asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the figures of His Majesty's Forces returned to this country and awaiting demobilisation.

The numbers fluctuate from day to day with the arrival of shipping in this country and it would be impossible even to estimate the figure at any given date.

As the number must be considerable, can the Minister consider letting these men go on leave with their wives so that congestion on the trains may be relieved?

It depends on what class of men the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. Men in Class A go right to the release centers and arc out within 48 hours; in Class B they go to their units and arc out shortly after 48 hours. The hon. Gentleman may be alluding to Python men. In those cases they would have their six weeks, and after that it may be that it is not necessary for them to go abroad in view of. their early release number.

asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of ex-policemen serving with His Majesty's Forces in the home and overseas commands, respectively, at the last convenient date; and the number at home and overseas, respectively, who have so far been offered Class B release for civilian police duties.

The approximate number of ex-policemen serving in the Army at 28th February, 1946, was 600 in the United Kingdom and 1,200 overseas, a total of 1,800. I understand that about 1,000 are serving in the Navy, but figures are not readily available for the R.A.F. The total numbers of offers of Class B release which have been made are: Navy 2,737, Army 7,299, R.A.F. 3,215. No separate figures are kept for home and overseas. Offers have been made to all regular police who have been asked for by the Home Office and Scottish Office, except those who cannot be spared by the Services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those at home are not given more favourable treatment in the Class B release offer than those who are overseas, as there is a certain amount of feeling about it?

I am not aware of that but I will make inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses reconditioned and the amount of grants paid to owner-occupiers and to landlords, separately, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in Scotland, giving each county separately

At 31st December, 1945, the latest date for which information is available, the number of houses reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was 5,415 by owner-occupiers and 27,652 by landlords. The total grant paid is £471,523 to owner-occupiers and £2,438,620 to landlords. I am circulating details for each county in the OFFICIAT. REPORT.

Following are the details:

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to have discussions with the county councillors from the Outer Isles communities on the housing situation in the islands when he meets the county councils of Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty; and when he expects to meet those county councils.

I have arranged to meet representatives of the county councils of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty on the 2nd and 3rd May. I am informing the councils that it is my intention at these meetings to discuss the housing position in the counties as a whole, including the Outer Isles, and I have no doubt that they will bear this in mind in selecting the councillors who are to represent them at the meetings.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered a memorandum from the inhabitants of the Island of Lismore, through the organisation known as the Friends of Lismore., in which great anxiety is expressed regarding the future agricultural and residential prospects for the island; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about an improvement of present conditions.

I received the memorandum a few days ago. It raises questions of some complexity affecting a number of Departments, and these are now under consideration.

Will the Minister consult with the other Ministers to whom this memorandum was addressed, and see if something can be done before the ex-Servicemen, who are coming home and are now proposing to settle down there, are driven off by inability to obtain agricultural assistance from the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these consultations are continuing, but the memorandum referred to in the Question raises questions of great complexity. I am giving immediate attention to the points raised in it.

Will the Minister agree to have the B.B.C. broadcast this information in their Argyllshire programme on Friday night?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent occasioned among demobilised students, who have resumed their studies under the Further Education and Training Scheme for Teachers, by the delay in paying the grants; and what steps he is taking to expedite payments.

I am aware that owing to the rush of applicants within the last month it has not been possible to dispose of outstanding cases as quickly as I would have wished The Scottish Education Department are taking all possible steps to expedite payments, and special priority has been given to all urgent cases of hardship brought to their notice. It has, however, to he kept in mind that before the first payment can be made to a student in training as a teacher, he must have passed a medical examination, and this takes time. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases involving hardship which have not yet been dealt with, I shall be glad to look into them.

Is the Minister aware that generally these cases date back to January of this year, not merely one month?.

As I have already pointed out, it takes time to carry through medical examinations, and I have already admitted that things are not going as speedily as I would desire. I repeat that if there is any particular case of hardship in the mind of the hon. Member, and he brings it to my notice, I will give it immediate attention.

Thank you, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what prospects there are for the county council of Ross and Cromarty getting a sufficient grant to enable them to proceed with the Applecross Road.

I discussed the question of a grant for the proposed Applecross Road with representatives of the county council of Ross and Cromarty at a meeting on 25th January last, I then promised that, if the county council were prepared to consider a contribution of 15 per cent. of the cost, I would examine the project afresh in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport to see whether Government grants could be offered for the remainder of the cost.

Does the Minister realise that they had attempted to get a grant for this road some 45 years ago, and that these people are completely cut off?

