Commons Sitting of 9 December 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1942)
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1942), be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ARGENTINE RAILWAYS
  Sir Robert Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the Consular Service in the Argentine Republic to furnish a report in respect to the financial position of the British-owned Argentine railways, in which £250,000,000 of. British capital is invested; and whether he will arrange for a copy of that report to be placed in the Library?
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The companies concerned are all registered in this country, and the material necessary for a full understanding of their financial position is already available in London. In the circumstances I do not propose to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  UNITED NATIONS (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the possibility of setting up a Supreme Council of the United Nations is under consideration?
  Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville).
  Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the arrangements which at present exist between the Allied Governments for consultation and decision at the highest level are really adequate to the requirements of the time?
  Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend said yesterday that they are the best that can be contrived.

  NORTH AFRICA (INFORMATION TO EUROPE)
  Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether we can have confidence that no information likely to be detrimental to the success of our arms or the safety of our troops is passing from North Africa to Europe as a result of our association with persons or groups in North African territories not proved to be in accord with the principles for which we are fighting?
  Mr. Eden: This problem is the responsibility of the military authorities on the spot. I understand that the necessary measures are being taken to meet it.

  AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY
  Mr. R. Morganasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether having regard to the services rendered by the Air Transport Auxiliary Corps, he will consider recommending that it shall in the future be known as the Royal Air Transport Auxiliary Corps and that the pilots serving in it shall use the royal crown over the wings worn by them as in the case of pilots in the Royal Air Force?
  The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am fully conscious of the excellent work which the Air Transport Auxiliary is doing, and I am already engaged in reviewing the status of the

  1539
  organisation. Judging, however, by the customary standards which apply to cases of this sort, I do not consider that I should be justified in adopting the course suggested by my hon. Friend.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Royal Fleet Reservists
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the enrolment and re-enrolment of Royal Fleet Reservists is suspended, thus depriving these ratings of the opportunity to obtain the gratuity to which they would be entitled after 22 years' combined active and reserve service; and whether he will now permit such re-enrolment to take place from the date of the expiration of the last contract of service?
    The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): It is true that the enrolment and re-enrolment of Royal Fleet reservists is suspended during the war. The gratuity to which my hon. Friend refers will, however, continue to be payable to any reservist already serving who completes the necessary period of combined naval and reserve service during the war. The engagements of men re-enrolled after the war will be ante-dated to the date of expiration of the last period of engagement or enrolment, so that the time which such men are now serving will count towards gratuity.

    Women's Royal Naval Service, East Anglia
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will have inquiries made with a view to making more adequate provision for heat and warmth, including warm food, to members of the Women's Royal Naval Service who are stationed in huts attached to a Royal Naval Training Centre in East Anglia; and whether he is aware of the excessive number of local rules on this station for the Women's Royal Naval Service many of which are in direct conflict with the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on Amenities and Welfare Conditions in the three Women's Services?
    Mr. George Hall: I am satisfied that the heating in the Wren's chalets, mess and recreation spaces in the establishment to which the hon. Member's Question pre-
    1540
    sumably refers is adequate. In one or two of the places where Wrens work, it is not yet entirely satisfactory: it will be made so as soon as the necessary material can be obtained. Meals are served from electrically heated trolleys. These have not been entirely successful and the installation of electric or gas heated cupboards is now being considered. I may mention that sickness amongst Wrens in the establishment during the last two years has been remarkably small. I am not aware that the number of local rules on the station concerned is excessive or that any of them conflicts with the recommendations in the report to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that the facts are otherwise? Is he aware also that repeated promises have been made to provide adequate warm quarters and food but have not been fulfilled, and that this is a notorious station, where, in the early part of the war, many hundreds of trainees died of pneumonia? Will the Admiralty get on with this job of putting the matter right?
    Mr. Hall: The information which I have given in reply to the Question has been received from the station since my hon. Friend put this Question on the Order Paper. I am bound to accept, and I would ask him to accept, the statement which I have made.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Would it not be a good thing for the Admiralty to consider employing women medical officers, as the other two Services do, to look after this type of person?
    Mr. De la Bère: Mr. Speaker, as I have reason to believe that the facts are otherwise than were stated by the Minister, and that the statement that the, health of those who were billeted there last year was good, is misleading to this House, I beg to give notice that I will raise the whole matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

  SIERRA LEONE (ESSENTIAL WORK ORDER)
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of, and respective, offences committed by convicted workers against the Sierra Leone Defence (Essential Work) (General Provisions) Order of 1942, with the respective

  1541
  fines and imprisonment; the normal weekly hours worked and rates of wages paid; and, as many workers having long distances to travel to and from their homes spend their lives almost wholly in travel, work and sleep, whether provision will be made for occasional time off for such workers to rest?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The Governor of Sierra Leone has already been asked to supply information on these points. I will communicate the reply to my hon. Friend as soon as it is received.
  Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that, according to reports that have been received, there have been very heavy convictions?
  Colonel Stanley: I have not yet received the figures, and I prefer not to make any comment until I have received them.

  JAMAICA

    Subversive Propaganda
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the ban recently placed upon seven members of the Peoples' National Party in Jamaica prohibiting them from engaging in political propaganda in the island is still in force; and whether he will state the grounds for such prohibition?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. Restrictive orders were issued against these men by the Governor under Jamaica Defence Regulation No. 17, as they have been engaged in subversive propaganda work.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is meant by "subversive propaganda"? This is not a pacifist organisation. Can the Minister explain why this action was taken and say what is the nature of their offence?
    Colonel Stanley: Propaganda which tended to be adverse to the war effort.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of that statement, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be a little more explicit? Can he give us some indication of the actual nature of the offence committed by these persons?
    Colonel Stanley: I have given the general nature of the offence; it is subversive propaganda.
    Mr. Shin well: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman then put in the OFFICIAL REPORT the actual nature of the offence committed, not only in a general form but in specific form, so that hon. Members may be fully informed?
    Colonel Stanley: If the hon. Member has any further question to ask, I should be glad if he will put it upon the Paper.
    Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this Peoples' National Party is a recognised political party in Jamaica working for constitutional aims?
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, and there has been no prohibition or ban upon the party. This is a ban upon individual members of the party for acts which they have committed.
    Hon. Members: What are they?

    Constitution
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed new constitution for Jamaica has now been accepted by the Jamaican Legislative Assembly; whether it is now in operation; and, if so, whether he will cause a copy of it to be placed in the Library of the House?
    Colonel Stanley: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative: the second part does not therefore arise.

    Papermaking and Cement Manufacturing
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that proposals of responsible citizens in Jamaica for establishing, without Government assistance, the industry of papermaking and that for Portland cement, together with the planting of some 1,500 acres of unused land for providing supplementary raw materials for papermaking, although satisfying Government requirements, have been refused authority to proceed; and whether, as these schemes would provide additional employment and contribute to the prosperity of the Colony, he will take steps to remove the embargo against them?
    Colonel Stanley: With regard to paper-making, I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 1st July. As regards cement, the position is that the establishment of a cement factory

    1543
    in Jamaica, whatever its importance as a peace-time project, is impracticable in time of war, since the necessary machinery cannot be made available.
    Mr. Adams: Will the Minister allow me to express astonishment that he apparently has not the information?

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now take into consideration the setting up of a Standing Committee of both Houses of Parliament to act in an advisory capacity in the work of colonial development and reconstruction?
  Colonel Stanley: This question was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State, in his speech on colonial development in the Debate on the Address on 26th November. I am unable to add anything to the statement which he made on that occasion.
  Mr. Riley: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in almost every Debate for several years, not only in this House but in another place, this demand has been put forward, with general acceptance by Members of both Houses?
  Colonel Stanley: I listened to the Debate to which I have referred, and I know that the hon. Member put this forward with very great persuasion; but my right hon. Friend has given his reason why, at any rate at the moment, he prefers another method of approach.
  Mr. Maxton: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a new Colonial Secretary now? Is there not to be a new policy as a result of his arrival?
  Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Is it not a fact that very great weight has been given in another place to this suggestion? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not give it very careful consideration?
  Colonel Stanley: It did not need the weighty support in another place. The hon. Member put the case very fairly and fully in this House, and it is naturally a matter to which one gives very serious consideration.

  WEST AFRICA

    Royalties
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of royalties paid, respectively, to West African Governments and private companies or persons during the past 10 years; and approximately how much of that is transferred to this country.
    Colonel Stanley: As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile could I take it that a larger portion of these royalties comes to this country than is used in the Colonies themselves?
    Colonel Stanley: No, Sir. By far the greater part of the royalties are paid to the Governments of the respective Colonies in West Africa.
    Following is the reply:
    The only case in West Africa in which private interests receive a share of Government Royalties is in Nigeria where the successors of the Royal Niger Company receive half the Royalties in respect of a defined area. Their half share during the last ten years amounts to £1,153,744. I have no information as to how much of this sum has been transferred to this country.
    As regards Royalties paid to the West African Governments, the following are the figures asked for:

    Nigeria

    …

    £2,378,611

    Gold Coast

    …

    £691,330

    Sierra Leone

    …

    £146,540

    In addition to Royalties, the mining industry in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone also pays to the West African Government taxes in the form of export duties and profits tax. The total amount of these taxes during the last ten years for which figures are available is £3,923,068.

    Compulsory Labour
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many are now employed in forced labour in West Africa and the wages they are paid?
    Colonel Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Combined English

    1545
    Universities (Mr. Edmund Harvey) on 10th November.
    Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what that was?
    Colonel Stanley: It was a long reply, giving a good deal of detail. If the hon. Member will look at it and then wants any further information, I shall be only too glad to give it to him.

    Government Employees (Wages)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the trade union demand for a minimum wage of £6 10s. per month for Government employees in West Africa; and whether any consideration is being paid to this?
    Colonel Stanley: I am not aware of any general demand in West Africa for such a minimum wage as is referred to. Careful surveys of the local cost of living have been made by the West African Governments and cost of living bonuses awarded to lower-paid Government employees on varying scales according to circumstances in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone. The cost of living continues to be carefully watched by those Governments.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire of the actual organisations on the spot, trade unions and otherwise, as to whether the scale is really adequate?
    Colonel Stanley: It is under constant review. If the hon. Gentleman has any facts which lead him to think that in any particular territory it is not satisfactory, I shall be only too glad to have them.

  UNITED STATES LOCOMOTIVES, GREAT BRITAIN
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the locomotives manufactured in the United States of America and now arriving for service on British railways are so designed and constructed as to be immediately available for use?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): My Department expect that the
  1546
  American locomotives to which my hon. Friend refers will be under steam within a few days of their arrival. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of His Majesty's Government for the timely assistance which is being rendered to us by the United States.

  MERCHANT SHIP CONSTRUCTION (ALLIED OWNERSHIP)
  Sir Robert Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why licences granted to private British owners for the construction of cargo steamers have, in several instances and, in particular, in those of cargo motor ships, been withdrawn and reallocated by the Ministry while still on the stocks to certain Allied Governments; and whether many of the ships now being built in British yards, especially motor ships, have already been marked for Allied ownership?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that any licences have been withdrawn. Certain ships are being built for the account of His Majesty's Government, but no ship now under construction in British yards has yet been earmarked for Allied ownership. A White Paper which explained the scheme for allocating to Allied Governments a certain proportion of the ships delivered during 1941 and 1942 was laid before the House in July last (in Command Paper 6373).
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that in the allocation to which my hon. Friend has referred, which occurred some time ago, some of the best vessels, particularly the motor vessels, instead of being allocated to British owners were allocated to Allied owners? Is not that likely to prove injurious to our interests at the end of the war?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me details of any cases he has in mind. I am sure he would agree, as the House would, that justice should be done to our Allies, whose ships are constantly sailing the seas and who have rendered great service and suffered great losses.
  Mr. Shinwell: Without having any desire to withhold justice from our Allies, is it not necessary also to be just to the Mercantile Marine of this country?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, certainly, but I do not think it can be shown there has been any discrimination against our own owners in favour of our Allies.

  ROAD TRANSPORT (SPEED LIMIT)
  Mr. Oldfieldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether in view of his appeal to reduce the speed of transport, any steps have been taken to alter the schedules to enable a more moderate speed of all road transport, or what action is to be taken apart from the appeal seeing that men must run to the schedules?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Motor omnibuses and coaches are already subject to a general maximum speed limit of 30 miles an hour in daylight, and of 20 miles an hour in built-up areas after dark. The time schedules of all omnibus and coach services operated under road service licences or permits are regulated by the Regional Transport Commissioners. In approving these schedules Regional Transport Commissioners give full consideration to speed in relation to the driving conditions on the route which each service follows. For this reason, I do not think it is necessary or desirable to undertake the general revision of schedules which my hon. Friend suggests.

  RAILWAYS

    Carriage Seats (Reservation)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that a railway porter and a Euston Hotel porter stood from 2.15 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. on No. 14 platform, Euston Station, on the 26th November, 1942, in order to reserve three first-class seats; that a paper was pinned on the seats, "Not for public use"; that both men were given gratuities, while many Serving men and women of the Armed Forces were overcrowded in the train; and what action does he intend to take to stop this practice?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Three passengers from the Euston Hotel travelled on the 2.50 p.m. train to Stoke on 26th November. Their luggage was taken to the train by one of the hotel porters, who
    1548
    placed it on three seats in one compartment. The porter stayed by the compartment to watch the luggage until the three passengers arrived. I am assured that no other porter attended to these passengers. One seat only was labelled "Not for public use"; the labelling was done, not by the porter, but by the Stationmaster's staff. My information is that the train was well loaded, but not overcrowded. My Noble Friend has given instructions that in future no hotel porter or other porter may reserve seats for intending passengers by placing luggage on them, unless the passengers are themselves present when this is done.

    Porters' Duties (Luggage)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will reduce the number of railway porters waiting in order to reserve first-class seats at Euston and London Road Station, Manchester; why they are allowed to carry light suitcases and use trucks for the carrying of personal luggage while men and women of the Armed Forces have to carry their kit and equipment and women have to carry their young children, and other cases; and what action he intends to take?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am assured by the competent authorities that the number of porters at these stations is not excessive in view of the various duties which they have to perform. Their services are available to all travellers, both Services and civilian alike. Inquiries have shown that more third- than first-class passengers ask porters to help them to carry their luggage, and that a high proportion of those who do so belong to the Armed Forces. As I have just told my hon. Friend, instructions have been given to porters that they are not to reserve seats for passengers either in first- or third-class carriages unless the passengers are themselves present when the luggage is placed on the seats. The porters regard it as part of their duty to assist passengers generally to find seats, and in particular to help invalids, children, and also passengers such as troops, for whom special accommodation may have been reserved.
    Mr. Smith: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give further consideration to this matter, and consider that the needs, in future, of troops, especially men and

    1549
    women carrying heavy equipment, should be given preference when trucks are being used on the platform?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I certainly wish to do everything to ease the burden on Service travellers, especially women Service travellers. We have been negotiating with the Service Departments in the hope that women will be allowed not to carry their kit with them every time they go on leave.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is the hon. Member aware that since this Question was put on the Order Paper there has been a distinct improvement on the route to which reference has been made?

  OVERSEAS GOODS (MARKING OF DESTINATION)
  Sir R. Glynasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has yet received any evidence which shows that the existing practice with regard to the labelling of cargoes for overseas destinations has imperilled the safety of our convoys at sea; what is the conclusion of Mr. Justice Tucker's Report on this matter; and whether he has any further statement to make?
  Sir Adam Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the Report on the investigation into the working of the security side of the convoy system has been received; and whether he can make a statement to the House thereon?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: With your permission, Sir, and with the permission of my hon. Friends, I will answer these Questions together at the end of Questions.
  Later:
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have received no evidence which shows that the existing practice with regard to the labelling of cargoes for destinations overseas has imperilled the safety of our convoys. After the fullest inquiry into all the allegations which have been made, and after hearing the evidence of many competent witnesses, Mr. Justice Tucker has reported that, in general, the existing system, and the instructions given by the Ministry of War Transport to shippers, railways, and others concerned, are not open to objection
  1550
  on security grounds. In particular, he reports that it is neither desirable nor practicable to change the present practice of marking cargo with the name of the port of destination. In most other respects, he recommends that no change should be made. He points out, however, that in one instance the present instructions concerning an operational convoy were not fully obeyed. While this did not, in his view, in fact imperil the convoy, he recommends that further measures should be taken to ensure that, in future, the Ministry's instructions shall be fully carried out. Mr. Justice Tucker recommends one other change which, While not essential for purposes of security, will, nevertheless, be of advantage. My noble Friend has already taken steps to put these recommendations into effect, and to impress on all concerned how necessary it is that the instructions given shall be fully carried out. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to publish the full text of Mr. Justice Tucker's findings, but I take this opportunity of expressing to him the gratitude of His Majesty's Government for the energy and thoroughness with which he conducted his inquiry, and for the Report which he has made.
  Sir R. Glyn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the speeches that were made did not cause undue alarm and despondency and produce a very bad effect, and whether those who made the speeches gave evidence before Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: In answer to the last part of the question, some of those who made speeches certainly did give evidence before Mr. Justice Tucker. I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that it was most regrettable that speeches should have been made which spread unjustifiable alarm among the public and caused needless distress and anxiety to relatives and friends of merchant seamen, and I think it would have been much better if the critics would have consulted my Noble Friend in private before they made accusations in an indiscriminate manner for which there was no foundation whatever.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: In order to restore confidence, will the hon. Gentleman circulate the terms of reference of Mr. Justice Tucker's Committee and the list of witnesses and organisations who gave evidence before the Committee?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If I may, I will tell the hon. Member now what were the terms of reference and who were the principal witnesses. The terms of reference were:
  "To examine the system of marking goods destined for shipment and to report whether, in the interests of safety of ships, any changes, and if so, what, are desirable and practicable, having regard to the necessity of avoiding confusion and delay."
  Mr. Justice Tucker heard representatives from all the principal Government Departments concerned—the Admiralty, War Office, Board of Trade, etc.—Customs and Excise, the Security Executive, the Crown Agents for the Colonies, the Railway Executive Committee, the Chamber of Shipping, the National Union of Seamen, the National Council of Port Labour Employers, the Officers' Merchant Navy Federation, the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and two firms of Liverpool shipping agents. He also saw Lord Cork and Orrery, Lord Chatfield, a Naval officer with unrivalled experience of Malta convoys, a Merchant Navy cadet, and some members of the general public. He also had a very large volume of correspondence from the public, a memorandum from Sir Percy Bates, and many other Departmental minutes and memoranda.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    Vichy Broadcasts (News Leakage)
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Minister of Information whether he has caused investigation to be made into the leakage which enabled the German-controlled Vichy radio to broadcast the news of the recent Cabinet changes in this country and the story of the sinking of the Japanese raider in the Indian Ocean before the news was generally known in this country; and whether he will preclude this leakage of news in future?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Yes, Sir. As these occasional incidents puzzle many people not familiar with the machinery for circulating news, I must burden the House with a rather detailed explanation. Where considerations of security do not arise, overseas correspondents are frequently allowed to cable news abroad in advance of the agreed release time, provided their cables are prefaced with a request that publication should not be made
    1552
    before that time. This is a great convenience to their newspapers, and it enables them to publish and comment on the news at approximately the same time as the newspapers at home. As such messages may be transmitted by wireless, there is always the possibility that the enemy will intercept them, and this is what happened to the story of the sinking of the Japanese raider. Undoubtedly, the enemy are thus occasionally enabled to give their radio news an unaccustomed veracity by using a British story before it is published, but I see no reason why this should compel us to abandon a practice which is of considerable advantage to British publicity among the United Nations.
    The circumstances governing the news of the Cabinet changes were different. The announcement issued from 10, Downing Street made it clear that this news should not appear on club tapes, be broadcast, or be sent abroad before the time of publication. Unfortunately, one or two correspondents unintentionally disregarded this direction.
    Mr. Higgs: What check is now made on the German and Italian Ministries in Dublin?
    Mr. Bracken: I do not know what relevance that has to this Question.

