Mr Tom Driberg: In cases of six years' service or more are cases always considered individually or are units ever considered as units?
Mr Tom Driberg: May I explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman, since he seems to be unaware of the fact, that the terms "Hi-de-hi" and "Ho-de-ho" are part of the ordinary jargon of swing music?
Mr Tom Driberg: Are there not already enough penalties for infringements of food regulations?
Mr Tom Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War how soon he anticipates that the revised version of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs Beveridge bulletin will be distributed; whether it will contain an objective summary of the original Beveridge proposals as well as a statement of the Government's intentions; and whether copies of it will be placed in the Library so that hon. Members may have the...
Mr Tom Driberg: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman at least to answer the last part of Question 24?
Mr Tom Driberg: asked the Prime Minister how soon the Government will be able to make a further statement of their attitude to the Beveridge Report?
Mr Tom Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is very deep concern and anxiety in the country and the Forces at the Government's apparent surrender to the Prudential? Will he expedite this reconsideration, in view of the promise given by the Lord President of the Council?
Mr Tom Driberg: Even on grounds of practical politics, is it wise for the Government to connive at suicide and martyrdom?
Mr Tom Driberg: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the repeated allegations that the continued detention of Admiral Sir Barry Domvile is unjust, he will publish in a White Paper the letter from Domvile which was produced at the trial at Bath Assizes on the 4th and 5th July, 1940, of Olive Evelyn Baker, now serving a sentence of five years' penal servitude for action intended to assist the enemy?
Mr Tom Driberg: How soon will the Government be able to make a statement regarding their reconsideration of the Beveridge Report as promised in the light of last week's Debate?
Mr Tom Driberg: Was capitalism dealt with objectively?
Mr Tom Driberg: On what basis is that censorship exercised?
Mr Tom Driberg: I will detain the House for only a few minutes. I want to ask one question, and make one point. I want to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say, either now or at some convenient future date, one or two sentences to illuminate a little further this vexed minor problem of the post-war functions of the Home Guard. When this question was last raised in the House he said that the...
Mr Tom Driberg: Then the heavy father. I hope he will never be tempted to infanticide by the occasional ebullitions of adolescence. But it did seem to me that in one passage of his speech he was a little less than fair to education, welfare, and kindred subjects. He fell into the growing Ministerial habit of what I can only call juggling with unreal priorities. There was a good deal of that last week. The...
Mr Tom Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the Soviet Government's allegation that General Mihailovich has been collaborating with Axis forces in Yugoslavia?
Mr Tom Driberg: Is there a liaison between the Yugoslav propaganda which is put out through the B.B.C. and the free Yugoslav propaganda which comes from further East?
Mr Tom Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman also send a copy of this admirable pastoral to Lord Vansittart?
Mr Tom Driberg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those who have ever crossed the Atlantic in a bomber will learn with relief that the Prime Minister does not have to travel in the same discomfort?
Mr Tom Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Chief Petty Officer Foster has appeared on public platforms in support of the Conservative candidate in the North Portsmouth by-election; and whether this breach of King's Regulations may be taken as a precedent by naval personnel?
Mr Tom Driberg: Was it not rather unfair to the other candidate to refuse him permission to have naval personnel on his platform, in view of this local mistake?