I do not know of any grant having been made over 45 years ago; that was a little while before I entered this House. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that there has never been any offer on the part of the county council to pay any contribution towards the cost of the road and I had thought I had made some progress when, at that meeting, I got the representatives to agree to recommend to their own county council a contribution of 15 per cent. I am awaiting the result of their recommendation to the county council.

Is the Minister aware that this is just one more example of this county council having been offered a relatively generous grant and still penalising its own people by not accepting it?

I cannot say that at the moment, in view of the fact that the county council in that area meets only every three months I am now awaiting the result of the recommendation to the county council.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of contracts which have been placed, or will be placed, in the near future by the North Scotland Hydro Board; and what is the relative value of these contracts as between Scottish and English contractors.

I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that no member of the North of Scotland Hydro Board has any connection with' any firm or firms who have undertaken or will be undertaking contracts for the aforementioned Board.

The position of members of the Board with regard to contracts is governed by paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, which states that a member of the Board must disclose his interest in any company with which the Board has made or proposes to make a contract and must not take part in any deliberation or decision in regard to such a contract.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of teachers returned from the Forces under the Class B release scheme; and if they have all been re-employed by those education authorities in Scotland from which they were taken for the Forces.

The release under Class B of 623 Scottish teachers has been notified to the Scottish Education Department by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Those who were employed by Education Authorities before being called up have as a rule been re-employed by their former employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what progress has been made between his Department and the Ross-shire county council in the negotiations in respect of the proposed pier for Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis, for which a 75 per cent. financial grant was offered before the war.

The Department of Agriculture hope shortly to be in a position to furnish an up to date estimate of the cost of a harbour at Portnaguran. When this has been done it will be for the county council to consider whether they wish to make a fresh application for a grant and what degree of priority to attach to this particular project.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this, like the Applecross Road, is a question which has been threshed out over the last 70 or 80 years, and that before the war considerable progress had been made as a first priority job? Will he see that nothing is allowed to stand in the way of what is an essential project for the local inhabitants?

I shall certainly see that all reasonable consideration is given for the purpose of making progress insofar as these schemes are concerned.

Will the Minister take a new line by doing something unreasonable in this particular matter?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the discussions between the other Government Departments and the Scottish Office for the earlier commencement of public works schemes in the Outer Isles; and what part is to be taken by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in future in connection with road works.

Discussions are taking place between the Departments concerned regarding the employment position in Lewis and Harris. As recently announced by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of War Transport, road schemes at a total estimated cost of £75,000 have been approved and will be carried out at an early date, and the possibility of undertaking further measures is being examined. As regards the second part of the Question, increased provision is being made on the Vote of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the forthcoming financial year for grants for public works in the Congested Districts.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for his part in these discussions, and in the proposed schemes in certain places, may I ask him to bear in mind also the Islands of Barra and the Uists, as well as Lewis and Harris? There are many other islands in the Hebrides as well as the main Islands.

I certainly will.

asked the Secretary of State for War the reason for the delay in the release of other ranks in the R. A. M. C.

There is no delay in the release of other ranks in the R.A.M.C. Apart from any individual deferments on grounds of vital military necessity which may be unavoidable, R.A.M.C. other ranks will be released in accordance with the general programme for the Army as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for War the estimated daily average release from the Army during the months of March, April and May, 1946.

To achieve the release programme for March, April and May the following daily averages should be attained: March, 6,140 men, 580 women; April, 4,350 men, 310 women; May. 4,490 men, 280 women.

asked the Secretary of State for War why men of long service do not get 56 days' release leave if they are released in Class C.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) on 16th October. 1945.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the circumstances which compel many of these men to seek Class C compassionate release also demand that they should be in a financial position to help those circumstances? Does he not think it rather paltry to withhold from them wages they would have got if they were not released because of domestic adversity?

I must make it plain to the House that these matters look far different to men who have been on service for years at the other end than to people on service at this end. There are other provisions where there is financial need and the commanding officer has power to grant 28 days' leave.

Is it not true that men at the other end do not get the money, while men at this end do not get the compassionate leave, but get the money?

I was speaking of men under Class A and about the feeling there is among the men at the other end. I have seen very strong examples of that

Surely, the number of cases where resentment is felt because a man is released under Class C must be very small indeed? Is it not a fact that these people are suffering not only great financial strain, but mental strain from the fact that they have to apply for Class C release?