    Naval Film, "In Which We Serve"
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Minister of Information in what respects the American film censor has asked for alteration or deletion in the dialogue of the British naval film "In Which We serve" sent to America for exhibition?
    Mr. Bracken: I am told that the Censorship Office of the American film industry has taken exception to certain expressions put into the mouths of sailors in this film. The producers and distributors of the film take the view that these expressions are seamanlike and appropriate.
    Sir A. Southby: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report that some cuts are being asked for on the ground that Italian susceptibilities in the United States might be offended? Observing that the film gained universal approbation in this country, will my

    1553
    right hon. Friend see that a film which has pleased the British people is shown to the American people just as it is?
    Mr. Bracken: I have no right to give orders to the American film censors. I would not dream of doing so. But I think you can leave it to the American Press and the American public to see that the squeamishness and old-maiden-aunt-like apprehensions of these Hollywood censors are overcome.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Can my right hon. Friend say what the words are?
    Major Markham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that films showing British troops in action are always silent films?

    Beveridge Report (Broadcast Summary)
    Mr. Brookeasked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation news bulletin on the day of publication of the Beveridge Report, purporting to give a summary of it, drew misleading comparisons between the cost of the proposals and the cost of the war, which are not contained in the Report itself; and whether he will draw the attention of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the importance of not attempting, when important Parliamentary Papers are being summarised, to sway public opinion by interpolating into the summary the British Broadcasting Corporation's own observations?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. This question shows the wisdom of the truism that comparisons are always odious. I have read the summary of the Beveridge Report made by the news editor of the B.B.C. Apart from the blemish noticed by my hon. Friend, I believe it to be a fair and skilful summary of a vast and complex document. The Governors of the B.B.C. do not attempt to sway public opinion.
    Mr. Brooke: Has my right hon. Friend been able to ascertain how this particular mistake, which was a rather serious one, occurred and can he give any assurance that the B.B.C. will take steps to prevent any incorrect summarisation of Parliamentary papers in future?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. I must explain to my hon. Friend that a news editor working against the clock occasionally
    1554
    makes mistakes. I can give no guarantee whatever that these mistakes will not be repeated. Newspaper reporters and editors occasionally make mistakes, and so do the B.B.C. I really think the hon. Gentleman should make allowances for people, working in very difficult conditions, who do their best to give the public an honest report of proceedings in this House.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Is my right hon. Friend sure that no attempt was made to sway public opinion outside this country in radio reports and accounts of this document?
    Mr. Bracken: I should say that no attempt was made to sway public opinion outside this country. I do not quite know what is meant by "swaying public opinion," but I should say that a good account of the Beveridge Report was given in all parts of the world, because apparently, it interested everyone everywhere.
    Sir Irving Albery: Are we to understand that the B.B.C. did not receive a previous copy of this Report?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir; the B.B.C., like everybody else, received a previous copy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Except us.
    Mr. Bracken: No hon. Member had to make speeches an hour after the Report was received. The B.B.C. certainly received a copy of the Report, but it is extremely hard to give a correct summary of this Beveridge Report. No one except Sir William Beveridge himself, I think, could have summarised it in such a short time.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Bristol Aeroplane Company (Depart- mental Report)
    Mr. Culverwellasked the Minister of Information for what purpose and on whose authority has a confidential Report on the Bristol Aeroplane Company been prepared by officials of his Department; what is the nature of the material contained in this Report; and have Reports of a similar nature been compiled regarding other industrial undertakings?
    Mr. Bracken: It is part of the duties of local officers of the Ministry of Informa-

    1555
    tion to report on matters which are arousing public interest in their region. A confidential report of this kind from the Information Officer of the South Western Region, made nine months' ago, touched on matters concerning the Bristol Aeroplane Company which had attracted public attention, and this was referred to the Government Department concerned.
    Mr. Culverwell: Why is a Member of Parliament not allowed to see this Report, which, I understand, was unauthorised by my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Bracken: I do not authorise all the activities of the Ministry of Information; otherwise, there would be a serious bottleneck. But there are certain confidential jobs which the Ministry of Information does for Government Departments which cannot be made available to Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Culverwell: My right hon. Friend is surely aware that this activity on the part of his local officials was not authorised by his Department? They compiled a dossier, which I have asked to see, because I cannot criticise it unless I know the nature of the contents. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Correspondents' Despatches (Censorship)
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Minister of Information whether he will give an assurance that the arrangement made between the Allied Newspapers and the "Chicago Sun" for the exchange of news and feature services will not affect the necessity to submit correspondents' despatches containing political commentary to censorship?
    Mr. Bracken: All material published in the Press in this country is subject only to the usual voluntary submission to censorship on the part of the newspaper concerned. But all Press messages going out of the country are automatically subject to censorship before despatch.

  PARCELS FOR SHIPS (POSTAL RATES)
  Mr. Manderasked the Postmaster-General the present practice with regard to charging postage for parcels sent to persons in the services in ships at sea
  1556
  and the relative rates for land and sea destinations; and whether he is aware that questions are asked about the where-about of ships which the sender obviously cannot answer?
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): For reasons of security, all parcels for His Majesty's ships, including merchant vessels taken up for naval or military service, have to be addressed c/o G.P.O. London, E.C.I, and no indication of a ship's location may be given in the address. If the ship is in home waters, the ordinary inland postage rates apply: otherwise the charge is the same as for parcels for the land Forces serving abroad, namely, 3 lb. 9d.; 7 lb. 1s. 6d.; 11 lb. 2s.; 22 lb. 3s. 6d. Post office counter staff hold very definite instructions that in no circumstances must inquiry be made of the sender whether a ship is in home or foreign waters, for the purpose of assessing postage. The sender should be given particulars of the alternative rates and informed that the decision which rate to apply must rest with him. I should be glad if the hon. Member would let me have particulars of any case he may have in mind where these instructions have been contravened.
  Mr. Mander: I shall be glad to do that.
  Sir A. Southby: Has there been any change in the postage rates on parcels sent to His Majesty's ships abroad, as compared with those paid before the war? Is the old rule carried out, or have new regulations been brought in?
  Mr. Morrison: There has been no recent change; but, as regards the position before the war, I should like notice of that.

  RAILINGS REMOVAL
  Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning, whether he will give instructions for the removal of railings round statues, memorials, and other monuments when they are not of historical value?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): Such railings are removed unless they form part of the memorial, are necessary to protect it, or possess exceptional artistic merit or historical interest of their own.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why have the railings been left around the Albert Memorial? Is that to protect it?
  Mr. Hicks: You get a good view of the Memorial with the others down, do you not?

  FLATS AND TENEMENTS (REPAIRS, LIMITATION)
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning, whether, in the case of blocks of flats or tenements, the £100 regulation limiting expenditure in any one year applies to the whole of the building or to each separate hereditament?
  Mr. Hicks: The limitation to which the hon. Member refers applies to the whole building if it is the subject of a single Schedule A assessment, or where there is no such assessment, if it is the subject of a single valuation in a valuation list. If, however, the flats are the subject of such separate assessments or valuations, the limitation applies to each individual flat. It is, of course, open to any person who desires to carry out work in excess of £100 to make application for a licence.
  Mr. Bellenger: Would my hon. Friend, at this stage of the war, reconsider this regulation? It is preventing many war-damaged properties being put into repair and so easing the housing situation.
  Mr. Hicks: I will certainly take notice of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but, so far as I am aware, there is no difficulty in applying for a licence subject to the £100 limit.
  Sir I. Albery: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a widespread opinion that an application for a licence to decorate a flat is not at all easy to get, and that it is seldom obtained?
  Mr. Hicks: That is entirely a question of the allocation of materials.

  UNDEVELOPED LAND (DEVELOP- MENT RIGHTS)
  Major Markhamasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he has con-
  1558
  sidered the letter from the town clerk of Nottingham, dated 4th December, urging that the recommendations of paragraph 49 of the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee should be implemented at once; and what reply he has sent?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): My Noble Friend has replied to the letter to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, drawing the Town Clerk's attention to the recent statements which he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General have made, and informing him that these recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee are being investigated by the Government and that the recommendations made by the Nottingham City Council will be carefully considered.
  Major Markham: Can the Minister give any indication whether an early decision is likely to be taken on this paragraph?
  Mr. Strauss: The recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee particularly mentioned in the Question concern the scheme for the acquisition of all development rights in undeveloped land lying outside built-up areas. It is a novel and far-reaching scheme, which clearly requires close investigation by the Government.
  Major Markham: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered my Supplementary Question, which is, although it is a new suggestion, whether an early decision can be expected on this paragraph.
  Mr. Strauss: I am not in a position to add to-day to the considered statements recently made on the subject in both Houses of Parliament.

  MILITARY SERVICE (BOGUS MEDICAL CERTIFICATES)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a doctor recently struck off the register for giving bogus certificates to men to enable them to evade military service and to the large sums of money involved; and what action has been, or will be, taken in his case, in that of the intermediaries and the others concerned?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The activities of the doctors to whom the Question relates were with certain other similar cases the subject of a very full investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1940, which was the date of the acts complained of. It was decided that the available evidence did not afford a basis for criminal proceedings. Since this Question has been put down inquiries have been made to see whether the position so far as evidence for criminal proceedings is concerned has been altered. As at present advised, I do not think it has. I would like to add that as a result of the investigation to which I have referred a Defence Regulation was made strengthening the law on the subject, though it is not, of course, applicable to acts done before it was made.
  Mr. McGovern: If there is no case for criminal proceedings, is it not most unfair that a doctor should be struck off the register if there is no complete evidence, and should not the Attorney-General take up this matter and amend the power of this medical council?
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that that is right. Anyone familiar with criminal proceedings will realise that the laws of evidence, the laws of corroboration and the fact that the accused, unless he desires to give evidence, cannot be questioned in any way, make an inquiry before a criminal court a different matter from an inquiry before a committee, and there may well be cases where an investigating body may arrive, on evidence and on grounds perfectly proper to be put before it, at a conclusion that it would be impossible to establish in a criminal court, having regard to the rules of evidence and the principles governing a criminal trial.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand from the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that the evidence was submitted to the Public Prosecutor some little time ago and that it was on the specific advice of the Public Prosecutor that a prosecution was not initiated?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir, that is absolutely right, subject to the addition that in this particular case the Director of Public Prosecutions took the advice of Treasury counsel, it being a case of great importance, and he acted on that advice, and it was entirely his decision.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Purely on the legal advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  The Attorney-General: Purely on the legal advice—I am glad to make that clear—of the Director of Public Prosecutions, after taking the advice of Treasury counsel.
  Mr. George Griffiths: If a trade union member breaks the trade union rules, has not that trade union the power to take action without interference such as is suggested by the hon. Member?
  Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that I hope that medical men will get a fairer "do" than trade union members?

  WOMEN IN COURT (WEARING OF HATS)
  Mr. Burdenasked the Attorney-General whether he has now considered the statement by Mr. Justice Hilbery, in the King's Bench Division, on 16th November, to the effect that women witnesses and litigants should wear hats in court as in the case of women going into church; and whether, in view of the shortage of materials and the recent pronouncements by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York that women need not wear hats in church, he can now make a statement?
  The Attorney-General: It has undoubtedly been the custom in the past for a woman to have her head covered in court, whether she had duties in connection with the proceedings or was present only as a member of the public. In view of a certain change in social habits, it seems to my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor unnecessary to insist on a strict compliance with this practice either when taking the oath or when giving evidence, or when present in court as litigant or spectator.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Attorney-General consult his ecclesiastical colleagues as to why St. Paul allowed this particular injunction to women at that time?
  Sir A. Southby: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, since complete liberty is to be given to women as to whether their heads shall be covered or not, the same liberty will be given to men either to wear their hats or not to wear them, whichever they choose?
  The Attorney-General: That is a very different question.
  Sir A. Southby: Is it not exactly the same thing?

  SURGICAL BELTS
  Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will amend the Belt and Corset Order, 1942, so that it shall not apply to repeat orders, as the existing Order involves patients in the expense of two visits to doctors and the latter in unnecessary work at a time when, owing to the shortage of doctors, they are already overworked?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Though my right hon. Friend is naturally very reluctant to add to the heavy burdens of the medical profession, the arrangements for the supply of special surgical belts were made in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I am advised that in most cases only a patient's doctor is in a position to determine whether it is necessary for a surgical belt to be replaced, and for this reason I fear that I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. Lipson: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really think that it is reasonable to expect a patient who has been advised by a doctor to wear a surgical belt for some years, when it is worn out, to have to pay two visits to a doctor, which involves him in unnecessary expense; and will he reconsider the matter?
  Captain Waterhouse: There is no reason at all why a medical practitioner should not give an order to a patient for more than one belt if the circumstances are such as the hon. Member indicates.
  Mr. Lipson: That is not the point of my Question. If people who may have worn a belt for years simply have to replace it, surely it is not usual for them to go to a doctor every time it has to be replaced?
  Captain Waterhouse: We are dealing with a war-time restriction, and I hope that it any patient has to wear a belt for years, he will not have to pay many visits to the doctor.

  CYCLE-LAMP BATTERIES
  Sir A. Southbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a shortage of batteries of cycle lamps; what steps are being taken to maintain an adequate supply; and is it his intention to encourage the use of bicycles in order to economise in other forms of transport?
  Captain Waterhouse: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) about supplies of batteries for cycle lamps. The manufacture of bicycles and tyres requires capacity, labour and materials which are urgently needed for munitions. I cannot therefore encourage their general use when other forms of transport are available.
  Sir A. Southby: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that bicycles are very largely used by men and women who are doing very urgent and necessary war work, and that during the blackout it is impossible for them to use their bicycles unless they have lamps? Is it not therefore essential that there should be a supply of batteries made available to people who need their bicycles to carry on work which is in the national interest?
  Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir, but the capacity for the manufacture of batteries is urgently needed for many direct Service requirements. In so far as those requirements can be met, all surplus capacity is used for producing such batteries as my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.
  Mr. Thorne: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether that includes batteries for torches?
  Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir.

  ARMY TRADESMEN AND TANK GUNNERS (PAY)
  Major Markhamasked the Secretary of State for War the present rates of pay of an unmarried private tradesman clerk, an unmarried private tradesman fitter and an unmarried tank gunner?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The pay of Army tradesmen varies according to their

  1563
  service and their trade classification. The daily rate of pay of a private tradesman clerk is from 3s. 9d. to 5s. 9d.; a private tradesman fitter from 4s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. A gunner who belongs to the crew of an armoured fighting vehicle is normally expected to qualify as either a gunner mechanic or a gunner operator. The former is paid from 3s. 9d. to 5s. 0d. and the latter from 3s. 9d. to 5s. 6d. a day. A gunner not so qualified would be paid from 3s. 0d. to 4s. 9d. according to his service and proficiency.
  Major Markham: Is the Minister prepared to level up rates of pay so that there shall not be these differences in the rates?
  Mr. Henderson: The difficulty is that the trades are graded according to the general measure of skill needed in the particular trade, and the grading is related to rates and standards current in similar trades in civil life.
  Major Markham: That entirely over-looks the fact that a man enduring greater hazard and risk is much worse paid than the man who is in a comfortable billet at home?
  Mr. Henderson: The actual pay varies between the minimum and maximum to which I have referred, according to the length of service a man has rendered and the grade in which he is placed, as a result of tests taken from time to time.
  Major Milner: Has not my hon. and learned Friend's right hon. Friend promised that the matter shall be considered with a view to simplification, and can he say when a statement will be made with regard to it?
  Mr. Henderson: It is true that the whole question is being considered, but I do not think there is any intention of abolishing the different rates since they are fixed according to scale.
  Mr. Bellenger: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether this includes the 1s. increases given to all troops?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

  INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (HEATING)
  Major Markhamasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has seen
  1564
  the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1941, page 12, in which he warns that a reduction in heating in certain industrial establishments would lower vitality, impair efficiency and involve a loss in output far outbalancing the saving in fuel; and what instructions he has issued as to the ideal temperature conditions for light muscular or sedentary workers?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes." With regard to the second, I have not hitherto issued any specific instructions, but in view of the urgent need for fuel economy I should deprecate any higher standard of heating, apart from the standards required for special processes, than is necessary to maintain productive efficiency.
  Major Markham: Is it not high time that some guidance was given to manufacturers as to what are considered to be the normal levels of heat and ventilation?
  Mr. Smith: Some guidance has already been given. Trade associations have been circularised, and their replies are being summarised.

