officer or soldier. In the case of Regular officers time spent as a prisoner of war counted towards substantive time promotion and those who were passed over for substantive promotion while prisoners are now being reconsidered.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce any change of policy affecting the rate of exchange of charitable contributions made by officers and other ranks prisoners of war.

In so tar as these were contributed by United Kingdom prisoners of war, His Majesty's Government have decided to accept responsibility for the payment of funds collected by British Commonwealth prisoners of war in Germany for charitable or communal purposes. They will be converted into sterling at the preferential rate of exchange applicable to personal savings from pay or working pay, namely, 15 Reichsmarks to the£. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are unable to accept responsibility for contributions made to such funds by personnel from the Dominion Forces. They have informed all Dominion Governments and the Government of India of their decision; they have heard from His Majesty's Government in Australia and from the Government of India that they are willing to share the responsibility. Final answers have not yet been received from the other Dominion Governments concerned in these circumstances, I am taking steps to make payment in respect of funds where I am satisfied as to the amount, the purpose and the arrangements made for disposal. It will not, however, be possible at present to make any payment in respect of contributions to such funds from Dominion personnel other than members of the Australian Forces.

While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very generous reply, will he say whether these charities could make any application in order to get the balance of the money paid to them?

I have no information on that point.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the B.B.C. Charter has not previously been renewed without a thorough investigation by a committee of inquiry and that important changes in broadcasting policy and technique have taken place during the war, he will now give an undertaking that before the current Charter is renewed an independent investigation, in the public interest, will be made by a competent and representative committee.

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have given the fullest consideration to this matter and have decided that no independent investigation is necessary before the Charter is renewed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in relation to the B.B.C. and will he take steps to reconsider the decision?

We shall come to a decision. I think that is the best way to get rid of the anxiety.

Will this House have an opportunity to discuss the matter?

Yes, Sir, and the hon. Member will realise that the Charter comes up for renewal.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the mere fact that it is a Government decision does not automatically allay suspicion or even disarm all criticism, and would he not reconsider this, because it would ease the passage of the new Charter if it were founded on some sort of inquiry?

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that this matter was fully considered by the last Government and this Government, and the general view was that investigation was needed.

asked the Minister of Information (1) how many wireless licences are in issue at the present time; to what extent he estimates that evasion of payment may be taking place; and what steps he is taking to prevent evasion. (2) If he will postpone the decision to increase the cost of wireless licences until more energetic steps have been taken to collect the revenue already due. The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There are at present 9,982,050 wireless licences in force. It is difficult to estimate the extent of evasion of payment of licences, but there is no reason to suppose that this is taking place on a serious scale. Successful steps have been, and are being, taken to detect it and to apply the appropriate remedies. My right hon. Friend cannot therefore agree to postpone the inrcease in the cost of wireless licences as suggested.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is apparently no supervision of the payment of licences in the ordinary home, and there is a feeling that it is very unjust to those who lawfully pay their wireless licences to have the amount of those licences doubled while others are let off scot-free, whose income might remedy the deficit?

I think that is a rather extreme doctrine. If that were to be applied to the observance of all laws I do not know whether any law would exist.

.—To ask the Minister of Information, what amount was spent in Scotland by the B.B.C. on broadcasting in 1945.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan.

Where is the Minister of Information?

Mr. Speaker, may I say, on a point of Order, or perhaps as a protest, that this is rather typical of the Government's attitude to Scottish affairs?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. What about Question No. 61?

I am afraid I cannot answer it. As soon as the Minister arrives he will deal with it.

:In the absence abroad of my right hon. Friend I have been asked to reply to Question No. 61. The broadcasting services in Scotland are an integral part of the whole service provided by the B.B.C. on a national basis and I regret that it is not practicable to give separate figures of expenditure in respect of services available to listeners in Scotland.