I can assure hon. Members that there are many cases. I stated to the House a fortnight ago that there were no fewer than 20,000 releases under Class C. It does not make the slightest difference whether Class B or Class C are concerned, but I can assure the House that I have observed that there is indignation on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the punishments imposed for the various offences most commonly committed by men while serving sentences in the Aldershot and other detention barracks; of the most severe punishment that can be imposed for any such offence, with the number of times that it has been imposed ill each year since 1st January, 1939, and during the present year, at Aldershot and elsewhere; and if he is satisfied that conditions at the Aldershot detention barracks conform in every respect with the recommendations of the Oliver Committee.

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

Following is the answer:

Particulars of punishments which may be awarded for the offences most commonly committed by soldiers whilst serving sentences in military prisons and detention barracks are as follows

1.—( a ) Punishment Diet No. 1. This may be ordered for a period not exceeding 15 days. Whilst undergoing this punishment the man receives one pound of bread per day with unrestricted water for three days, followed by ordinary diet for three days and so on, until the expiration of the period of punishment. A man undergoing punishment diet No. I does not attend parades, nor is he given any task of work. He forfeits one day's remission for each day of the period of the award. ( b ) Punishment Diet No. 2 consisting of: eight ounces bread with unrestricted water. One pint of stirabout, containing four ounces oatmeal (or two ounces oatmeal and two ounces Indian meal), salt, eight ounces potatoes, un restricted water. Supper—eight ounces bread with unrestricted water.

When ordered for a period exceeding 21 days, Punishment Diet No. 2 consists of the above for the first, second and third weeks, then ordinary diet for the fourth week, then as for the first three weeks. The entire period of the award must not exceed 42 days. A man undergoing Punishment Diet No. 2 attends parades for inspection only, and is not given work of a heavy nature. He forfeits one half a day's remission for each day of the period of the award. ( c ) Close confinement. ( d ) Forfeiture of remission. ( c ) Extra military instruction.( f ) De- privation of mattress (not exceeding three days) for idleness.( g ) Deprivation of library book.

2. The most severe punishment which may be imposed by the commandant is: (i) Three days' close confinement (ii) Three days' Punishment Diet No. 1. (iii) 21 days' Punishment Diet No. 2. (iv) Forfeiture of remission for a period not exceeding 14 days.

3. The most severe punishment which may be imposed by a board of visitors is: (i) 14 days' close confinement. (ii) 15 days' Punishment Diet No. I. (iii) 42 days' Punishment Diet No. 2. (iv) Forfeiture of remission for a period not exceeding 28 days.

4. The number of times the most severe punishment has been awarded since 1st January, 1939, is as follows: Year By Commandants. By Board of Visitors. 1939 Nil Nil 1940 Nil ( a ) Nil ( a ) 1941 8 — 1942 5 — 1943 8 3 1944 17( b ) — 1945 23( b ) 7 1946(to 1st march) 9( b ) 5 Total 70 15

( a ) Does not include military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot where records are not available.

( b ) Does not include military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot where records were destroyed during recent disturbances.

The figures include all the following establishments:

Military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot (except as stated above).

Military prison and detention barrack, Northallerton.

Military prison and detention barrack, Shepton Mallet.

Military detention barrack, Chorley.

Military detention barrack, Colchester.

Military detention barrack, Fort Darland.

Military detention barrack. Sowerby Bridge.

Military detention barrack, Langport.

So long as it continued in use, conditions at the military prison and detention barrack, Aldershot, conformed to the recommendations of the Oliver Committee in every respect, except that there was not a full-time Medical Officer A part-time medical officer was, however, immediately available at all times.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement on the report of the court of inquiry into conditions at Stakehill detention barracks and on his intentions in regard to a civilian inquiry in public, with safeguards for the anonymity of witnesses, into conditions at Stakehill and/or in detention barracks generally.

Yes, Sir. I have recently received the final report of the court of inquiry, and have prepared a statement of the conclusions I have reached which, as it is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The general conclusion is that the allegations which have been made in the public Press and in letters to the Rev. Urien Evans or to Members of Parliament, are either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. The court of inquiry, which included among the members a K.C. and a psychiatrist, examined every aspect of the problem in great detail. Every effort was made to call as witnesses all those who had made allegations about the treatment of prisoners at Stakehill, and also all soldiers under sentence who had any complaint to make. They examined in all 195 witnesses, including 47 members or ex-members of the staff, 117 who were, or had been, soldiers under sentence, and a number of civilians as many as were willing to attend, who had made written complaints about the treatment of their relations who were serving sentences at Stakehill. The completion of the report was considerably delayed by difficulties in obtaining typists, and particularly because the shorthand-typist who had taken down the records of the court of inquiry in shorthand went sick before his notes could be typed. I wish, therefore, to apologise to the House for the delay in giving the further information which I had promised. I see no need for any further inquiry into conditions at Stake-hill. But I am considering whether I ought to take further steps to allay the disquiet of those members of the public and of this House who feel that there is still cause for anxiety about the Army system of detention and the conduct of detention barracks.