  WAR DESPATCHES (PUBLICATION)
  Sir R. Glynasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of now publishing the despatches relating to the campaigns in Norway, East Africa and other theatres where British Forces have been engaged, in view of the fact that the public has to rely on official publications issued by the Ministry of Information which, though admirable, do not replace the value of the commander's own despatches?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am sure that the time has not yet come when the despatches referred to could be published without giving useful information to the enemy.
  Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in every previous war despatches have been published, and that there has been an interval now of over three years? Is it not essential that the public and Services themselves should have the benefit of commanders' despatches?
  Mr. Stokes: Is not the real reason that publication of these reports would reveal misdirections by the Minister of Defence similar to those contained in the Gort Report?

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when legislation relating to old age and widowed pensioners mentioned in the Gracious Speech will be brought before Parliament?
  Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour stated in the House on 29th July last that this question would have to be considered in relation to the proposals of Sir William Beveridge, and this is being done. I cannot at this stage name any date when it will be possible to bring proposals before the House.
  Mr. Tinker: We understood from that reply that legislation would be brought forward immediately after the Beveridge Report. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that it will be brought forward, because consideration of the Beveridge Report may take many months?
  Mr. Eden: I have looked up that speech myself in order to refresh my memory, and if my hon. Friend will look at the quotation, he will see that what was suggested was that the two matters would be dealt with together. When there is a discussion early in the New Year on the Beveridge Report these matters can be discussed at the same time.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the last Session a statement was made by the Minister of Labour; and a promise was given, that these two matters relating to pensions would be considered, irrespective of the Beveridge Report. Are we to understand that the Government intend to give consideration to these two minor matters before the Beveridge Report, which is very comprehensive, is dealt with?
  Mr. Eden: I have looked up that speech, and if my hon. Friend will do the same, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour did closely associate the two subjects. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question is "Yes."
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I have a distinct recollection that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour promised legislation this Session.
  Mr. Eden: That is perfectly correct. I do not think that what I have said is inconsistent with that.
  Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

  MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION (IN- DUSTRIAL PUBLICITY POSTS)
  Mr. William Brownasked the Minister of Production (1) whether, as the post of Adviser on Industrial Publicity in his Department has been vacant for some time, he will consider the advisability of abolishing it as unnecessary, together with that of deputy, thus freeing the latter officer for service under the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts;
  (2) how the post of Deputy Director of Industrial Publicity in his Department was filled; and how many applicants were considered for the position?
  The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I hope shortly to fill the post of Adviser on Industrial Publicity, which I regard as one of considerable importance. Mr. John Rodgers, the officer who now holds the post of Deputy Adviser, was transferred to my Department from the Department of Overseas Trade, after consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Information. No other applicants were considered.
  Mr. Brown: Is it not the case that the officer referred to in the Minister's reply moves from Department to Department and is always finding a place in which he is immune from military service? Is it not time that this publicity relations racket in the Civil Service was dealt with?
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not agree at all that this is a publicity racket. This gentleman is performing useful services for the country and is editor of the production section of the bulletin issued by my right hon. Friend and myself every month.
  Mr. Brown: Does not the Minister know that every time this man is given exemption from military service on the ground

  1567
  that he is indispensable in a particular job he is found within three months in another job?

  FACTORIES (TRANSFERENCE)
  Sir L. Lyleasked the Minister of Production whether it is now the policy of the Government to move factories identified with specific towns to other parts of the country for the relief of local unemployment?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter was clearly stated by me in a reply given to the right hon. Member of Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on 14th October. I then stated that the measures I was taking in consultation with my colleagues were designed to spread the demand for resources, including labour, more evenly by transferring the key personnel and plant of selected undertakings out of the congested areas. In conformity with this policy, it may, on occasion, be necessary to move plant and key personnel of factories identified with specific towns to other parts of the country.
  Sir L. Lyle: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this will be confined to industries necessary to the war and will not be the object of many well-intentioned post-war planners to indulge in highly controversial war-time measures?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I did hot use the word "industries." I laid stress on the word "undertakings." Any transfer will only be for war purposes.
  Major Petherick: Would my right hon. Friend resist any further request for the removal of the ancient industry of bureaucracy from London?

  RADIO POLICY (CO-ORDINATING BOARD)
  Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Production whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the changes which have been made in the organisation for dealing with wireless matters?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have set up a Radio Board as the Supreme Co-ordinating body in regard to inter-Service radio policy,
  1568
  research, development and production. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  In view of the great increase in the importance of wireless communication and radiolocation during the war, it was considered necessary to strengthen the existing organisation for controlling research, development and production in this field. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, set up a Radio Board as the co-ordinating body in regard to inter-Service policy, research, development and production. The Board is in general responsible to me, but where matters of Service policy are concerned, it takes its instructions from, and is responsible to, the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The Board has taken over the whole of the functions hitherto performed by other Committees and bodies in this field.
  My fight hon. Friend the Minister Resident for Supply in Washington acted in his personal capacity, as the first Chairman of the Board. On his appointment to Washington he has been succeeded by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production, also in his personal capacity. The Chairman is assisted by two Deputy Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to my Ministry, and Professor G. P. Thomson, F.R.S. The membership of the Board includes representatives of the Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, Ministry of Supply, Ministry of Aircran Production and General Post Office, as well as several special (non-Departmental) members.
  Much of the work of the Board is carried out through two main working Committees, the Production Planning and Personnel Radio Committee and the Operations and Technical Radio Committee, of which the Parliamentary Secretary to my Ministry and Professor Thomson are respectively Chairmen.
  Questions in connection with the work of the Board should be addressed to me.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Kosher Meat, Leeds
    Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what percentage of home-killed

    1569
    meat have the Jewish citizens in Leeds and district received during the last three months; and what percentage of home-killed meat have the non-Jewish citizens in that area received during the same period?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Jews who are precluded by their religious observances from eating non-Kosher meat will have registered with Kosher butchers and in that way will receive the whole of their supply in home-killed meat. This arises from the fact that Kosher meat can only be provided from home-killed animals and it therefore follows that persons who eat only Kosher meat consume 100 per cent. home-killed. The non-Jewish citizens of Leeds and district and those Jews who are not registered with Kosher butchers received, during the last three months, about 48 per cent. of their meat ration in the form of home-killed meat. I should explain that a full ration of Kosher meat is not guaranteed and from time to time the full ration has, in fact, not been received by the Jews registered with Kosher butchers.
    Major Adams: Is there, in fact, a fair allocation of available resources as between the Jewish and Christian communities?
    Mr. Mabane: I think so, having regard to the qualification I made, that Kosher meat must be home-killed.
    Major Adams: Does not that answer mean that in most cases—
    Mr. Speaker rose—

    Fish Zoning Scheme
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now make his promised statement on the working of the Fish Zoning Scheme; what complaints have been received; what major defects have been disclosed; and what action has been, or is being, taken to deal with them?
    Mr. Mabane: While I should welcome an opportunity, if the House so desired, to make a statement on the Fish Zoning Scheme, I regret it would not be possible to make an exhaustive statement by way of Question and answer without unduly trespassing on the time of the House. I
    1570
    may, however, at the moment be permitted to say first, that the fish landed and allocated at the ports since 17th October, the date on which the Zoning Scheme came into operation, has been substantially in excess of the fish landed in the corresponding period last year; second, that over a large part of the country the scheme is working satisfactorily; third, that hourly attention is being given in my Department to every case of difficulty as it arises, and the House will understand there must be some; and, finally, that I have the authority of my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport to say that already the saving in inland transport, which is the object of this scheme, is 6,000 train miles a week, and that this figure is likely to increase.
    My Noble Friend yesterday met the Fish Industry Joint Council, and, as a result, it may be hoped that closer cooperation between the industry and the Department will lead to the smoother working of the Zoning Scheme.
    Mr. Stewart: To enable the Parliamentary Secretary to make to the House the statement he desires to make, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will make a statement in regard to fish supplies in Southampton?
    Mr. Mabane: A miscalculation in the allocations of fish to the Southampton sub-zone resulted in a shortage of fish in Southampton. Immediately this was discovered steps were taken to remedy the error, and at the same time a substantial additional quantity of fish was sent to Southampton, with the result that during the six weeks ended 28th November wholesale fish merchants in Southampton received approximately 90 per cent. of their entitlements under the Scheme of Fish Distribution. I have no reason to think that the quantity now being sent to Southampton is materially less than the entitlement.
    Dr. Thomas: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, would he be good enough to give me a personal assurance that he will look into this matter himself, as I am sure this would give great satisfaction to the people of Southampton?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly. I have already been doing that.
    Sir L. Lyle: Can my hon. Friend say why it is that only hake allow themselves to be caught?
    Mr. Mabane: That Question was asked two weeks ago by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).
    Mr. Arthur Duckworthasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that under the Fish Zoning Scheme retail traders at Shrewsbury are not receiving supplies proportionate to the quantities received during the datum period; and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Mabane: I am aware that the supplies of fish to certain retail traders in Shrewsbury since the commencement of the Distribution Scheme have not been proportionate to those they received during the datum period. Steps are being taken to adjust the position.
    Mr. Culverwellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the telegram from the Lord Mayor of Bristol complaining of the inadequate volume of fish coming to Bristol since the inception of the Zoning Scheme; and what steps is he taking to increase the supply?
    Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend has considered the telegram to which my hon. Friend refers. Adjustments are in process to secure an improvement in supplies of fish to Bristol, and meanwhile temporary measures are being put in force to provide Bristol with an additional supply of fish to complete their equitable proportion of fish supplies.
    Mr. Culverwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Zoning Scheme came into operation, the supply of fish in Bristol has been reduced to less than half, and will he take fairly active steps to see that Bristol has a supply?
    Major Petherick: In view of the many complaints received in regard to the Fish Zoning Scheme will the Minister ask his Noble Friend to reconsider the whole question with a view possibly to its improvement?
    Mr. Mabane: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has probably seen the statement that was made yesterday by
    1572
    my Noble Friend to the Fish Industry Joint Council, in which he expressed his views.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: When the hon. Gentleman publishes a statement giving the complaints, will he also publish a statement of the satisfaction expressed by industrial areas which have received more fish and not less?
    Mr. Mabane: I am glad to say that the Department received a great many expressions of satisfaction.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some industrial areas in the Midlands there are no fish?

    Women War Workers (Shopping Facilities)
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in certain areas women war workers are still experiencing shopping difficulties; and will he instruct all local food controllers in industrial areas to make arrangements enabling women war workers to obtain their rationed goods and a fair share of unrationed goods?
    Mr. Mabane: In agreement with the Ministry of Labour instructions have been given to the Divisional Food Officers asking that local officers should co-operate with the local welfare officers of the Ministry of Labour in alleviating the shopping difficulties of women workers in their districts. Local welfare officers have also received instructions from the Minister of Labour to take the initiative in arranging meetings of those most concerned in local shopping problems, including representatives of women war workers, traders and shop assistants. At such meetings, schemes adapted to local needs are framed to help women workers to obtain both their rations and a fair share of unrationed foods.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that in some industrial districts excellent arrangements have been made which are working very well, while in adjoining districts of the same character nothing at all has been done, and there is dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Mabane: I know very well that in Tottenham excellent arrangements have been made, and we would wish such arrangements to be extended to all other places where similar problems exist.

    Milk (Distribution)
    Mr. Broadasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether adequate steps are being taken to prevent the acute shortage of milk which recently occurred in Manchester, as a result of which non-priority customers received very much less than their entitlement quantities; and whether he will continue arrangements for bringing additional supplies into the Manchester area from other regions?
    Mr. Chaterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether adequate steps are being taken to ensure that non-priority consumers in Sheffield receive in the future a fair share of the supplies of milk which are available in the country, having in mind the fact that in the middle of November supplies were nothing like sufficient to meet the entitlement figure announced by the Ministry?
    Mr. Mabane: The normal seasonal decline in milk production took place more quickly in November than had been anticipated, and consequently the quantities of milk available for diversion in that period were insufficient to meet shortages which occurred in a number of areas in the middle of the month. The reduction in the maximum non-priority allowance to two pints on Sunday, 22nd November, has freed more milk for diversion and adequate supplies are now being sent to the deficiency areas. So far as I am aware, dairymen's requirements in Manchester and Sheffield are now being met.
    Major Petoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the greater advantages that large families enjoy in respect of food rationing, he will consider the possibility of providing a rather more generous supply of milk for very small families of one and two in the household?
    Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend would not feel justified in providing extra supplies of milk for very small families, which could only be done by still further reducing the allowance to others.
    Major Peto: In view of the fact that a high percentage of these very small families are the aged and widowed, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of reducing a little the supplies to very large families in order to give a little extra to the very small families?
    Mr. Mabane: I am very sympathetic to the suggestion, but I do not think what my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested could be effectively done.

    Condemned Fish, Manchester
    Mr. Thorneycroftasked the Parliatary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that during the five weeks ended 29th October five tons of fish and 18½ tons of shellfish were condemned in Manchester; and will he take steps to prevent this wastage of valuable food?
    Mr. Mabane: Five tons of fish were condemned during the five weeks ended 29th October because it was bad. It was condemned for the most part in small lots and included small quantities in retail shops. It represents 0.5 per cent. of the fish sent to the Manchester wholesale market during the period. Of the 18½ tons of shellfish condemned, 18¼ tons were mussels, the greater part of which arrived in an unsound condition. I cannot agree that such condemnation of unfit food represents avoidable waste.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the 12 months ending October of this year 186 tons of fish were condemned in Manchester, and is he satisfied that there is no negligence or lack of organisation?
    Mr. Mabane: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

COMMAND PAPERS (AVAILABILITY TO PRESS)
Mr. Eden: I undertook last week to inquire into the arrangements made in regard to the publication of Sir William Beveridge's Report on the Social Services.
When a Report of this kind is to be published it has been the custom for some time past for copies to be communicated in advance to the Press, in confidence and under certain conditions, in order that they may have time to present the matter fully and fairly to the public. On this occasion copies were communicated to the Press somewhat earlier than usual and on a somewhat wider scale. As I explained to the House last Tuesday, arrangements were made so that the Command Paper should be available to hon. Members some hours before it appeared in the Press. I regret, however,

1575
that certain action taken by a few of those to whom copies had been supplied, which action was contrary to the conditions under which the document was made available, necessitated publication before the intended time, though not before the Command Paper was available to Parliament. Great interest had been taken in the publication of this Report, not only by hon. Members, but by the public. It is clearly in the public interest that a document of this kind should be adequately and accurately presented in the Press. Because of the length and complexity of this Report it was thought expedient to take the exceptional course of making copies available to the Press in confidence earlier than would have been done if the customary procedure had been followed.
It is in the public interest that in appropriate cases advance copies of Command Papers should be made available to the Press in confidence, but it is most desirable that such Papers should be in the hands of the House at least at the same time as they appear in the Press. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a Ruling given by your predecessor on 9th March, 1927:
"I think it is in the interests of the House that I should say—what has been said from this Chair many times before—that it is most desirable that these papers which are presented by Command to Parliament, should be in the hands of the House at least at the same time as they appear in the Press. I am saying that without any knowledge of the methods by which these papers have been obtained. There have been mistakes in times gone by by persons who have not realised their responsibilities in this matter, and the House of Commons has always been jealous of its own rights. I think it is right that I should reaffirm them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1927; col. 1240, Vol. 203.]
I desire to assure the House that the arrangements which were made in regard to the Beveridge Report were dictated solely by considerations of the public interest shown in this most important and lengthy document. I must add that it is the Government's desire that—while seeing that a proper presentation of the case and the fullest information possible on all important matters is made available to the general public—nothing should be done in any way derogatory to the position of this House.
Mr. A. Bevan: Arising out of that statement, which I think the whole House will find very satisfactory, might it not be
1576
possible, in cases of this kind where there are lengthy documents which the Press must have an opportunity of digesting, for a publication day to be attached, so that the Press can have the document and Parliament can have it, but the newspapers shall be prohibited from publishing a digest until certain days have elapsed? That would meet the requirements of the Press and of the House of Commons.
Mr. Thorne: I think the general public owe a deep debt of gratitude to the papers of the country for the summaries that they gave of the Beveridge Report.
Mr. Eden: In reply to the hon. Member's question, that is exactly the practice that is followed; and, it there was an error in this case, it is not in that respect that the error took place.
Mr. Bevan: That is not a fact. In this case the Report was in the hands of the Press on Friday, and it was in the hands of the House of Commons on the following Tuesday, so that in fact the House of Commons and the Press did not have it simultaneously. It would have been quite practicable for the House to have had the issue on the Friday and the publication day for the Press to be advanced.
Mr. Eden: I do not think that what the hon. Member suggests is very practicable. The point that I have tried to cover, and thought I had covered clearly, is that nothing at all should appear in the Press until Parliament had had an opportunity of seeing the document.
Mr. Burke: What was the publication day given to the Press?
Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that question.
Earl Winterton: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's very satisfactory statement, could he arrange for copies to be sent to the editors of every London newspaper, in view of the fact that one prominent London journalist has taken upon himself to criticise the attitude of Members of this House and to suggest that the Press has a perfect right to have information before the House?
Mr. Eden: I will consider that suggestion. In reply to the previous question, the time fixed was the morning of the following day.
Mr. Mander: I understood the Leader of the House to say there was some breach of an undertaking by some persons. Will he inform the House who these persons were?
Mr. Eden: I have been into this very carefully, and I thought I had given a carefully considered statement, I would rather not take that action.
Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is not fair to the House, and it is not fair to a whole lot of people. He says his statement was very carefully considered; it is so carefully considered that it conveys nothing to the House at all. He condemns certain people for having taken certain action. Were they Civil servants, were they Ministers, or were they journalists? I think the House is entitled to know where the responsibility lies.
Mr. Eden: The mistakes were certainly not made by Civil servants nor by Members of the House. I understand that a mistake was made by certain persons employed by the Press. I have been into this very carefully and have done my best to present an objective and fair account of the position. I have not so much thought of what has happened as about future practice. I have tried to lay down a general principle which, if followed, will, I hope, obviate this kind of thing in future.
Sir Stanley Reed: It is obviously in the public interest that, with a document of this magnitude, the newspapers should have early advice so that they may correctly inform the public. Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind, when documents of this magnitude and complexity are issued, that it is desirable that they should be accompanied by an authoritative summary of their principal contents; and, secondly, in view of the frequent complaints that are made that a very small section of the Press is constantly violating conditions of secrecy, will he consider taking action against that very limited number in the interests of the honourable traditions of the Press as a whole?
Mr. Eden: In reply to the first part of the question, I should very much hesitate before I took a course of that kind. These lapses are fortunately rare. I hope, as the result of what has been said to-day, they will not occur again.
Mr. Granville: As the Report was issued during the Debate on reconstruction, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether copies were made available to leaders of parties in the House before they were issued to other Members?
Mr. Eden: No, they were not.
Mr. Bevan: I am sure the House is still not clear about the position, or it has the advantage of me if it is. Do we understand the position to be that in the future the release date of documents for the Press will be the same date as the release for Members of the House? If that is not the position, we are in exactly the same difficulty as we were before.
Mr. Eden: The position is that the release date to the Press will in no circumstances ever be earlier than the time at which the information is available to Members of the House.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to enable preparatory action to be taken with respect to persons about to become liable to be called up.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: During the Debate yesterday several Members raised the question of the effect of this Bill upon the universities. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply, made it clear that medical students and certain other categories of students would be reserved, but he held out no hope of reservation for students in arts subsequent to June of next year. I wish to ask him whether he will undertake, on behalf of the Minister, to give serious consideration during the intervening period to the position of students in arts and the possibility of having some further extension of the period allowed to them after June, 1943? I do this not in order to secure any privilege for individuals, but in the interests of the whole educational system of the country and of the life of the universities. The Minister is reserving medical and dental students and certain classes of scientific students in the interests of the future life of the country, because the courses in which these students are engaged are very long courses, and unless the war goes on for another five or six years they will not in many cases be called up for military service. Certainly none of the medical students will be called up unless the war

