The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in assuming that the report by the officer appointed by General Wavell was to be made to the Prime Minister. The officer was appointed to collect information for General Wavell, who has not yet reported. I must not be understood to suggest that when the report is received it will be suitable for publication.
The staff with which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster left England in August, 1941, consisted of a military adviser and a private secretary. The Mission was joined in the United States by a principal adviser, who was at that time employed by the Ministry of War Transport. Two additional members joined the Mission at Singapore—one a member of the Diplomatic Service who was then serving at the British Embassy at Chungking and the other a member of the Malayan Civil Service. All these members of the Mission received the pay and allowances to which they were entitled in the services to which they belonged. There was also a small clerical staff—principally recruited in Singapore. Owing to the loss of documents in transit, the final accounts of the Mission are not yet available.
My hon. Friend's question was quite a different one. He asked "whether the fact of the appointment of the staff led to a report? I said that the appointment of the staff does not necessarily lead to a report.