Could my right hon. Friend say what are those further steps he proposes to take in the last part of his reply?

I would rather wait to give the matter more consideration, because since the inquiry into conditions at Stakehill there are other matters with which I am going to deal after Questions.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the court was unanimous in its recommendations?

I think it was unanimous, but I would not be absolutely certain.

Following is the statement:

I have carefully considered the findings of the court of inquiry, and the opinions of my advisers whose duty it is to consider and comment on those findings and I have reached the following conclusions:

(1) It is quite clear that the allegations which have been made in the public Press and in letters to the Rev. Urien Evans or to Members of Parliament, are either unfounded or grossly exaggerated.

(2) As regards the two deaths of soldiers at Stakehill, which largely gave rise to this inquiry, I am satisfied that the allegations made were without any foundation.

In the case of Private Hanlon, it is not in doubt that he committed suicide by hanging, but it was alleged that he had been beaten up before he died. This is quite untrue. There is no reason, in my opinion, to attribute his suicide to any other cause than his domestic worries. I consider, however, that the staff were open to criticism to this extent, that talk of suicide and an alleged attempt on the previous evening were not taken seriously enough, but were treated rather as an endeavour to attract sympathy, with the result that the attention of the medical officer was not specifically directed to his case, nor was the soldier deprived—as in the light of what occurred I think he clearly should have been—of the means to do what he did.

In the other case, the soldier died from sudden and unpredictable heart-failure while practising running in physical training dress of shorts and running shoes, and I do not consider that any blame for his death can be attributed to any Army authority. Among the more serious allegations in connection with his death were suggestions that the death certificate was given without a post mortem , that there was delay in summoning the relatives, and that there was a conspiracy to prevent the relatives properly examining the body. I am satisfied that none of these charges is substantiated.

(3) Examination of the complaints received from relatives has disclosed nothing which I consider calls for serious attention. Generally speaking, they are all either trivial, untrue or much exaggerated. The explanation of these unfounded complaints is, I think, that soldiers under sentence not infrequently attempt to divert the attention of their parents and friends from their own misdeeds by inviting sympathy for their sufferings, which they invent or exaggerate while undergoing punishment.

(4) I am satisfied that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that soldiers under sentence were Systematically "beaten up" or that there was habitual and deliberate persecution or victimisation by members of the staff.

(5) Stakehill, which we had been compelled to take into temporary use as a detention barrack during the war, was admittedly unsatisfactory in many respects. The accommodation, messing (although food was always adequate) and sanitary arrangements were below standard and the buildings gloomy, depressing and inconvenient. The barracks were already scheduled for closing and were, in fact, closed down completely on 7th January.

(6) Medical, training, education and welfare arrangements were well up to standard.

(7) I do not consider that any fault can be found with the policy adopted with regard to discipline at Stakehill, though I am not prepared to say that its application by the staff was always above criticism in every respect. I am inclined to think that the supervision of discipline may have been left too much in the hands of the Regimental Sergeant Major. There may well have been an undue tendency to check men for slight mistakes without discrimination, and it is probable that orders were sometimes given in a bullying and domineering manner. On the other hand, I think too much can be made of these faults, and too little consideration given to the great forbearance often shown by the staff in very trying circumstances.

(8) I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegation that "cleaners" were sometimes ordered, or permitted, by the staff to assault other soldiers under sentence.

(9) The staff was in accordance with the scale recommended by the Oliver Committee, but its quality in many cases left something to be desired. This was inevitable with manpower shortages, and rapid turnover due to the release programme.

This difficulty can only be overcome by the provision of the right type of man in sufficient numbers in the Military Provost Staff Corps, and in this connection I would like to make an earnest appeal to hon. Members and to the Press and public to show fairness to these men who are doing a vital and difficult job, the aim of which is not simply to punish a soldier who has committed a military offence, but to train him to be a good soldier. Hon. Members will recollect that the Oliver Committee reported that again and again they came across evidence of the ill-effects that unfounded allegations of brutality and ill-treatment had had upon the lives of the staff of military detention barracks.

(10) To sum up, I am quite satisfied that there is no cause for any apprehension in the minds of the public that there was any maltreatment of the soldiers under sentence at Stakehill, or that there is anything materially wrong with the general system of detention. A number of detailed recommendations and suggestions with regard to the organisation and administration of detention barracks in general are being examined, and will be implemented where it is practicable to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now received a report and will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Aldershot detention barracks and on the conditions there of which complaint was made.