    1589
    continues for a further five years. Therefore, their reservation is, plainly, in the interest of the future life of the country. I submit that there is a need for at least a certain number of students in arts to be reserved, in the interests of the future life o| the country and of the continuity of the educational work of our universities.
    The matter, however, does not affect merely the universities; it affects the life of the secondary schools. Schoolmasters are already becoming anxious because a number of the older boys are transferring from arts, where their natural abilities lie, to science, in order that they may have that opportunity of life at the university which would be denied to them if they continued as students in arts. This is contrary to the interests of the country, as well as to the interests of individuals. We have before us the example set by the great Chinese Republic. At a time of immense crisis, the life of the Chinese universities is being continued, and the Chinese Government are insisting that it is the duty of students to continue at the universities, not in their personal interests—for many of them are patriotically desirous to join in the military effort of their fellow countrymen—but in the interests of the future of China. I ask the Minister to undertake to keep this question under continuous review and to reconsider the possibility of some further extension of the arrangement for students in arts in the future, even though it may only be for a small number, in order that the work of the universities on this side may continue and the life of our secondary schools may not be injured as it is being injured at present by the diversion of certain promising pupils from their natural bent in arts into science, in order to get the benefit of a university career.
    Earl Winterton: I cannot agree with the general arguments of my hon. Friend, but I will leave it to the Minister to answer them. I feel it is appropriate, however, as I do not see any member of the medical profession present, and as I happen to have been connected for 30 years with hospital work and to be the chairman of a hospital, that I should deprecate my hon. Friend's attempt to draw a relationship between the position of
    1590
    medical students and the position of those whom he called students in arts. I should like to say that there is no relationship whatever between the two. It is impossible under modern conditions for any student of medicine who wishes to attain any position in the medical profession to have less than from a five to a seven years' course either at the university or walking the hospitals. To say that he is in the same position as a teacher, for instance, is merely an abuse of language. The exception that has been made in the case of medical students is a very sound and proper one. It is essential in the interests of the medical profession, and, speaking for the moment on behalf of the medical profession, I deprecate any attempt to widen the very important concession which has been made to them by arguing that if you exempt medical students you should also exempt young teachers. If that were accepted there are dozens of other categories for whom exemption might be claimed. If you open the door widely, you will have people from all parts of the county saying: "Why should my son, who is a very brillant young man, be called up if these others are not being called up?" I suggest, therefore, with respect, that those for whom an exception has already been announced are in a class by themselves, and that the exemption should not be widened.
    Sir Percy Harris: With all respect to my Noble Friend, I would point out that what my hon. Friend is asking is not for a five or six years' course for students in arts but for some slight concession, such as 12 months at a university. As far as I am concerned, I would not ask for any special privilege for any particular section and certainly not for the intelligentsia, but what we have to consider is the interest of the country. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is not here. We ought to have some guidance from him on this question. He is going, about the country prophesying great educational advances after the war—the raising of the school age, extension of secondary educational facilities and a general forward march in education. The whole thing is up in the clouds if after the War there is to be no output from the universities, because the success of any scheme of education depends on having a

    1591
    reasonable supply of teachers. If the universities are closed from the point of view of training men and women for arts degrees, there will not only be a shortage for meeting the ordinary requirements, but the whole education system will be threatened with collapse.
    I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. His business is to keep the Army supplied with a constant stream of recruits. The President of the Board of Education, however, has a responsibility in the matter, and he cannot stand by idly. He ought to have been in his place to-day to explain the attitude of the Board, and say frankly that the need for man-power was so great that education would have to go by the board for some years after the war. If he said that, we would know where we are, but do not let us walk about in blinkers. Let us realise that if these proposals are taken to the logical conclusion, the universities will be completely closed to students apart from those going in for a science degree or for medicine. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is now in his place. Perhaps he will express his attitude. The Board of Education is vitally concerned in this matter, and I should like to know whether it has consented to the complete closing down of the universities for the training of men and women apart from science degrees. If the Board has agreed, let the Parliamentary Secretary be frank and say that all the proposals for educational advance are mere wind.
    Mr. Maxton: I want to add my word of criticism on a somewhat wider aspect of the general problem. The House was very careless in giving a Second Reading to this Measure in the easy way it was given to the Government yesterday. It was very good of the Minister to promise us a Debate on man-power at some future date, but the Debate should have taken place before this Bill was introduced. There ought to have been a proper survey of what resources were available and what were the requirements of the nation.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the whole man-power question on this Clause.
    Mr. Maxton: I am merely expressing regret that we cannot discuss it on the Bill, and I do not propose to go into any
    1592
    further detail on the matter. I want to ask whether apprenticeships in the necessary skilled trades are to be broken at 17 years and eight months. At that age a boy is beginning to get started and to become of some use. Is he to be cut off and drummed into the Armed Forces when perhaps there may be a growing need in shipyards or engineering shops for the particular type of skill he was developing? I felt, and the Minister's speech gave one reason to feel, that the Government's idea was that the year 1943 was going to settle it, that we were going to throw everything in on the assumption that the whole business would be finished off in 1943. It might be a possible policy for the nation to say, "We are going to stop producing skilled workers and intellectual workers other than in medicine and science for a year because that year will be the decisive one which will settle the war." What possible justification have the Government for assuming that next year will finish this business? The Prime Minister told us when there was a tendency to become a little light-hearted that this was only the end of the beginning. If it takes three years to end the beginning, I do not think we are justified in assuming that one year will carry us through the middle and the end as well.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see how the end of the war has anything to do with this Clause. It deals with registration and nothing else. I am afraid that the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey) was going beyond it in his speech and that I ought to have pulled him up.
    Mr. Harvey: I apologise.
    Mr. Maxton: I apologise too. The point I am trying to make is that the Ministry of Labour should attempt to make a more impressive case than they made yesterday in justification of this Clause which will register young fellows at 17 years and eight months and bring them into the Armed Forces at 18 instead of as previously bringing them in at 18½.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must differ from the hon. Gentleman there. We cannot discuss the justification of this Clause because we have passed the Second Reading and assented to the principle of the Bill. The question of justification can be debated on Third Reading but not on this Clause.
    Mr. Maxton: Let me press the point that I was trying in my somewhat clumsy way to put. When the age of entry into the Army was 18½ years lads had advanced a considerable extent in their trades or, if they were at the universities, they had made at least the beginnings. I am assuming that the ordinary reservations will continue and that it will be possible for the Minister to reserve apprentices in the shipbuilding industry—
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): We certainly have that power.
    Mr. Maxton: —to reserve apprentices in the engineering industry, to reserve young folk in the coal mines, and that the normal machinery which the Ministry have been operating will continue to operate even with these lower ages, In the case of universities, however, a young fellow does not normally go at 17 years and eight months; he is still at school. What will be the machinery for deciding what young fellows are to be admitted into the medical profession? Previously, I understand, they themselves decided. They entered the university and registered in the medical course, and then the Ministry of Labour allowed them, if they were making satisfactory progress, to remain.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is going far beyond the question of registration. This Clause deals with registration and nothing else.
    Mr. Maxton: I must say, Colonel Clifton Brown, that I think your Ruling is very strict. It is a question of registration at a particular age, and I am trying to get from the Minister a statement indicating how they will operate the machinery at the age of registration.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not in Order on this Clause, though it could be dealt with on Third Reading.
    Mr. Maxton: I am asking you to guide me and to guide other Members of the Committee as to what we are entitled to raise on this Clause. Is it the question of having to attend at employment exchanges in order to register at the age of 17 years and 8 months and nothing else?
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for me to instruct the hon. Member. He has shown himself to be very ingenious, and I should say that that is about all that there is to this Clause—the calling-up for registration at a certain age and nothing else.
    Mr. Maxton: Well, I may be getting daft in my old age, but I was under the impression that that was what I was talking about, the registration of young people at 17 years and 8 months instead of at 18 years plus so many months. I will try to keep within the very strictest Ruling that you can devise. I wish to ask how many months it takes to get the young people through the various processes which they have to go through, from the date of registration. How many additional months of their service will this give to the Services? In the early days, when not merely the youngest classes but the older classes were being called up, there were huge numbers to be dealt with at the same time, there was new machinery to be created, and sometimes the best part of a year elapsed between the date of registration and the actual intake of the young fellows into one of the Services, but now, when practically nobody is being taken in except young fellows of 18, how long will it take the Ministry to get those young fellows through the various processes? There is registration—that takes a day; medical examination—that takes a day; there is the actual allotting of the young fellow to one or other of the Services. Is it necessary to give the Government power to register boys at 17 years and 8 months so that they may have them effectively at the age of 18? Do the Ministry of Labour require four months for what has to be done?
    Mr. McCorquodale: Yes, they do.
    Mr. Maxton: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give me some satisfactory explanation why four months are necessary, because in view of the diminished numbers, in view of the fact that there is only one class to deal with, in view of the fact that youths arrive at the age of 17 years and 8 months on different dates—because not everybody reaches that age on the same day—I cannot for the life of me see why, if there is reasonable competence in the Department, four months are necessary to register a

    1595
    youth, medically examine him and allot him to one Service or the other. From the point of view of the general cultural life and technical necessities of the nation, to take these four months at a critical period in a youth's educational career, or at a critical period in his apprenticeship, just when he is developing skill, merely in order that the Ministry of Labour can carry on at some easy-going jog-trot pace, taking four months to do a job which as far as one can see could be done in a week, is not to make good use of the nation's man-power, and I associate myself with the criticisms of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey).
    Mr. Lipson: I want to support the plea which has been made that if the Committee approve this Clause my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will, in operating it, take account of the representations which have been made to him. I hope he will be urged to do so by the Board of Education, which I feel has a vital interest in this matter. Some of us feel concerned that matters in which the Board of Education ought to have some say are decided by other Government Departments, and that, so far as we have any evidence, its influence has counted for nil. What is at issue in this matter is this: Do the Government attach any importance whatsoever to the maintenance of the study of the arts in this country? If they do, they will so operate the Clause that they will maintain at least a quota of students who, under prescribed conditions, will be allowed, in spite of this Clause, to postpone their registration, or at any rate will be given some kind of reservation. That is what I want the Minister to ask for, because there is involved here something which is of vital importance to the future of this nation. We ought to say that even in war we have to look to the period beyond and not engage in some short-sighted policy which is likely to do more lasting harm than good to the life of the nation. What we are asking, in fact, is a compromise. We ask the Minister to take into account not only the claims of the Forces but what we believe to be vital to the life of the nation and, above all, its glory.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) and other hon. Members seem to think that
    1596
    in the last war the art student was kept at the universities. In this matter we ought to keep some sense of perspective. In fact, there were only specialised students at the universities. If we are going to take away all art students from the universities, if we are going to make the universities into specialist institutions for the rest of the war, it is necessary to take the university spirit into the Services. In other words—
    The Deputy-Chairman: That point is quite beyond the scope of the Clause, which deals with registration and nothing else. I should not have allowed the original discussion to start.
    Mr. Lindsay: Then perhaps I might ask my hon. Friend a question. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Although we have been told that medical students are to be allowed to go up to the university, it has become apparent to a great many people that there will be such a shortage of teachers that somebody from the Board of Education or from the Government should make a statement as to how that position will affect, for instance, the Scottish universities.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with this Clause. It might be in Order on the Third Reading, but it is out of Order now.
    Mr. Granville: I would like to ask a question on one small point. In laboratories in this country are what are called group leaders, very often young men of about the age 17–18, and their job is very important. They work in conjunction with five or six other research students on vital scientific war work. If these young men, who are specialists, are subjected to medical examination and later to calling up, a serious gap may be created. I would ask whether there will be a call-up of these group leaders in laboratories and whether they will be finally called up to serve in the Forces.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I am in some difficulty as to keeping in Order in replying to the discussion, but the point which was made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as to the time it takes to register and call up is obviously in Order, so I will endeavour to answer it. At pre-

    1597
    sent, men cannot be called up immediately on reaching the age of 18. They must first go through three stages. First of all, a Royal Proclamation has to be issued in respect of their age group. The last Proclamation was issued on 22nd October with regard to the group of boys of 18. A boy who was born on 23rd October of the appropriate year and therefore became 18 the day after that Proclamation, would not become liable, and he would have to wait for the next Proclamation. As we could not arrange to have a Royal Proclamation every day, but only at stated intervals, there is an obvious gap of time there.
    Then the age group of the boys must be registered. The young men call for registration and their occupations and qualifications are verified. They must be given the opportunity of registration in the register of conscientious objectors, and they must have all the opportunities and rights associated with hardship. Their occupations must be looked into to see whether it is advisable to defer or to reserve them particularly, if they are in agriculture or coal-mining or are apprentices. They must be medically examined, and, in certain circumstances, those examinations, though normally straightforward, have to be done with considerable care and specialists called in. For all those processes to be done properly, and for the young man not only to have his rights but to realise that he has them and to make it clear to him that the process is not being hurried or scamped over and that he is having every consideration, believe me, three to four months is the time necessary.
    With regard to education, I would rather like your guidance on that, Colonel Clifton Brown. It would cramp my style or my points to endeavour to answer, under this Clause, what has been said by the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey). Perhaps it will be better for me to reply to those points on the Third Reading, but I would like your guidance.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is not for me to say what may happen on the Third Reading, but I think it would be far better not to reply to those points now.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Then I will postpone doing so.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope I may be allowed to say a few words on the Bill. I do not want to challenge the Bill—that is too late, of course—but to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his Department, the Ministry of Labour, in respect to a large class of young persons who will be affected by the Bill but who are hardly ever mentioned in this House at all. Hon. Gentlemen have been talking of teachers, medical students and the like, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) told the House about skilled workers, engineers and mechanicians, but the largest single group of all affected by this Bill will be shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks. It is by far the largest single group of workers in any of the several industries of these islands. I would plead with the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to keep in touch with the Ministry of Food, because those who distribute food in this country are becoming alarmed about the staffing of their shops. These young people will have to be registered just like miners, engineers, or agricultural workers; but there is no exemption or much deferment for shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks. As one who has been connected with them for about 40 years, I think I am entitled to make that plea on their behalf.
    There is one further point. From the Union to which I belong, a large number of our members have already gone into the Forces, totalling about 60,000, or 50 per cent. of all our male members. A considerable proportion have lost their lives, some have been discharged on medical grounds. We are familiar with all that, but I want to impress upon the hon. Gentleman and his Department not to accept the assumption that anybody can be a shop assistant, a warehouseman or a clerk; that any Tom, Dick or Harry can distribute foodstuffs, especially now, with all the paraphernalia of rationing to be understood. To serve behind a counter to-day in a shop is quite a skilled job,