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

I have now received a report on the disturbances which took place at the military prison and detention barracks at Aldershot on 23rd and 24th February, 1946. The course of events was as follows: At 4.30 p.m. on 23rd February one soldier under sentence contrived to unlock his cell door. He promptly released another, and the two together overpowered the N.C.O. on duty and locked him in a cell. The alarm was given by another N.C.O. at the Gate Lodge, but by this time a considerable number of additional soldiers under sentence had been released. They started to smash everything that could be broken. Non-participants were intimidated into joining in. The duty officer, with all available staff, concentrated on preventing the men breaking out of the hall, and, quite properly, made no attempt to subdue the soldiers under sentence by force. The Commandant was quickly on the scene and tried to speak to the men over a loudspeaker warning them that they were taking part in a mutiny. This had no effect. Reinforcements soon arrived and were stationed round the block. The District Commander decided to surround the block so as to prevent escapes, in the hope that the men would come to a more reasonable frame of mind.

Next morning, men were still on the roof of the building throwing missiles but the District Commander addressed them through a loudspeaker asking those who wanted to come out, to do so. About 5o men complied, and were followed soon after by a further 5o. At 10.30 a.m. the District Commander personally got into touch with men who were still on the roof and a deputation came out. They were told that the disturbance must stop and that if they came out, meals would be prepared and grievances gone into. The men agreed, and soon after the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, went into the hall and spoke to them. At the very last moment about 40 soldiers under sentence tried to set fire to the hall, but the disturbance was over by 12 noon.

There seems to be no doubt that the disturbances were a development from a frustrated attempt to escape by six soldiers under sentence recently transferred from Northallerton and were not a general and concerted act of mutiny. The immediate factors which gave opportunity for the outbreak included the faulty design of the door of the cell from which the first soldier under sentence contrived to escape, the fact that only one N.C.O. was on patrol in the hall and that he was unarmed.

In view of the speed with which and the extent to which the disturbance developed, it is a matter for satisfaction that it was quelled within 20 hours with only a few minor injuries and no escapes. Disciplinary action is being taken against 25 soldiers under sentence.

While, as I have stated, the outbreak was not the direct result of complaints about conditions at Aldershot or unsatisfied grievances, it is clear that numbers of soldiers under sentence, some of whom have criminal records, were in a mood to take full advantage of the opportunity to join in this act of mass indiscipline, and that this may be attributed, at least in part, to the existence of a sense of grievances, real or imaginary. The men have accordingly been given ample opportunity to put forward any complaints or grievances they have and these are now being examined to see how far there is substance in them. I cannot say more on this point at present, but hon. Members may rest assured that in so far as they have substance, I shall see that the complaints are rectified as soon, and as far, as possible.

Does not this kind of incident, which has become regrettably frequent, illustrate the necessity for a speedy review of the whole question of detention barracks, and of the sentences imposed during the war on men who have not criminal records but who. have committed technical offences only, and is it not time that the Government themselves started smashing up some of these obsolete and barbarous prisons?

So far as the detention of prisoners is concerned, the House will remember that I have already this afternoon given a very definite promise to review this matter. So far as the review of sentences is concerned, I shall want to have a careful look at that matter. As I have told the House, I have in mind a review of the whole system of detention.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this business would never have spread as it did had not a few been able to intimidate the many, and does that not equally apply to the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is required in detention barracks is not a slackening of discipline but a tightening of discipline; and is he further aware that it is not so many years ago since those detention barracks in Aldershot were familiarly known among the worst characters as "The Rest Cure "?

Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman go and take a rest cure?

I hope the House has rioted that this incident largely arose because there was only one man on duty, and that the men who got out of the cells put the warder into a cell. I think it is rather a serious matter for a man to be on duty by himself, and I am giving very careful attention to it. But I ask the House to remember that there have been very great changes, through demobilisation, among warders as well as among other men, and also that warders are not easily to be had nowadays, not only because of the great changes that are taking place but because of a good deal of publicity that has taken place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when he is reviewing these sentences, offences like desertion will not be regarded as technical offences?

I made a very long statement on that matter some months ago, and those who heard it will remember that I did deal with mitigation of sentences to a considerable extent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there are adequate staffs for detention barracks all over the country, because they are grossly understaffed, and at Aldershot they have been for the last two or three years?

Yes, Sir. That is one of the objects of the review that I propose to make, but I told the House—it may be that some hon. Members were not present at the time—that I apprehend considerable disquiet in the public mind about this matter.

Is not that disquiet due to the inadequacy of the staffs?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to reduce the tour of overseas service for men serving in C.M.F.