    1599
    but the Ministry of Labour does not seem to realise that fact judging from the way shop assistants are being called up wholesale.
    The hon. Gentleman might be good enough to watch a point which I have raised before, and that is about queues at shops. People imagine that queues are the result of shortage of supplies, but that is not always the case. It is very often because the Ministry of Labour have called up all the skilled assistants from the shops; unskilled people have been brought in to replace them. We have had the position in some shops where all the men have been called up; there is hardly a male left in some shops and offices to-day. They have all been roped into the Forces. There is no exemption for them at all. They are the one class of people in the community for whom there is hardly a single exemption on almost any grounds. I want to impress further on the Government that they have to understand that food is the first munition of war. It is all very well having guns, bayonets and battleships, but the distribution of food is the first essential in the life of any community. Having said that I would like the hon. Gentleman to beware lest he combs out the shop assistants of this country to the extent that he may find something serious happening some day that the community will not be pleased about. Whatever my views may be on war and peace, I am certain of one thing, that the civil life of the community has to be carried on, and I am sure that we must staff our shops in such a way that our civilian life shall proceed smoothly in war and peace alike.
    Mr. R. Morgan: I rise only to stress a point which we understand is to be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. If this Bill is carried, it was stated yesterday, we might as well shut up the universities in June next. A point I want to emphasise is that, if this is carried out to the extent it looks like being next June, it is a very bad start for the fore-shadowed Education Bill mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. If that is to be hamstrung at the beginning by this Bill, it is a very serious outlook for us all. I hope the Minister will find some way of reserving our future teachers because we are told in the Bill which is foreshadowed—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member cannot foreshadow a Bill in the Third Reading discussion on another Bill. That is quite out of Order.
    Mr. Morgan: I will obey your Ruling, Sir; With regard to our young men to whom a university career is essential, to spoil their chances by not letting them complete or even start a career in June next will be a source of calamity. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some assurance that some amelioration will be given to the lot of these university students.
    Mr. Tinker: There will be many appeals to the Parliamentary Secretary for exemption. What I am asking for is that there shall be equal treatment all round so far as that can be done. It is only fair that those in favoured positions should have a particular call on them. Some are better fitted than others, or have better opportunities, to go in for higher education, but I hope that preference will not be given simply because someone is a university student or something of that kind. This is total war, and everybody is called upon to give equal service as far as he can. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) would not have spoken about any Amendment in the Bill at all, because I noticed the course he took against the Bill and that he voted against it. Therefore I do not think he has a right to seek its Amendment. I do not think that a man who is opposed to the war and has done all he can to stop what we are doing for the war effort can have the right of trying to amend any Bill like this at all. It strikes me that every time he gets up to speak it is not a question of helping the war effort but of how far he can retard it. I would be better pleased with him if, having fought straightforwardly, as he has done, on the principle, he let it alone and did not urge certain Amendments.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Member agree that under every circumstance we should try to make the best of the circumstances?
    Mr. Tinker: My point is that, having decided against the principle of the war effort, I claim that the hon. Member for Westhoughton ought to be quiet and let other people deal with it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These matters cannot come within the Third Reading of a Bill.
    Mr. McNeil: I will not attempt to follow my hon. Friend into this dispute as to whether the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) should be able to back both horses or not. I want to say a word in his favour, lest I should be thought in my subsequent remarks to be backing one class. I think we should give due weight to the plea the hon. Member has made. I have made representations several times to the Ministry. I am told by organisations which I think are disinterested that there are serious difficulties occurring in relation to workers' needs and therefore a need for protection for skilled assistants in shops dealing almost entirely with rationed commodities. If the time of workers is wasted there, then workers' time is lost in the factories. I am quite certain that point is plain to the Minister, and I am certain he is keen to help. If the Ministry continue as they are doing, it will be found, I think, that a further withdrawal of such assistance will create acute conditions in many industrial areas in the disposal of rationed commodities.
    I wish also to have a little more attention paid as to how this new call-up is to affect other professions than teaching. I cannot speak, of course, for the English universities, and I cannot speak with any authority for the Scottish organisations, because the hurried passage of Measures which circumstances sometimes force upon this House means that we have little opportunity to confer with the specialist organisations whose views should be heeded. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will leave matters in a very grave position if he does not take this opportunity of amending the impression he left with the House yesterday that all art students would almost automatically have to cease their studies. In Scottish universities an arts degree is not a cultural degree completely; I wish it were. It is not even a degree that is the first step only of training for a teacher. It is a qualifying degree for many professions, for our Church of Scotland ministry; it is a qualifying degree for commerce, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows.
    1602
    He must face up to the curious dilemma he has created for himself even if he is not impressed by the rest of my argument. If we are to have training of technical students continued, you will in Scotland have to make provision for students studying mathematics, because you cannot have university training of science students, which are a priority need for the war, unless you have also the teaching of science in the schools, and you cannot have the teaching of science in the schools without mathematics, and you cannot have mathematics elsewhere than in an arts course. I do not think I need labour that point. I take it that that will be one of the qualifications that the Minister will need to make in terms of deferment.
    I am not clear what additional facilities the boy of 17 years and eight months is going to have in terms of hardship. At present, the man or boy indicates at the time of the medical examination that he intends to appeal for deferment on grounds of hardship. I quite see that, no matter where you draw the line, there will be difficulties; but if you are going to compel the boy to intimate four months before he is likely to go to the Army whether he means to apply for deferment, you are obviously widening the gap in which hardship may arise.
    Mr. McCorquodale: If the hon. Member will read my speech, he will see that I answered that point specifically. The whole point is covered.
    Mr. McNeil: I am sorry I was not here, but I was at Parliamentary work. Perhaps if I sit down the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to indicate to me the lines of his reply. I am sure the point is covered; but I am a suspicious Scot, and I would like to hear what the reply was.
    Mr. Harvey: May I apologise, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Chairman of Committees for having enlarged unduly on the subject before the Committee? But I am sure the House will agree that this is a subject of very great importance, and we all look forward with very great interest to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, among other questions, on the effect of this Measure on the life of the universities and on the educational life of the country. I am sure

    1603
    that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) misunderstood the position. Those of us who have spoken on this point do not want any favour for any privileged class. The universities are recruited from the whole mass of the country. Over 75 per cent. of our students come originally from the elementary schools. We are thinking of the country as a whole, and not of a class. So far as the future of education is concerned, it is of immense importance that students who are later to become teachers should have the opportunity at least of beginning their course at the university, although it will be interrupted shortly by a period of military service. If they are not allowed to have at least one year, they will in many cases not go to the universities at all. They will go on to some other career, and be lost to teaching, and their capacity as teachers lost to the country. That is but a single instance to show the immense importance of allowing at least a year of university study for the arts degree. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give a full reply now, I would like him to say that he will keep this matter under constant review with the Board of Education, and that he will not close his mind to the possibility of making some arrangement in future to permit the arts side at the universities, and all that depends upon it, to continue.
    Sir Joseph Nall: Before we pass this Bill I want to enter a very strong protest against these perpetual efforts to obtain further exemptions. This Bill would not have been necessary at this stage were it not for the very large number of deferments and exemptions already granted. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech and be asked by you, Sir, to sit down, but we have to bear in mind that the whole need for this Measure at this time is due to the fact that there are far too many exemptions already allowed, and that a closer and more rigid scrutiny of the exemptions which already exist would afford a far better supply of man-power than will be obtained under this Bill. The public mind is becoming more and more alarmed at the way eligible men of military age are remaining exempt from military service. Let us remember that this is only a half-baked, stop-gap Measure, to take the place of a more rigid system of military service.
    Sir P. Harris: I think the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) has badly misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Harvey), who was not pleading for more exemptions but for a more intelligent use of cur man-power, in the national interest. Those men who are studying for arts degrees have been doing so for only one year, as a general practice. Nearly all those men have gone through a training in the university cadet corps. I know of man after man who is studying at a university, and so fitting himself for his post-war obligations, and at the same time preparing himself for the life of a soldier. From the point of view of the proper use of our man-power, it is a wise course to continue such a procedure. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will give us some guidance. Do the Board acquiesce in the complete paralysis of university life? Are they content, in the national interest, taking the long view, that the universities should more or less close down, except for medical and dental courses? If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the State will not suffer, we know where we are. I am satisfied that that would be a short-sighted process. I am glad that the Paymaster-General in his speech the other day laid such emphasis on education. He led us to anticipate in the next few months a great constructive education Bill. It is simply wasting our time to pass Bills to deal with education if after the war there is going to be a terrific shortage of teachers, or—what amounts to the same thing—if the teachers who are available are going to be untrained, unqualified, and unfit for their jobs.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the future of the teaching profession on this Bill.
    Sir P. Harris: With great respect, the future of the teaching profession is going to be greatly affected by this Bill. If universities are to be closed down, I suggest, with very great respect, that it is relevant. But I will not say more than that. I am conscious of the vital importance of getting every available man trained and into the Army at the earliest possible moment. Let us have a wide outlook. This is a great nation, with great responsibilities, not only for the im-

    1605
    mediate problems but for the future of civilisation. It would be a sorry day if we who claim to be the pioneers of civilisation saw our great universities, of which we are so proud, all closed down or so confined in their work that our whole educational fabric will be paralysed. We ought to have some guidance from somebody else as well as from my unfortunate friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not fair to put all the responsibility on him. I hope we shall get some guidance from either the Paymaster-General or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education.
    Mr. Sorensen: One hon. Member has stated that in his opinion there are far too many exemptions at the present time. I should like the Minister who is to reply to dwell on that. It seems to be a very great reflection on the whole of the Ministry of Labour, and on second thoughts I hope that the hon. Member who made that statement will realise that he has spoken rather extravagantly. I do not know of any indication of wide exemptions, and equally, in stating that the public mind is alarmed at the number of exemptions, he is, I am afraid, falling into the old trick of identifying his own individual mind with the public mind. I have found quite a large section of the public mind alarmed because there are not enough exemptions or rather that they are not always of the kind that they desire. The interpretation of the public mind introduces in all of us a certain kind of presumptuousness, and therefore I will not proceed along those lines myself, but submit that there is no indication as far as we are aware of the sweeping statement that would leave one under the impression that most people who ought to be in the Army are outside. In fact, I find it quite the reverse.
    Another hon. Member suggested that it was quite out of Order for my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to urge Amendments. I do not intend to take up that argument at any length, but all of us in this House are continuing to make the best of circumstances. That being so, I feel as entitled as my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton to say that while this is a deplorable Bill, we ought at the same time to make the best of it in the circumstances. I cannot for the life of me see
    1606
    determine what our youth should do. We therefore that while I am opposed to the Bill because I think it is a dangerous and deplorable step affecting grievously the future of our country and democracy, we cannot say that while the House is giving support to the Bill we will try to improve it as far as possible.
    Mr. Tinker: My point is that any person who opposes the war all through and opposes this Bill has no right to speak on the Bill afterwards.
    Mr. Sorensen: I do not see my hon. Friend's line of argument. I am sure that he himself on many occasions has been hostile to a particular proposal and nevertheless has found it adopted by the House and then quite rightly done his best to try and improve it. That is how we get along in this country, particularly knowing how we are known throughout the world for compromise and adjustment and, indeed, toleration. If we therefore could be ruled out from discussing anything, the principle of which we had rejected at some other time, it would be impossible to discuss anything in this House whatever. I hope most earnestly that the pleas made by the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) that the greatest consideration should be paid to the educational needs of the youth of our land will certainly be borne in mind. We should not too lightly adopt platitudinous shibboleths about any privileged class. In a sense we in this House are a privileged class, every boy or girl who goes to a university is privileged, and everyone in an ordinary elementary school who manages to climb a little way up the very narrow ladder allowed to our boys and girls is a privileged person. I suggest therefore that while in the deepest sense of the term all men are equal, they are not all equally endowed.
    Democracy requires in future as large a proportion of fully educated youths as it can possibly secure. That is one reason why I believe that this Bill is very deplorable. I can understand and appreciate the necessity for conscription of all adults. It is a relatively fair and a right way, but it is altogether different when you apply the same principle to those with immature minds. We are helping to

    1607
    are not allowing for independence of mind on matters of tremendous importance and significance. Those who are grown up are in a position at least to make such adjustment. We here are adults, and we are gradually drawing in more and more of the nation, coming lower and lower in the age, so that at last we may have them at 14 if the war lasts another five or six years. We ought to have some representatives of that class in this House. Youngsters of 17 and 18 ought to be entitled to come here if for no other reason than that we are helping to decide in this important Assembly how they should live and how they should die. Therefore from that standpoint the Bill is very deplorable, though equally the House agrees it must go through in the circumstances. Though I believe it is a deplorable Bill and that it should not be put into the same position as a Bill to conscript the adult life of the nation, nevertheless in the circumstances I hope and believe that all the Ministries concerned will try and make the Bill work as equitably and fairly as possible, particularly with a view to the after-war period, when we shall want all the educated young people we can possibly secure in order to rebuild our country in a better way.
    Mr. Buchanan: It is usual for us, Sir, to ask for your permission when we wish to address this House, but I am not sure now whether it is not the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) whom I should ask before addressing the House.
    Mr. Tinker: Granted.
    Mr. Buchanan: To say who should speak or should not speak would seem to be the prerogative of the hon. Member, which, I think, on calm reflection, he will not pursue. Each of us, like the hon. Member, represents a division, and we are responsible for making speeches in this House in accordance with the human intelligence which we possess. I, like many others, dislike this Bill. I would not have intervened particularly but for the statement which was made by the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) on the question of exemption. I do not know whether his statement is true or not. One hears all sorts of things up and down the country that certain people can dodge the Army this way and that way. Some people say
    1608
    all sorts of things about Members of Parliament. We hear of men dodging the Army and of men in this occupation and that, but I hope that the Minister of Labour, on the question of the right of exemption under the law, is not going to attempt to alter the law without asking the permission of the House of Commons to do it. We are taking boys under 18.
    Mr. McCorquodale: In case the constituents of the hon. Member may read his remarks, I wish to point out that we do not propose to take any boy under 18.
    Mr. Buchanan: You are proposing to take them at 17 years and 8 months for registration and medical examination and to go through all the things that they would not have been called upon to do until after they had reached 18. We are asking them to do this before 18, and the result is that, in some cases, they will be in the Army within a day or two of reaching the age of 18. You are, in effect, setting to work to call up boys before the age of 18, whatever you may say about it. I hope nobody will intimidate the Minister of Labour into changing the present law. If there are wholesale wrong exemptions that is a terrible charge which the Department must meet. It means that they are not carrying out the law. The hon. Gentleman who made that statement made it with sincere conviction. He charged the Department with allowing people who should not be allowed to get off, to "get away with it" under the law. Even if the law is too wide, I hope that neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Minister will interfere with it without the House being properly consulted.
    I dislike intensely what we are doing. I think alternative methods could have been brought into being before we started to do this to boys under 18. Other ways and means, within the existing framework, could have been found without descending to this ridiculous age. Boys of 18 are very different to-day from what they were in my young days. At that time 18 was a common age at which to be married. I started my apprenticeship at the age of 14, the day after I left school. To-day, no reputable trading firm would take a boy until he was 16. To-day, the relationship between a boy of 18 and his mother and father is totally different from what it was when I was young—call it sentimentality, flabbiness or

    1609
    whatever you like. To get down to this age for this purpose is shocking. I do not think you will accomplish very much by doing so. Frequently you have both father and son in the Forces, which is a serious thing. It is terrible to leave a woman, at home to carry a heavy burden herself and to look after other young children when her husband and her eldest son have had to go away to the Forces. This House is lightly going into the whole thing. People shout about exemptions. I have every sympathy with university students, but there is growing up in this country a feeling that the only people we have to fight, and the only devils we have to deal with, are the devils in the factories; I am not having it. The poor people must be considered. If the fight has to be fought others have to do it as well as the factory people. When there is talk of hardship the most cruel hardship is to see father and son go to the Army at the same time. It has already happened, although I admit not extensively.
    Sir J. Nall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is much worse if a neighbouring father and son are both exempted?
    Mr. Buchanan: That may well be. In running a war you must have regard to every consideration, although nothing, I admit, arouses deeper feeling than that A must go while B stays at home. If we pass this Bill to-day it will only be a short step until the age is lowered still further. From the speeches that were made yesterday on behalf of the Government it would be easy to adduce an argument for lowering the age still further. As I have said, I do not like this Bill at all and I do not think it will help much. I am certain that a capable Ministry of Labour could have looked around and introduced a Bill to deal with the matter in some other way than by taking these lads at this age. This country, with all its faults, is a reasonable country in which to live, but to-day it is doing a very unreasonable thing.
    Mr. Lindsay: May I repeat what I was trying to say on one of the Clauses? It is no accident that six speakers, including Members representing Scottish constituencies, have referred to the universities and the educational side. I think the reason
    1610
    is because we have not yet had a complete statement either from the Board of Education or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the only Minister, I think, who can speak with authority for the universities, unless it is the President indirectly, because the universities come under the University Grants Committee which is responsible to the Treasury. Perhaps that is the reason we have had no adequate reply. From the "Daily Mail" of to-day it looks as if some of the heads of Scottish universities are not aware of the position. It looks as if they had not been fully consulted. Many questions arise as a result of this Bill. Boys sit for scholarships. Are they to sit for them between the ages of 17 and 18? I want to be clear about this. If schools are to carry on with boys from 17 to 18, in sixth forms, they must know precisely where they are. It is obvious that during the last two years there has not been a full measure of co-operation between the Ministry of Labour, the Universities and, I think, the Board of Education, otherwise there would not have been these frequent letters and misunderstandings about the call-up. If a boy at, say, Manchester Grammar School wants to sit for a scholarship to a university, he has to sit when they are available. The whole course of his school life may change, if it is not worth his while to sit. I have grave doubts on this subject. This did not happen in the last war. Just to go up to the university for a year—is it worth it? I think we ought to have in the House a statement of Government policy on this matter.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question of a year at the university hardly arises on the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. Lindsay: As the Third Reading knocks it out altogether, apparently—I say apparently because it is not altogether certain—I think the arguments, pros and cons, ought to be stated and that somebody ought to say from the Front Bench that the Government have come to the conclusion that it is better for a young man to be in the Services and have citizenship training than to be at the university and serve in the university squadron or Senior Training Corps. The case ought to be debated in the House, because it is important. There is one further point which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up. My hon.