As the hon. Member will be aware, I announced on 14th March that the Python period for C.M.F. is being reduced from four years to three years nine months.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, now that land communications are open in this theatre, it is necessary for there to be so large a discrimination between the treatment of troops here and in B.A.O.R.?

One has to take into consideration the numbers, coining and going, as well as distances.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the period of overseas service of the Middle East and Malta Commands is still, in practice, four years; when he anticipates that the period will be reduced to his promised three years and four months; and whether he is aware that the R.A.F. has recently reduced their period of overseas service.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 14th March.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in Toulon transit camp soldiers are required to sleep in tents; that these conditions prevailed throughout the winter months; and what steps he proposes to take to improve these conditions.

As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on 19th February. Conditions at this camp were made extremely difficult during the winter months by the exceptionally bad weather, which also had the effect of holding up work on the construction of accommodation. With the milder weather, conditions have now improved considerably, and good progress has been made in completing the necessary accommodation. By the beginning of this month the sergeants' messes were complete and in use, 85 per cent. of the dining huts were in use and 230 of the 276 sleeping huts were also in use. Except in a small number of the sleeping huts electric lighting was complete throughout the camp and functioning satisfactorily. I hope that by the beginning of April the work will have been finished.

is my right hon. Friend aware that that is precisely the same reply he gave me two months ago?

I have said that owing to the physical conditions work had been held up

asked the Secretary of. State for War why instructors in formation colleges under the Army Education Scheme do not, like those at Army divisional and higher schools, receive instructors' pay; and whether this anomaly will be removed.

I am looking into this and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to visit the military training ground in the Isle of Purbeck, as promised to the deputation which saw him on 24th October, 1945; and when he anticipates being able to derequisition this area in order to free the china clay workings and agricultural land from the present restrictions.

I regret that owing to the pressure of other business, I have not yet been able to visit the Isle of Purbeck, but I intend to do so as soon as I can. It will in any case be necessary to wait until the general review of Army requirements of land, which is being carried out in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, has been completed before any final decision as to the future of this area can be reached.

While I thank him for his reply, could I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the transfer of these training grounds from more productive areas to less productive moorland areas in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, so that we can free productive areas for agricultural purposes?

That is one of the matters I am considering along with others, but I am awaiting the report. The question in the main deals with the Isle of Purbeck, and I was wanting to visit that on grounds of health.

asked the Secretary of State for War why Western Command has issued notices on farmers at Talybont and Dyffryn, Merioneth, empowering an 0.C.T.U. to use a large area of land for training purposes, contrary to the assurance given to the hon. and gallant Member for Merioneth that it was not intended to extend the areas held for training purposes in the county of Merioneth.

There has been no extension of the area over which training rights are exercised; the notices simply renewed the rights already possessed for a further period of six months.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many training establishments and how many acres of land were held by his Department in each of the counties of Wales at V J-Day and at 1st March, 1946, respectively.

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

Following is the information:

The following table shows for 15th August, 1945, and 1st March, 1946, the training areas owned or leased by the War Department, the training areas requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51, and the land over which training rights have been acquired under Defence Regulation 52 without depriving the owner or occupier of possession. Land used for accommodation purposes by training establishments or other units is not included.

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure that the best available officers and N.C.Os. are employed to serve with African troops; and whether any revision in the conditions of service and pay for British personnel serving with African troops is contemplated.

The most suitable officers available are posted to African units. Before any N.C.O. or potential N.C.O. is posted for service with non-European troops, he is inspected by an officer not below the rank of Lieut.-Colonel to ensure that he is suitable for this duty. In the case of the Infantry, potential N.C.Os. attend a course at the School of Infantry and must be accepted by a special selection board. A review is to be carried out in conjunction with the Colonial Office of the conditions of service and pay in the Colonial Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for War if arrangements can be made for students to serve in specified units so that they may, in their spare time, continue their studies.

So far as military students at the Army Formation Colleges are concerned every possible effort is made to ensure that they are not posted away until they have completed the particular course on which they are engaged. Otherwise no special arrangements can be made for the posting of students to specified units.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this procedure was adopted by the French in their conscription system before the war, and would he give this matter further consideration?

Yes, Sir. It is one of the matters about which I am much concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reconsidered the reply of his Department of 4th February to the request of the hon. Member for Belper about Mr. S. A. Daniels; and whether he is now prepared to authorise the payment of Service pay and allowances from date of enlistment to discharge.