    1611
    Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) said that already men are doing one year for their teaching diplomas. I was not aware that any men, except a few who are unfit for military service, were going to the training colleges or universities for this purpose. At the moment, apart from such men, there are no male teachers in training, only women. I refer to this matter because we ought to know where we are going. Do not let us talk about Education Bills, for there will be an acute shortage of teachers—to man existing schools.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may not discuss Education Bills on the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will state the position as regards the calling up of one or two other professions, beside doctors. We all know that doctors and certain other people are reserved. Have the Government taken into consideration other professions in relation, first, to the war, and secondly, to the post-war years? for example those who are to train youths between 16 and 18 years of age in continuation schools. These and other questions ought to be answered. We should not have had six speeches from hon. Members on the Third Reading of this Bill unless there was some uneasiness. I feel that if it cannot be done now, on some future occasion the President of the Board of Education ought to state the position clearly.
    Mr. Maxton: I rise only to restate on the Third Reading my speech on the Committee stage, so that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to reply to it. May I also say a word or two to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) concerning the new doctrine he enunciated that if one opposes a Measure on principle on the Second Reading that puts one out of the game until the end of time.
    Mr. Tinker: What I said was that anyone who has opposed the war from its inception, and opposed it on principle, has no right to bother about the details in a Bill of this sort.
    Mr. Maxton: I do not think that, on consideration, my hon. Friend would maintain that argument. He is known in the House for the regularity with which
    1612
    he repeats in Debates his arguments concerning certain things I could mention a dozen matters on which he has repeated his case again and again, and in opposition to the majority of the House; again and again he has come back into the ring on the same matter. I am very hopeful that some of the things which my hon. Friend has advocated in the past will yet be carried out before his period of service is finished. There is nobody who has raised so often the questions of old age pensions, the unemployed, workmen's compensation—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I indicated when the hon. Member for Leigh first raised this matter that it could not conveniently come within the Third Reading of this Bill, as it was rather a personal matter, and I thought we might let it drop.
    Mr. Maxton: I was dealing with it as a personal matter with my hon. Friend. We have been sufficiently friendly to enable us to deal with these personal matters. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer particularly the question as to how the students who are to be permitted to remain at the university are to be chosen. Who is to decide that certain young fellows are to be allowed to go ahead in medicine, or in scientific engineering, naval architecture, or chemistry? Under the former age limit, they went into the university and started on one or other of these courses before the question of their going into the Army arose. I think that under this Measure the majority of them will not be at the stage of having started on their courses. Who is to decide whether they are to be permitted to start? Is it to be the schoolmaster or the Joint Universities Recruiting Board, or is it to be the Minister of Labour? I think we ought to know this. I want also to know the same thing with reference to apprentices. Who is to decide whether individual youths who have started in a particular trade are, in the national interest, to be allowed to complete their apprenticeship. I want to be assured that the decision on these matters is to be in the hands of people who are really competent to make the decision, and that it will be made on broad grounds of national policy rather than on narrow grounds of the interests of particular classes or groups.
    I am definitely against this Measure. I think that to bring in these boys is a mistake. I think the nation could afford a

    1613
    gap of this sort it it were only for a year, but it cannot afford a gap of this description if there is to be another five years of war. We cannot afford to have our young boys hurled into the war in this way, thereby creating a gap in the production of skilled workers, technicians, men of culture, civil servants, lawyers, accountants. If we are to have a gap over an extended period in which none of these people are to be trained, then we shall create a terrible national problem. I say that nobody on the Government Front Bench has given any reason for believing that the year 1943 will see the end of this struggle and that it is only for a very temporary period that we shall be holding up the ordinary cultural development of the nation. I am against the Measure. In the Division yesterday I was a teller against it. May I say here that I profoundly object to the B.B.C.'s report of the Debate yesterday? It is not the Minister's responsibility, for presumably Ministers do not have the B.B.C.'s reports of our debates submitted to them. It was shocking that the B.B.C. reported last night—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss on the Third Reading of this Bill what the B.B.C. does.
    Mr. Maxton: Presumably that is so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer fully the questions which I put on the Committee stage.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the introduction of this Measure is a regrettable necessity, but he should not try to avoid the challenge that this is a lowering of the age or that lads are being called up at 17 years and eight months, because the process of being called up starts with registration at 17 years and eight months instead of at 18. The Prime Minister has informed us on several occasions that four-fifths of the people of the world are with us in the war. Before the Ministry considers any further reduction of the age let them begin to mobilise those four-fifths—maybe remove partition in Ireland, maybe provide a National Government for India. See the man-power that you could get as a result of the co-operation which those measures would bring about. Let the Government make use of the available man-power in the world and leave the lads, as far as possible, alone.
    Mr. McCorquodale: We have had a rather strange Debate. Very few speakers addressed themselves to the subject of the Bill yesterday, and for the winding-up speech to-day we have just heard an hon. Member, who I thought was most enthusiastic in support of the war, suggest that we should not call up our own people but make use of other people to fight our battles for us.
    Mr. Gallacher: I said that an attempt should be made, by removing partition, to obtain the co-operation of the Irish people, and by setting up a National Government to win the co-operation of the Indian people. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a declaration that these are not our people—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That certainly does not come within the four corners of the Bill.
    Mr. McCorquodale: The OFFICIAL REPORT will show to-morrow whether I am correct or not. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raised three practical questions with regard to students of medicine. These will be provisionally accepted by their medical schools, and then it will depend on the result of their Higher Certificate examination, the first M.B. or the appropriate examination, whether their reservation will be finally confirmed. Therefore, the medical schools will have the choosing of the boys. Scientific students will be recommended for deferment, as at present, by the Universities Joint Recruiting Boards, to whom application should be made by boys who intend to begin such courses at the universities or technical colleges. The deferment of apprentices is settled by the district man-power boards on lines laid down from the headquarters of the Ministry, who will naturally consult those interested in the problem. This whole question is at the moment under discussion and I should not like to make any definite statement at this moment on the age limit.
    The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) raised the point of shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks. No one would deny that the severity of the call up has fallen in full measure on those classes, but I am afraid that will have to continue. With regard to the call up of older people in shops, the Ministry of Labour are fully apprised of the diffi-

    1615
    culties of shopping at present. We have the advantage of consultation, in regard to food shops with the Ministry of Food, and as regards other shops with the Board of Trade, but in the present acute shortage of man-power we cannot afford to leave more people in the distributive trades than are absolutely, necessary to carry on those vital services. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) called for a "fair call up." I am sure the whole House and the country agree that we must give fair treatment as between one man and the next. I will not enter into his dispute with the hon. Member for Westhoughton on the appropriateness of his remarks. As to the laboratory group leaders I will look into the matter and see what the position is.
    With regard to arts students at the universities, perhaps I am rather to blame for this question being raised. The matter came under reconsideration after the Royal Proclamation of 22nd October reducing the age of call up of men to 18, and since then we have been in close consultation with the headmasters and heads of universities, the Board of Education, and the Education Department, Scotland, on how to reconcile in the overriding, compelling demand for manpower with fairness of treatment of the citizen and with the necessity for education in the universities to be kept alive. I had the privilege of presiding over a meeting of headmasters and university heads to discuss these problems. The Board of Education were also represented. The decision was taken which I mentioned yesterday with regard to boys at secondary schools who wished to go in for the higher certificate or for comparable examinations, which of course include university scholarship examinations. Those boys, born in 1925, who are still at school and are candidates for the higher certificate, will, if necessary, have their calling up, deferred until July, 1943, to enable them to take the examination. We had to inform the universities and the public school headmasters that it was obvious that we could not continue the year's course for arts students in its present form—
    Mr. McNeill: I am sure that I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary when he said he had informed the heads of universities and public school headmasters.
    Mr. McCorquodale: —and the secondary school headmasters, and others interested, including the Education Departments, that it was obvious we could not maintain the same rules which had been decided upon last year when the call-up was 18½ for the year's art students at the universities. Boys who reached a certain standard of education, Higher School Certificate and the like, were allowed last year to go up to the university for a year's course in arts subjects provided they would not be 19½ when that course was over and provided they took certain military training at the time. In view of the increasing severity of the man-power position we took the view that that arrangement could not be allowed to continue. After discussion with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, the Minister of Labour came to the view that it was better to stop offering deferment to boys whose medical grade was sufficient for the Forces to enable them to go to the university to study arts for a year. That will entail the closing down of art courses at the universities at the end of the summer of 1943 except for those boys who are medically unfit for service. They will be the only class in civil life to go up to universities to study arts courses in future. I listened with interest and great sympathy to the plea that the hon. Member for the Combined Universities made for further consideration of this matter between now and next July. This question has been closely considered in consultation with the Board of Education and all interested parties, and it is not fair to leave these boys in doubt now as to what their position will be. Therefore, I must ask the House to adhere to the decision which my Minister took as to closing down these courses at the end of the summer for boys who are medically fit to join the Services.
    Mr. McNeil: I do not want to argue the case for the divinity student, but my recollection is that at present he is automatically deferred. At this stage he is only an arts student. What will his position be? Will the Parliamentary Secretary address himself to a point I raised about arts students doing mathematics and working on honours mathematics for science?
    Mr. McCorquodale: If the mathematics student persuades the University Joint

    1617
    Recruiting Board that he is on a scientific course needed in the war effort he will get off. With regard to the divinity student, I am afraid that I was not aware there was any special deferment, but I will look into the question again.
    Mr. Barr: On the outbreak of war steps were taken by which divinity students, although they might be in an arts course, were accepted for the divinity course if they were presented in October, 1939, and they continued to be reserved.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I am not sure of the position at the moment, but I will look into the point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) attacked me and the Government on the ground that we were destroying the universities. He suggested that I was "paralysing even the fabric" of the universities. I may be strong and powerful, but I am not endeavouring to pull down the fabric or the buildings of the universities. The right hon. Gentleman was a trifle too outspoken in his remarks. The question of students is rather complicated because students are taking many different courses and we are circulating a full statement to universities, headmasters and others interested. I only made the announcement yesterday because a decision had just been made and I thought that it would interest the House.
    Mr. Stephen: I asked a question yesterday with regard to people from Eire under the Dominions Clause in the Bill. I got an answer from the Minister but I think the position is still somewhat indefinite. Will they be taken under this Bill even if the Eire authorities do not come to an agreement with the Government?
    Mr. McCorquodale: If the Eire authorities do not come to an agreement with us that these men shall be taken, they will not be called up.
    Mr. McNeil: In reply to the hon. Member for the Combined Universities the Parliamentary Secretary said that the hardship period would be safeguarded. I would like him to explain in what way it will be safeguarded, because I cannot see in the Bill any additional safeguard.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I said yesterday that hardship appeals would be considered not only up to the 18th birthday, which
    1618
    is what the hon. Member for the Combined Universities asked for, but right up to the date of receiving the enlistment notice where circumstances demanded it. The position from the point of view of hardship changes from month to month and it is not desirable to cut out people who can qualify for postponement on hardship grounds.
    My right hon. Friend would like me to thank the House for the facility it has offered in passing this Bill. We may regard its reception both by the House yesterday and by the Press as yet another indication, if indeed one were needed, of the determination of us all to prosecute this war unflinchingly to victory.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend section forty-seven of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to workmen suffering from pneumoconiosis, to provide for the payment of benefit in the case of such workmen, to enable the Treasury to contribute to certain medical expenses, and to make provision for certain other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be advanced by the Minister of Fuel and Power to the board administering any scheme made under the said Act for the payment of benefit in the case of workmen suffering from pneumoconiosis, and of such sums as may be contributed by the Secretary of State to any medical expenses fund established under Section two of the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis and Asbestosis) Act, 1930, as extended by the said Act;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums retained by the Minister of Fuel and Power out of payments collected from employers under any such scheme, being sums retained for the purpose of repaying any advance made by him as aforesaid."

  Resolution agreed to.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Section 47 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to workmen suffering from any form of pneumoconiosis.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. A. Hollins: I want to raise a point arising out of a reply given by the Under-Secretary yesterday, in which he said, in answer to the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor):
    "My hon. Friend will observe that Clause I extends Section 47 of the 1925 Act, to enable schemes to be made applying to workmen suffering from any form of pneumoconiosis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1942; col. 1513. Vol. 385.]
    In the future where a form of pneumoconiosis is established by medical inquiry and is proved to be due to the employment the Minister will be able to make schemes without coming back to Parliament. I appreciate the fact that will facilitate things, but what I want to know is whether it is necessary for industries which are now operating under or are scheduled under the various silicosis and asbestosis schemes to make a further application to be brought under the regulations applying to the disease of the lungs known as dust-reticulation. I am inclined to think that such an application has to be made, although they may be operating under the Schedule, because in the Schedule it says:
    "Different schemes may be made under this section with the respect to different forms of pneumoconiosis as well as with respect to different industries or processes or groups of industries or processes."
    Why should it be necessary to have an inquiry when various industries are now operating under these various silicosis and asbestosis schemes? My society, the National Pottery Workers Society, has been operating the various industries scheme of 1928 and also the silicosis and asbestosis scheme of 1931. Will it be necessary for my society to make an application for the industry to be brought within the scope of the regulations as to the new disease pneumoconiosis? In my view it ought not to be necessary to have to make a further application; we should automatically be brought within the scope of Clause 1. I have been very much concerned about this matter, because quite a number of pottery workers have been before medical boards and have not been certified, although there is quite definitely some lung trouble, and I am inclined to think we shall find they are suffering from some form of dust-reticulation in the lungs.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I am very glad to see that the word pneu-
    1620
    moconiosis is used in the Bill, and I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. A. Hollins). Perhaps the word "pneumoconiosis" has given rise to some difficulty. I believe that I am right in saying, and I think the Minister will confirm it, that the term "pneumoconiosis" applies to the inhalation of any kind of harmful dust, and that he will make schemes whenever required. The words "silicosis" and "anthracosis" and so on, merely particularise the effect of the special dust inhaled; "pneumoconiosis" means inhaling any form of dust. The point I should like to make is that in the operation of this Clause it is most important for the Minister to look into the question of the stage at which he grants compensation. I think that is the crux of the whole Clause. On that the success of the whole scheme will depend. I know from experience that anthracite coal workers quickly develop a cough—very quickly indeed; but they do not get pneumoconiosis at once. The cough is caused in the first place by the irritation of particles of coal dust on the bronchial tubes. The miner is not incapacitated immediately, and he is able to go on working. The cough makes him take deeper breaths in the closed space in which he works, say at the coal face, and thereby he inhales small spear-like particles of the anthracite which pierce the lung and as a result fibrosis, well known to some of my hon. Friends opposite, is set up in the lungs. He might still go on working for a considerable time, in some cases for a very long time, while in other cases the ill effects might follow very quickly. The Minister should bear in mind that he must hot wait until this man has developed the dire symptoms of the complaint before saying that he can be compensated.
    That should not be the object of this Clause at all. If that were so, all that would happen is that the Minister would be compensating a man in order to prepare him in a short time for another world. He should if possible try to operate this Clause as early as possible. As soon as the cough becomes constant he should take steps to compensate the man and to rehabilitate him and take him from the industry even if no gross signs of fibrosis can be found. By doing so he would not be removing men from the industry unduly, because although he

    1621
    would be removing a considerable number yet if he left them there death would eventually remove as many.
    Without wishing to be sentimental, I should like to describe to the Committee an experience of my own. When I was a small boy I used to spend a few weeks every year with an aunt who lived in an anthracite area in South Wales. The hon. Members for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and Gower (Mr. Grenfell) will know the place very Well. I noticed at that time one thing which impressed me very much; indeed, there were two things which I noticed. One was that although my aunt's house was a mile from the colliery the window panes were covered every day, both inside and out, with anthracite dust. One could clean those windows every day but, nevertheless, the dust returned. My cousin, who was accustomed to follow up these matters, and I used to examine this dust. We found that it was not composed of dust in an ordinary sense. Each particle of the dust was nothing but a little spear of black diamond, that is of anthracite coal. If such dust was to be found on a house so far away, let us imagine the effect that dust would have on the lungs of a miner when he was working at the coalface in a pit. The other point which impressed me has a direct bearing upon this matter, because I want the Minister to operate the Clause before the trouble has reached the stage which I have been talking about, when it develops into a disease which is progressive and produces ill effects which can never be put right. My aunt always knew, although she lived some way from the lane which led to the mountain side where this colliery was, without looking at the clock and without being able to see the miners going to or from work, when the change of shifts took place. The thing which impressed me very much as a child and still impresses me was the answer she gave when I asked her, "How is it you know when the shifts are being changed?" She replied, "I know it by the coughs." That was a very striking answer. I should like my hon. Friend to take steps to help these men before the damage is irreparable.
    These are men of great determination, character and intelligence, God-fearing men, and yet, as I know, in the parish churchyard in that place there are many
    1622
    stones above the mounds on which we read: "William Davies, aged 41; John Jones, aged 40; William Evans, aged 43." Indeed, I used to pass those graves often, and I frequently remarked on them as a young man. That was what happened to them at an early age, and I was very much moved by it. We must not allow that to continue to occur. Admittedly, many of these men have followed doctrines, political and otherwise, which might not suit the opinions of all my hon. Friends, but nevertheless they followed them not for any material gain but in an ecstasy of the spirit.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House are very grateful to the hon. Member for the speech he has just made. We might take exception to the last phrase or so, because we think that in South Wales we are following the radical doctrines which were advocated by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. The point which I rose to put to the Minister is a very small one. I wish to know whether the Minister proposes, before schemes are actually prepared, to consult the interests that were consulted before the appearance of this Bill. As the Minister said yesterday, consultations took place, prior to the Bill being prepared, with the T.U.C., the Miners' Federation, and other unions and employers of labour. We are most anxious that, before schemes are actually prepared, those consultations should continue. In addition to the schemes, I include the Regulations which will be based upon them. I realise that time is against us to-day as regards having a long Debate, but I hope I may obtain a reply. The point shortly is: Will consultations take place before the schemes are actually prepared and Regulations are drawn up based upon them?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): In reply to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. A. Hollins), who asked what it was proposed to do as regards making schemes under Clause 1, I would say that the evidence is that this new form of pneumoconiosis exists among coal workers and among coal trimmers in the South Wales docks. It is therefore proposed to make a scheme which will cover their cases. In order that a disease may become the subject of workmen's compensation two conditions must be satisfied. First, it must be clear that