I regret that I can see no grounds for altering the decision which has been reached in this case.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this man received no pay at all but a gratuity based upon his service in the Forces, and that, in fact, the reasons given in the letters of 4th February and nth March are completely contradictory? Does he not consider it scandalous that a man should serve for a period in the Forces and receive no pay of any kind?

I am very sorry to have to say that this man never did any effective military service. In the confusion which existed at the beginning of the war his discharge was not carried out until July, 1940, but he was in civilian employment after 1st March, 1940. It was not until 1945 that he made any claim for pay.

Surely, my right hon. Friend would agree that no civilian employer could get out of paying a man because some confusion existed in his records? This man was an attested soldier, claims were made by his wife while he was in the Service, and have been made several times since. Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

There are many difficulties in the way, which have been created primarily by the fact that the man did not make his claim until very late.

His wife did.

Had he made his claim at the proper time it might have been considered, and an ex gratia payment made.

In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider setting up an independent judicial body to make recommendations for the readjustment of all courts-martial sentences which were imposed during the war and which are still being served.

No, Sir. In accordance with the provisions of the Army Act, all sentences awarded by courts-martial are subject to mitigation, remission or commutation, on confirmation and review by the appropriate military authority I am satisfied that these provisions, in conjunc- tion with the present more lenient application of the policy of suspension of sentences awarded for military offences, are sufficient to ensure that no individual serves a longer sentence than the requirements of discipline demand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if many of these cases had passed through a judicial court far less severe sentences would have been imposed, and in view of the great anxiety and resentment being felt by people in this country, which is leading to difficulties in these prisons, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to this matter?

I have given much consideration to this matter. The House will remember that I made a statement last year which showed I had considerably mitigated these sentences. I will have a look at the sentences to see whether they are unduly heavy, but as far as I can see up to the present time, I do not agree that they are.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these men are serving long terms of penal servitude, and will he take steps to distinguish between those sentenced for purely military offences and those sentenced for ordinary crimes?

I am glad my hon. Friend has made the distinction between the two types of sentences I will certainly look into the matter.

How can my right hon. Friend possibly consider details of all these cases which are tried by courts-martial, which would be comparable to the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice considering the details of all cases dealt with by benches of summary jurisdiction? How can he give a fair judgment in comparing evidence, in view of the other jobs he has to do?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that his Department has refused compensation to Mr. Howell, of Brighton, for damage occasioned to his fishing trawler consequent on its removal from the shore in 1940 by Army authorities, on the ground that Mr. Howell should have safeguarded it himself; and whether, as Mr. Howell could not safeguard it during the four years he was a prisoner of war, he will reconsider the payment of compensation.

I have nothing to add to the letter I sent to the hon. and learned Member on 15th March in which I pointed out that the claimant had left his boat in the care of his son.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during six months of correspondence between his Department and myself, the War Office maintained that it was the duty of this man to have looked after his own boat during the time he was a prisoner of war, and it was only after I put this Question down that the War Office, for the first time, switched the responsibility to the man's son? Why is it that, because this man happens to have a son, the War Office should be relieved of responsibility?

The man himself said that he left the boat in charge of his son

asked the Secretary of State for War what courses are at present available for Regular officers at the Military College of Science and its branches; what is the maximum complement for each course; and how many students are actually on these courses at the present time.

As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The two courses which have been available at the School of Tank Technology are a Technical Adjutants Course R.A.C., and an Advanced Gunnery Course, R.A.C. There is no course of the former type in progress at present and the latter has been discontinued. The school is at present in the process of reorganisation. It is hoped to start an advanced course for tank technicians, and courses for instructors tank gunnery and tank technical officers by August. The school's complement of 39 will then be filled from present applicants. Instruction at the Artillery Equipment School and the Fire Control School was suspended on 1st March to allow these schools to move to the new location of the Military College of Science at Shriven- ham. At that time the following courses were in progress: War Advanced Class in Artillery Equipments, Small Arms Technical Course, four long Gunnery Staff Courses, Inspecting Ordnance Officers Course, two Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Field Artillery Equipments Courses. One hundred and forty-seven officers were on these courses out of a maximum complement of 195.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is a minimum age below which military personnel are riot released on compassionate grounds in any circumstances; and if so, what that age is.

asked the Secretary of State for War why a man's compassionate release, either indefinite or temporary, is affected by his age and service group.

In cases where compassionate release is applied for on other than business grounds there is no minimum age limit for either temporary or indefinite release. Nor is there any minimum age limit for temporary release in cases of one-man businesses. If a man is under 30 or in an age and service group from which postings to the Far East are being made, indefinite release will not, however, normally be granted for business reasons. To grant indefinite release in such cases would be unjustifiable as it would inevitably delay the Class A release of older men and those in early age and service groups.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received from his Department in the last few days two letters, sent by the Noble Lord, the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale) who sits behind him, stating that two men could not be released on purely compassionate grounds because they were below the age at which this could be done? In the light of the answer he has given, will he give immediate reconsideration to these two most urgent cases?