    1623
    the disease exists among the workers in the industry. Secondly, it must be clear that the disease is due to the employment. A great deal of medical inquiry is necessary before the second condition can be satisfied. In 1906, only six diseases were scheduled under the Act, but the hon. Member knows that there are now no less than 43 diseases scheduled. We shall not proceed to make general schemes for pneumoconiosis affecting industry, and indeed it would not be proper to do so, until there is some evidence that the disease exists and that it is due to the employment.
    This scheme therefore will apply only to coal workers in the first instance. I should not like at this stage to give a close definition of the term "coal worker." It will obviously include all workers in coalmines, but whether it will go outside coalmines to people who have to handle coal at docks and other places, I should not like to say definitely at present. That is one of the matters in regard to which we shall consult the bodies with whom we have been in consultation in drafting the Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) that full consultation with the interests concerned will take place before the scheme is finally settled. I think that reply meets the two points raised by hon. Members opposite. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) will expect any reply at this stage on his rather general remarks.
    Dr. Thomas: No. I only wanted to ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the necessity for treatment and compensation before irreparable damage is done.
    Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That point Will certainly be borne in mind.
    Mr. Burke: Do I understand that the benefits of the Bill, as far as pneumoconiosis is concerned, will, in the first instance, be confined to mine workers and therefore that it is wrong to say that this new word will cover all kinds of dust disease contracted in any industry? Is it the case that persons who are not working in coal mines but who may contract the disease by breathing dust, will not be covered by these new powers until evidence has been submitted?
    Mr. Peake: That is right. Evidence will have to be brought and a scheme will have to be made. We have taken power under Clause 1 (2) to go ahead with further schemes without again having to come to Parliament for the necessary authority.
    Mr. Marshall: I understood yesterday that workers in other industries would be covered in the same way as miners. On several occasions I have spoken in this House about silicosis as it affects grinders. The scheme needs to be expanded and ought to include pulmonary diseases, which affect grinders intensely. Last time I spoke on the subject in this House I was able to say—I do not know what the figures are now—that the mortality among this class of worker was four times that of the ordinary population of this country. I should be very sorry if the Bill were so drafted that those people were not brought into it immediately. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a complete assurance on that point.
    Mr. Peake: The Bill is so drafted as to cover new schemes Which can be made in respect of any industry, where disease is due to the inhalation of dust, but we shall require specific evidence before schemes are made under the Bill.
    Mr. A. Hollins: While thanking the Minister for his reply, I would say that I am not yet satisfied. I am still of the opinion, apart from the fact that medical evidence must be brought, that a potter operating under a scheme for silicosis should immediately be sent to a medical board and brought within the ambit of the Bill, without having to go for inquiry, medical investigation and so on. A number of our people have been before a medical board and are not certificated, but they still have lung disease. Something ought to be done about it. If it is a question of inquiry and investigation, delay is involved. We had a very sad experience in our industry from 1923 to 1928, when we were trying to get scheduled. First, we met the Home Secretary and he said: "If your employers and you are agreed, we shall produce a scheme." The employers would not agree. In 1926 a special investigation was made and it lasted 12 months. In 1927 a committee of inquiry was held. I was on the committee. We finally got a

    1625
    scheme in 1928. I feel that men who are working in silicotic or asbestos industries ought to be brought into the ambit of the Clause without special inquiry. Who is to make the inquiry? Is it to be made on the application of the trade unions or will the Home Office do it for us? Have we to make application? Are the trade unions to be brought into it or not? I should like to know whether we are to have a speedy investigation.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not clear that Clause I gives the authority to make schemes and, as set out in the Schedule, to make consequential direct alterations in the conditions laid down in the existing schemes? One finds in the Schedule, in Subsection (1):
    "After the words silica dust or asbestos dust there shall be inserted the words or other dust; in paragraph (a) of that subsection for the words the disease known as "silicosis" (that is to say, fibrosis of the lungs duo to silica dust) or from fibrosis of the lungs due to asbestos dust or from either of those diseases there shall be substituted the words pneumoconiosis or from pneumoconiosis."
    I understood that this came as an automatic substitution of pneumoconiosis for the diseases for which compensation is already paid. Clause 1 gives authority to the Ministry, I had thought, to authorise additional schemes on condition that Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and other Sections are varied in accordance with the terms of this Schedule, so that in all industries where compensation has been payable for damaged lungs from dust the word "pneumoconiosis" will take the place of "silicosis," "asbestosis," or other words. I thought that was satisfactory to my hon. Friends who represented this particular industry.
    Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are taking this word "pneumoconiosis" and giving it a very wide definition to include silicosis and asbestosis and any affection due to the inhalation of dust. With regard to the making of schemes, all that is contemplated at present is to make a scheme affecting coal workers. If and when medical evidence is forthcoming which necessitates the extension of these schemes to other industries, then, of course, they will be able to be made under this Bill without the necessity of coming back to Parliament. I
    1626
    think that is as far as I can go. There are a great many industries obviously where dust is inhaled, but it is not in every case that it can be satisfactorily proved either radiologically or pathologically, that the inhalation of the dust causes a disease connected with the employment. These are very technical matters. Anybody who studies the very full report by the Committee of the Medical Research Council on this matter will realise how very technical they are. Therefore, I cannot give definite assurances that further schemes will be made until a specific degree of medical evidence is forthcoming.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Benefit scheme for workmen formerly employed in coal-mining industry and suffering from pneumoconiosis.)
    Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "totally," to insert "or partially."
    I take it that we can discuss at the same time all the subsequent Amendments which cover the same point. I do not propose to take up much time, but I want, if I may, to take the opportunity that presents itself in moving this Amendment to pay my tribute to the people, who I think have not yet been mentioned by anyone, who deserve our gratitude, the Committee of the Medical Research Council, without whose report we should not be considering this Measure to-day. It began its work in the village from which I come, and it began it in the pit where I started work as a boy. I went to the original meeting where the men were invited to join in finding out what this terrible disease was. I saw them in the whole of that work, and I want to pay my tribute to scientific work for human welfare at its very best.
    The point I wish to raise is already in a sense implied by what has been raised by my hon. Friend. We have a disease scheduled as silicosis, and a man claiming benefit has to be certified by a medical board as totally or partially disabled. We discover in our area that men go before a medical board, and the board say, "We are very sorry; you are disabled. It is obvious you cannot work

    1627
    in the pits. You have some lung disease, but we are restricted. We have to decide, not whether you are suffering from lung disease which has disabled you, but whether you are disabled by silicosis according to the definition made by someone 10 years ago."
    I go back to 1932–33. Of the cases submitted for certificates, 80 per cent. were certificated. This fell to 70 per cent., then to 60 per cent., and in later years more than 50 per cent. of the cases, submitted for examination have been rejected because they did not come within the purview of the narrow definitions of silicosis. I give these figures for South Wales, not because this is a disease limited to South Wales, but it is a fact that the coalfield to which I belong, which produces 5 per cent. of the nation's coal has 85 per cent. of the silicosis cases. In South Wales in the years from 1937 to 1941 applications for disablement certificates numbered 3,502, of which 1,801 were granted and 1,701 rejected. I am positive that the last people to deny what I say would be the Medical Research Council.
    Here are 1,701 rejections of men who are suffering from disablement through lung disease caused by their occupation in the coalmine. They are turned down. As a result of that, we press upon the Government that they ought to change the definition, that this term "silicosis" is a misnomer altogether. We urge that, and the Government say, "Very well, we cannot go outside the definition. We will have this investigation." The investigation lasted several years, and in the end the Medical Research Council brought in a finding in favour of what the laymen in the area said 10 years ago. Ten years ago we said it to the Home Office. We said, "There is a disease. We call it all kinds of names." What do we do now? Let me say that I welcome this benefits scheme. I know the position. The difficulty is that every time we have brought in a Regulation to schedule a disease, apparently there is a rule of the House, or a constitutional rule of some kind, that the provisions of a Regulation cannot be made retrospective. The result is that when a Regulation is brought in to alter the conditions under which compensation is paid for an industrial disease, it only covers persons from the date of the Regulation. The people whose suffering has led to it are denied the benefits.
    1628
    These people for whom we provide a benefit scheme—I welcome it very much indeed, and I pay tribute to those, including the Parliamentary Secretary and the former Secretary for Mines, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) for having worked for it—get only 15s. a week plus the right to retain their National Health Insurance, without that being taken into account or taken out of their compensation or vice versa. We only provide that for the people totally disabled. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this Amendment: I ask him to consider it. I want, in addition to having the right to consider claims and make benefit payments to those people disabled by this disease, that those partially disabled should come within the purview of these benefits. I want first of all to urge consideration of the fact that partial disablement from this industrial disease is in a category of its own. It is not the same as being partially disabled from an accident. When a man meets with an accident, he may lose a finger or fracture a bone. That physical injury may leave him partially disabled, and the amount of partial disablement can be measured. But you cannot measure the amount of partial disablement from an industrial disease like this. This is a progressive disease. There are various stages. When a medical board have a man before them they have to decide, first, whether he is suffering from the disease, and, secondly, whether the disease disables him totally or partially.
    I will quote from the actual certificates of men who have been certified as partially disabled. One certificate says, "Disease well established." You know what that means: it means that that disease will take the man's life; it is so established that it cannot be cured. Another certificate says, "Disease moderately advanced." If the disease is well established and moderately advanced—and these are the terms generally used in certificates of partial disablement from silicosis—think what it means. We have hundreds of those people. Once a man is declared to be partially disabled by silicosis or pneumoconiosis, it means that he cannot go back to the pits not only to work underground, but even to work on the surface. The medical board says, "This man is fit for light work"—sometimes they say, "for the lightest work"—"in the open, free from dust." If a

    1629
    man is certified as partially disabled and told that he must not go back to the pits—which means that they will stop him going back—but that he must get light work, what work is there? It is just as though the man were totally disabled. I know something about the cost of this disease. I know the incidence of this disease upon the anthracite industry. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office, in moving the Second Reading yesterday, said that he knew the cost. Even if the cost in pounds, shillings, and pence is heavy, the cost in human suffering cannot be described in words. The cost of this benefit scheme is one penny per ton of coal—not a continuous levy, but one levy of a penny per ton. Who will miss that? Add another penny, and I am sure you will get enough to include the partially-disabled men. This benefit scheme is to be administered, under Subsection (3) of Clause 2—
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are not discussing that Clause now.
    Mr. Griffiths: But it has reference to what I am saying now. An administrative board will be set up. Will the Undersecretary to the Home Office and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power consider the possibility of allowing this administrative board to consider claims by partially-disabled men, who, in real fact, are totally disabled? If you do not allow that, you will do a great injustice to men who are disabled and who cannot get compensation because up to now we have refused to schedule this disease. This affects hundreds of men in the constituency I represent. I have made representations to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I ask him, at this late stage, to reconsider the matter. It would be unfair and unjust if such men were deprived of these limited benefits.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: I shall endeavour not to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, except to express my appreciation of the Medical Council's work, without which we should not have had this Bill to-day. I trust that the Committee will not repeat the many blunders of the past. For more than 20 years I have been concerned about this special disease—not to the
    1630
    same extent, of course, as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), largely because so many pits which came under my purview have closed. In South Wales a very large number of cases are coming before our committees. Quite 50 per cent. of the persons affected are not certified definitely by the Medical Board, but there can be no doubt that with the broadening of this definition to include pneumoconiosis all those persons will be brought in. But it is important to realise—and this was, I think, the main word that was emphasised by my hon. Friend—that this is a progressive disease. It is no use talking about schemes for rehabilitation unless we get cases very early, because the disease is progressive. If we wait for what might be called totality in this disease, it is too late. Once a man is certified as totally disabled, that is a death sentence. We ought, from humanitarian grounds alone, to realise that once a man is found to be suffering, even slightly, from that disease, we should pay him compensation, take him out of the pit, and fit him for a new job. That is the only remedy. If we are faced, as we shall be shortly, with the necessity for conserving manpower, we shall not only by this means be able to repair a damage done, but we shall be able to win a man back to industry. If we do not pay these people compensation, they will continue to work until they are totally disabled.
    Mr. Peake: The benefit scheme provides only for persons who have in fact left the industry already.
    Mr. Williams: I realise that, but quite a number of persons have been partially incapacitated, and they ought to be brought in. I hope my hon. Friend will endeavour to meet the Committee on this point.
    Mr. T. J. Brooks: One would have been glad to have a talk about the compensation laws in general, but one is tied down by the Amendment. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary yesterday made reference to a disease in South Yorkshire known as Lowe's Disease. It took my mind back to the time when I was a very young man and worked in the pit. One saw strong, virile men from 30 to 40 years of age working among ganister, and also men making silica bricks who in a few years began to

    1631
    fade away as a result of the terrible cough it induced. Their lungs were torn after a few years and they eventually lost their lives. It was a terrible thing, and one is glad to know that the description has been broadened so as to bring in men who have hitherto been kept outside. I have been in touch with a colliery for many years and I have taken scores of men before medical boards, and in all my experience of over 30 years I have, never been able to get one case through. I am confident that with the new description of "pneumoconiosis" the whole aspect has been broadened and more of these men may now be brought into the scheme.
    I hope that the Department will agree to deal with the partially disabled. The matter is very serious. On the point of rehabilitation, I hope that it will be possible to get hold of these men earlier. It is terrible to realise that while we are sitting here men are being affected by this terrible disease. We have not been able to take them early enough. I believe in preventive medicine. It is said that the Government do not want to alter the terms of the compensation Act. It was said yesterday by one or two speakers that it is absolutely obsolete. It is 50 years old and it is time that the construction of the whole Measure was altered. I hope that the proposed Amendments will be agreed to. One of the outstanding questions upon which I have had talks with solicitors interested in these cases is that men who were injured before they were 21 years of age have had to go back to their previous average wages. This may be outside the question to-day, but I hope that at some time we shall have an opportunity of going into the whole question of workmen's compensation.
    Mr. Peake: I listened carefully to everything that was said by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members who have supported this Amendment. That is a matter to which we have given the most careful and earnest consideration, but we find that the practical difficulties involved are very great. I should like to remind hon. Members exactly what we are doing under this Clause. It is something which is quite unprecedented in workmen's compensation law. There have been dozens of Workmen's Compensation Bills and many Workmen's Compensation Acts which have passed through or been in-
    1632
    troduced into this House, but none, until a little Bill two years ago, had a retrospective effect or made any attempt to provide for old cases. That was the byssinosis scheme for workers in the great looms of the Lancashire cotton industry. The scheme was agreed by employers and the workpeople and was an excellent one. It provided for a benefit, in cases of total incapacity only, of only 10s. a week, but it was very acceptable to the disabled workpeople.
    The cases of pulmonary disease among coal miners, as the hon. Member knows perhaps better that I do, are very sad. They develop very slowly over a number of years, and medical science can at present do very little by way of alleviation. Therefore, we felt it very important to do something for the old cases, and in this Clause we have done a good deal. We go back to 1934, which was the time when the silicosis scheme for underground workers in coalmines came into operation. That scheme at the time did not permit of attempting to deal with old cases. That was the mentality of the time, and I am glad to say that we have made some progress since then. It goes back to 1934, and under the scheme for which we provide in the Bill, five years from the date to be prescribed under the scheme will be available in the future for men to make out their ease in respect of the benefit scheme. There will be a total period of 13 years which will be open to persons who become totally disabled.
    Mr. Grenfell: Is it possible, in order to meet some of the cases which may not now be regarded as partially disabled but which are on the verge of complete breakdown, to postpone this prescribed date for another period so as to enable people who up to the present have not been certified as disabled to be covered?
    Mr. Peake: As regards anybody working in the industry at the present time, they will be provided for by the scheme to be made under Clause 1.
    Mr. Grenfell: I am anxious personally because of the very great numbers of cases which are known to me and to my hon. Friends. Suppose there are two or three hundred people unable to work, and that 100 of them are declared to be totally disabled and the remainder are only declared to be incapable of working underground, they may not be working but left in the

    1633
    air, so to speak. Can the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope or prospect of these men being looked at again to see whether they can be found to be partially disabled, before the door is closed?
    Mr. Peake: I should not like at this stage to make any promises on that point. We have felt that we are providing for cases of total incapacity going back to 1934. As regards the future, we are satisfied that the period of five years from the commencement of the scheme during which men may make out their claim to be totally disabled will cover the cases of some men partially disabled at the present time who will become totally disabled in the course of the next five years.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member knows of the position at present where a man is partially disabled and fails to secure light employment himself, and the employer does not find full employment for him. Is he in those circumstances entitled to be regarded as totally disabled; and does that apply under the benefit scheme?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid the hon. Member has asked a question to which I cannot give an answer, but I will certainly look at it and see how that would operate. As regards the bigger question of applying the benefit scheme dealing with old cases to cases of partial incapacity as well as cases of total incapacity, there are one or two very considerable practical obstacles. In the first place, a totally incapacitated man is off work. There is no question of his working, but in the case of partially incapacitated men many of them—I should have thought the majority—could be employed on war work at war wages. It is fairly easy now for a partially incapacitated man to obtain employment of some kind. In the second place, some of these partially incapacitated men, if they are unemployed, will be in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit which will be a higher figure than the benefit provided under this scheme. If we were to start to deal with partially incapacitated cases, we should have to make some provision that a man could not draw both his benefit under this scheme and unemployment benefit.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: It is true that those who are in the early stages of the disease
    1634
    and are declared to be partially disabled may be in work or may be getting unemployment benefit, but there are people who are technically partially disabled who have no work and no hope of getting any work. Is it not possible for this matter to be reconsidered, because to all intents and purposes they are totally disabled men?
    Mr. Peake: It is difficult to say whether a partially incapacitated man is incapable of finding work or that work is never likely to be available for him. Once a man is totally incapacitated there is, alas, no chance of him being fit for work again. It is true that this disease is progressive, and the result of that would be that if you tried to apply the benefit scheme, there would have to be a constant re-assessment of the man's degree of incapacity, because incapacity gets greater as time goes on. To do that would be placing on the Silicosis Medical Board, the authority under this scheme, a very heavy task. They would have to assess in each case not only whether partial incapacity existed, but its degree, and they would have to re-assess its degree from time to time. You would then have to allocate by a rule-of-thumb method the proportion of the 15s. which a man would receive.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I regard this Clause as the most important in the whole Bill. Has not the Department power to establish organised medical treatment and examination of these cases? Would not these cases come periodically under review in order to see whether the person certified as having the disease had it in a well-established or moderately advanced form?
    Mr. Peake: It is not possible, under a benefit scheme of this kind, for workers in one industry, to deal with the question of rehabilitation. That is a far wider question and is one which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has very much in mind at the moment. Careful inquiries have been made about rehabilitation, and measures on that are intended, but it would not be possible in a financial scheme, to provide financial benefit for a limited class of persons in one industry, to establish machinery for rehabilitation and treatment. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that we cannot go further and embark upon something which would lead