I will give attention to the point raised.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that men now holding tem- porary commissioned or non-commissioned ranks, will, in the event of their signing on for further service, retain their present ranks.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to temporary officers and non-commissioned officers who voluntarily defer their release for a period. In such cases the rank held may be retained subject to the normal operation of the wartime promotion codes. Under this code acting or temporary rank may only be held so long as a vacancy in that rank within an establishment is being filled. I cannot, therefore, guarantee that any acting or temporary rank will be retained throughout the period of deferment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a definite statement to men wishing to serve in the Forces during peace, giving them a guarantee that their commissioned rank will be retained, will ensure that the Army will obtain excellent skilled men who have had experience during the war, and the Army will obtain a number of skilled troops?

No, Sir; I am not aware of any such statement and I should be very sorry if men have been misled.

the Secretary of State for War why soldiers are being sent from Austria to the Middle East for courses in radio, when the same course could be given in this country.

Men from B.A.O.R., Gibraltar, Italy and Austria, as well as those at Home, are sent on courses in this country so far as the capacity of the Schools permits. In the particular case of one R.A.C. unit in Austria, it is a more satisfactory arrangement to send men on Radio courses in the Middle East, because the personnel and equipment for this and other types of R.A.C. training are available in the Middle East, and because it is desirable to keep together men from the formation of which this unit is a part.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is exactly double the distance from Austria to the Middle East as to this country, and is he not further aware that there is an added advantage in giving the men some period of service at home? Will he not increase the accommodation in this country, rather than send the men on these long journeys?

I will have another look at the point made by the hon. Member, but it is important that units should be kept together.

asked the Secretary of State for War why soldiers from Austria are having their L.I.A.P. postponed in order to send them on courses to the Middle East.

If the hon. Member will send me details of any case where L.I.A.P. appears to have been postponed without adequate reasons, I will have it investigated.

Are we to take it that L.I.A.P. will not be postponed in order that men should go on these courses?

Generally speaking, it is not postponed. There are cases in which, of course, repatriation is made available, but that is another matter altogether.

In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made and of his answer to the last Question, will he not review the situation in regard to sending men on courses to the Middle East rather than allow them to come home?

I will make inquiries to see whether my intention is not being carried out in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress -has been made in clearing Bucklebury Common, Berkshire; and when he expects to be able to hand back this land in good order for public use.

Three thousand vehicles are still held at this depot awaiting repair by the Ministry of Supply. No additional vehicles are being sent there. Steps are being taken to dismantle and remove any hutting which is required by the Army elsewhere. The remainder will be handed over to the Ministry of Works for disposal. The clearance of the site is a task of some magnitude and I cannot yet say when the land is likely to be handed back in good order for public use.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the rate at which the Ministry of Supply take away and repair those vehicles? Is it a week or five weeks?

That is another question

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will discontinue the regulations whereby Servicemen who desert have their demobilisation group number postponed, and are treated for demobilisation as if they had only joined the Service at the time of their desertion.

The present rules whereby service prior to desertion is forfeited for the purpose of computing the release date of non-Regular Servicemen are under consideration. The position of Regular Servicemen in this regard is also being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for War in how many cases and for what reasons have requests by the Yugoslav Government for the extradition of Italian war criminals from Italy been refused by the British authorities

No such requests have been refused. A number of requests which have been received from the Yugoslav authorities are at present under consideration.

Does the Minister mean by that reply that no Yugoslavs have been forcibly extradited from Italy to Yugoslavia, after being detained by the Allied forces?

I do not mean anything of the kind. I mean what the answer says, that no requests have been refused.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to arrive at a decision in this matter?

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Italian and German prisoners of war are still detained in this country; how many of them are engaged on useful work; and how many are receiving direct payment for their labour and at what rates.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

My right hon. Friend cannot get out of it that way. Is it not a fact that whilst these prisoners are paid only a nominal rate for their labour, the Government charge the full rate for the job? If that is the case, when is it proposed to discontinue this practice, which amounts to nothing more or less than slave labour?

My hon. Friend asked me how many Italian and German prisoners of war are still detained in this country. I am giving him the facts and figures in my reply, and it would take the rest of the day if I were to read it out.

I asked if my right hon. Friend would state the rates of pay that these prisoners were receiving. That requires no figures at all, because they are paid practically nothing. Why cannot he