    1635
    to great practical difficulties if we tried to extend it to cases of partial incapacity. As it is, I do not think the scheme is ungenerous. Indeed, it is unprecedented. It sets a precedent for other industries in the future, and I hope the Committee will accept the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I make one final plea? I think these men ought to be re-examined, and if the Under-Secretary will undertake to do this, I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Peake: I would like to look at that point. There will be a Report stage later, and I will try to give the hon. Gentleman an answer.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. S. O. Davies: The answer which the Under-Secretary gave a few moments ago disappointed me immensely. I concede with considerable pleasure the fact that there is something unprecedented in this scheme, but I should not like this Clause to go by having as its only virtue that of being unprecedented. I see in this Clause an opportunity of doing something really substantial, not merely to establish a benefit scheme for those who are suffering from this disease, but to provide some organised, constructive, medical treatment for these people. We are still left with these old cases; they will not come under this medical scheme at all. They are the persons who have been before the Silicosis Medical Board and who have been certified as having this disease in a "well-established" or "moderately advanced" form. They are supposed to be partially capable of work. This disease is progressively eating up their lives, as it were, yet they will not be covered by this benefit scheme. I do not want to enlarge too much on this, as we have a great deal to do in connection with this Bill to-day, but I must point out that it should have been possible to have increased this 15s. by a very substantial amount. I appreciate the fact that those in receipt of national insurance benefit will have the amount they receive from this source disregarded, but that men suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis and on public assistance benefit will not have the
    1636
    amount they receive from this source disregarded. Why this unfair discrimination? Detailed conditions upon which the scheme will be established have not yet been laid down, so I ask that the conditions which will determine benefit shall be more generous.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I think the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) deserves a reply, but I do not want the Committee to confuse the issue on this Clause. I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that it has not been an easy thing to get this Clause into the Bill. The fact that it does something which has not been done before is no reason why it should not be done now. We have tried to do two things in this Clause. First of all, in the case of the workmen coming under it, we suggest a payment of 15s. a week, whether they are totally or partially incapacitated, and secondly, where the man dies as a result of the disease, we suggest that £250 shall be paid to the widow. We have had quite a lot of difficulty in drawing up this very intricate provision. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of medical attention, and so on. He knows that under the White Paper the Ministry of Fuel and Power have very definite instructions both in regard to medical services and in regard to rehabilitation. Although that is not contained in this Clause, I think my hon. Friend can take it that much headway has been made in that direction. There has been a great deal of drive up till now, and I think my hon. Friend can take it that these cases will be, and are, constantly under review.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5—(Power to disregard earnings of widow in respect of war work.)
    Mr. George Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
    I hope that on this Amendment we shall be a little bit more successful than we have been on our Amendments up to now. So far we have been skirmishing, and the skirmishing has been partly geographical, because, practically speaking, the

    1637
    provisions so far have applied to South Wales. I am pleased to say that this Clause brings in the entire country. It makes provision concerning the widow of any man in any industry. When a man is involved in a fatal accident, the widow is to get in future compensation more satisfactory than widows have received in the past. I hope that the two Under-Secretaries concerned will have sufficient common sense to say that they will make this Clause definite. We want to be definite and to say "shall" and not "may." We have found under the compensation laws that where it has been possible to twist a word, the trade unions have been bled almost white by the lawyers. We do not want any of that in regard to this provision. The Clause states that:
    "The tribunal may disregard those earnings."
    That means that the tribunal may in Lancashire do one thing and in Yorkshire, just over the edge, they may do something else, and South Wales and Scotland will be watching. I ask the Undersecretary to accept this Amendment. It is the most common sense Amendment that has been moved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) put his case very well, but he used a great many words. I do not want to do so. The Under-Secretary knows where I am straight away, and I hope that, without any more words being wasted, he will get up at once and say that he is prepared to agree to the insertion of the word "shall" in place of "may."
    Mr. Peake: I have listened to the very good-humoured speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). I remember that some 10 years ago, in the silly season, someone wrote to "The Times" asking where Hemsworth was. My hon. Friend has certainly put it on the map. Evidently, he feels keenly about the inclusion of the word "shall" instead of "may." He told us that the workers had been bled almost white by the lawyers over a word. I must warn him, in respect of his proposed Amendment, that it opens up the possibilities of applications to the Court of Appeal which would not be open if the word "may" were to stand where we have placed it. One of the reasons we preferred to use the word "may" was
    1638
    that it would enable the county court judge to deal with the matter finally without the probability or possibility of successful access to the Court of Appeal. However, from soundings which I have taken, I understand that hon. Members generally would prefer the word "shall" to be included and as it makes very little difference, apart from the factor I have mentioned, so far as the Government are concerned, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out from "earnings" to the end of the Sub-section.
    In this provision we are concerned with the woman who has gone out to work because of war contingencies. What we ask is that the earnings of the war period shall be disregarded altogether. The Clause states that they may be disregarded either wholly or to such an extent as the tribunal thinks proper. That seems to be contrary to what is meant. I cannot see why the Under-Secretary of State should not accept the Amendment and say that it is the intention that the whole of the earnings shall be entirely disregarded.
    Mr. Peake: I regret to say that I cannot repeat what I have just done in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and accept this Amendment, but I do not think that, when I have explained the matter, the hon. Member will altogether regret it. He proposes that in line 34 all the words from "earnings" to the end of the Sub-section shall be left out. The result of that would be that the last part of the provision would end bluntly with the words:
    "The tribunal shall disregard those earnings."
    Those earnings are the earnings of a widow in respect of employment which she entered into on or after 3rd September, 1939. There are two qualifications contained in the last words of the Subsection, and I will deal first with the words:
    "And accordingly may treat the widow as wholly or partly dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death."
    Those words are absolutely essential to the purpose which we have in mind in this Clause. Fatal benefits are payable under

    1639
    the principal Act only where dependency exists, and if, therefore, one were simply to say that the earnings of the widow are to be disregarded, that would not by itself establish the fact of dependency. Let us suppose that the widow had been directed by the Ministry of Labour to join one of the women's Services or to work in a munitions factory. She might be separated perhaps 50 or 100 miles from her husband, and if the tribunal were instructed simply to disregard her earnings in that employment, that would not of itself clearly establish dependency upon the husband. You have to have in the words:
    "and accordingly may treat the widow as if she were dependent at the time of the husband's death."
    They are absolutely essential to the purpose we all have in mind. As regards the words:
    "wholly or to such extent at the tribunal thinks proper "
    they are included for this reason. The earnings that are to be disregarded are war earnings in work which the widow would not have undertaken but for the war. There may be fairly numerous cases where a childless widow was in employment before the war. She may have been earing 30s. a week as a shop assistant. After the outbreak of war she goes into munitions and earns, perhaps, an increased wage. It would not be right for the county court judge to treat her as wholly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased workman. She is dependent to some extent and she may have become, as a result of the war, dependent to a greater extent, but we must obviously allow latitude to the tribunal in assessing the extent of the dependency due to earnings in war work or work which would not have been undertaken but for the war. I therefore regret that I cannot invite the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. David Adams: Is there an appeal against a decision of the tribunal?
    Mr. Peake: Dependency, of course, is a question of fact and is for the county court judge. Hon. Members know better than I that an appeal to the High Court is usually upon the ground that the county court judge his misdirected himself by disregarding the law.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out "in any such case."
    I move this formally in order to obtain an explanation of these words.
    Mr. Peake: They are just to save the trouble of repeating the words at the beginning of Sub-section (1):
    "In the case of injury to a workman resulting in death."
    We have shortened the phrase into "in any such case."
    Mr. McLean Watson: The hon. Gentleman need not be surprised at our raising points of this kind. Miners are hardly ever out of the courts with compensation cases, and, when little phrases of that kind creep into Acts of Parliament, we look upon them with suspicion. I understand that the phrase is meant to cover the case of a female relative acting as a housekeeper, in the same way as the case of a widow in an earlier part of the Clause.
    Mr. Peake: That is so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 40, leave out "may" and insert "shall,"—[Mr. G. Griffiths.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Calculation of weekly pay- ments in case of changes in rates of remuneration.)
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, after "remuneration," to insert:
    "or in the duration of employment in each week."
    We regard this Clause as a source of contention in what was regarded first of all as a non-contentious Bill. It amends Section 11 (3) of the 1925 Act, which contained a wide review at 12-monthly periods when wages had changed by 20 per cent. Around this Sub-section (3) was built a tremendous amount of case law which was generally described as "cases referring to a change of circumstances." In those changes of circumstances were included a number of things which are excluded by the formulation of Clause 6 of the Bill. There were changes of wages, changes of physical capacity, changes in the conditions of the labour market and change of earnings due to change of hours of employ-

    1641
    ment. All those changes were provided for in the Act, and it is proposed by this Clause to make provision for an automatic review of the pre-accident average, irrespective of the size of the changes. The Under-Secretary yesterday made clear what the intention was in regard to the rate of pre-accident earnings. He said:
    "The result has, however, been that where general all-round increases in wage rates have occurred, partially disabled men to whom wage increases have been granted have lost half of the advance through a consequent diminution of their weekly payment of compensation. The compensation could be recalculated upon the basis of what his pre-accident earnings would have been, if he had remained uninjured and continued in the same class of employment…It is, obviously, a source of grievance when a general increase, applicable to all workers of, say, 10s. a week, takes place that disabled men, and only disabled men, should obtain half of the wage increment only, by virtue of forfeiting part or all of their compensation."
    That is the situation it was intended to remedy by Clause 6. The contention of the Home Office is made clear when the Under-Secretary said:
    "It is obvious that if 10s. a week, for example, is added to a disabled man's actual earnings and a similar sum is automatically added to the figure of his pre-accident earnings, the difference between the two figures will remain the same as it was before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1942; cols. 1510–11, Vol. 385.]
    In other words, partial compensation would be wholly unchanged. Whatever may have been the intention of the Under-Secretary, he has created the general impression that it is the intention of the Government to put the injured workman in the same position as he would have been had he not been injured. The Under-Secretary shakes his head. The general understanding in the talks that have gone on about this business, both inside and outside the House, has been that injured workmen should not be penalised because of increases in wages.
    Mr. Peake: The hon. Member has got it right this time.
    Mr. Edwards: If this Clause does not fulfil that intention, the Under-Secretary has a lot to withdraw. I hope to prove that if that was the intention of the Government, they have not carried it out in this Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary has been much more forthright about
    1642
    it. What has he told the country and the miners? He has said:
    "The partially incapacitated man, as a general principle, will have restored to him his partial compensation that may have been removed as a result of any wartime increases in wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1942; col. 1529, Vol. 385.]
    I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to say that he is redeeming that undertaking in this Clause. The intention was to give to the totally disabled man the full benefit of the earnings he might have had were it not for his accident, and to give to the partially disabled man the full benefit of the increase in wages or to freeze his partial compensation while allowing him to take the increase in wages. Those were the intentions and they have been discussed, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, in miners conferences. He himself has made explanations. There have been negotiations and reports have been made. This House is under an obligation to fulfil the intentions that have been conveyed to injured workmen, particularly in the mining industry.
    Neither intention is fulfilled in a large group of cases of either total or partial disablement. The Bill does not carry out the intention that was declared by both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary yesterday. Let us take the position of total disablement by considering a concrete case of a man who had his accident in 1939. His average weekly earnings were £2 a week, based on an average of three days per week throughout the year preceding his accident. His weekly compensation is, therefore, 22s. 6d. Since his accident there has been an increase in wages, of 4s. a day. Under the Essential Work Order and the guaranteed week that man while in employment is guaranteed, not 4s. a day, but 24s. a week, and the increase in his rate of remuneration is 24s. If it were not for his accident he would be working six days a week and earning 24s. war wages. He had a pre-accident average of £2 which was based throughout the year on three working days a week. If he had not had the accident he would be working six days a week and receiving the 24s. war wages. So that he would really be getting not £2 a week ordinary wages, but £4 plus 24s. war wages.

    1643
    What is it proposed to do with this man under the Bill? The general undertaking was that he should be treated as if he had not had an accident and should have the benefit of the improved conditions. He will get a proportion of the increased wages only added to his pre-accident wage. He will get, not 24s. added to his pre-accident earnings, but only 12s. To start with, from the point of view of the regularity of employment and allowing for this change in regularity, the man is worse off than the Government apparently intended him to be, because the Government undertaking was to treat him as if he had not had an accident or to see that he was not penalised because of his accident. He will, therefore, get no advantage from the increased regularity of employment.
    Mr. Peake: The hon. Member has taken a case of total incapacity, and the man will get 3s. 6d. additional per week as the result of this Bill. That was not the problem we set out to deal with at all in the first instance.
    Mr. Edwards: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient. This is a technical business and I am trying to make it as plain as I can. When I come to the question of partial compensation the position may be a little plainer. The case I am quoting will have under the Bill his pre-accident average of £2, and will have added to it three-sixths of the increased wages of 24s. He will get a new pre-accident average of £2 plus 12s. How can it be said that he will be put into a position where he has not been penalised by his accident? In order that he may have what was intended, that is, what he would have earned were it not for his accident, he must be given the advantage of the alteration in the regularity of employment. If that is not done he is penalised by 50 per cent. of the increase in wages. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I am afraid that that is his position. Let us take the position of partial compensation. I have to admit that when application was made to the Home Office to deal with the question they were asked only to deal with partial compensation, and if there is some credit to be given for some advantage in cases of total compensation the Home Office and the Ministry of Fuel are entitled to it, but my complaint is that they have not carried out their undertaking.
    1644
    Next, take a concrete case of a partial compensation man. It is the case of a man with a pre-accident average of £4, based on a four-day week throughout the period prior to his accident. This man goes to light work, earning £3 per week. He has a guaranteed week, a six-day week, under the Essential Work Order, so that he gets his £3 and a half difference of 10s. Wages rise by £1. The £3 become £4. This man had a pre-accident average of £4 and he will have added to that four-sixths of the increased wage of £1, and so therefore his new pre-accident average becomes £4 13s. 4d., and his new half difference becomes 6s. 8d. The man has had £1 increase in wages but has lost 3s. 4d. partial compensation. I have taken the Parliamentary Secretary's case which he quoted yesterday to prove that what he told the House was misleading to the men of this country. If I may say so respectfully, he was unconscious of his error. I am not charging him with deliberately misleading anybody. This man has had £1 increase in wages but loses 3s. 4d. compensation. You may make the consumers of coal pay more for their coal, you may provide more money for the coalowners to pay the initial wage, but under this Clause you allow the coalowners not only to have money to pay the £1 but allow them to "pinch" 3s. 4d. off this fellow. Perhaps I ought not to have said "pinch," because it is quite a legal deduction of money. This Bill will authorise them to do it.
    I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power also requires some information on one of the cases he mentioned in his speech yesterday when he said the Bill, in Clause 6, would have the effect, as a general principle, of restoring to the partially-incapacitated man his partial compensation. Will it? Here is one case in which it will not. It is the case of a man with a pre-accident average of £2, working four days a week and a post-accident average of £1 16s. on light work, giving a half difference of 2s. I am taking a case back in the 1936 days. There is a first increase in the mining industry of 10s. The new post-accident average is £2 6s., and his partial compensation has gone altogether. Then there is the second increase, 26s. a week. The new post-accident average of this man is £3 12s., and under Clause 6 he is entitled

    1645
    to have added to his old pre-accident average of £2 four-sixths of the new increase of 36s., which was the total increase in wages. He is entitled, therefore, to have 24s. added to his pre-accident average of £2. Therefore, we get this position, that he will get £3 4s. as the pre-accident average and he will have a post-accident average of £3 12s. His partial compensation has not been restored. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he wants to restore it, but Clause 6 does not do that.
    We say that if this Clause were amended on the lines suggested in the Amendments of my hon. Friends and myself we should do one thing in particular, and that is give the workman not only the benefit of the increase in the rates of remuneration, but benefit of the increase in the regularity of employment. An Amendment standing in the name of the Minister shows that he himself has some regard for this in the case of men who had an accident before the age of 21, and in it he talks about "material conditions." Is the existence of the Essential Work Order and the guaranteed week a material condition in the employment of miners or of any workers? If it can be used and applied in the case of men under 21, why cannot it be applied in the case of adults, especially if it is introduced for the purpose of seeing that the pledges and undertakings given by both Ministers are carried out and the position of our men is safeguarded?
    Mr. Foster: I hope that for the sake of peace in the industry the Undersecretary will accept the words of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). At the beginning of this agitation I was a member of a deputation which waited upon the Minister of Fuel and Power, and also was a member of subsequent deputations to the Home Secretary on this matter, and we explained to both those gentlemen the trouble there was in the industry in regard to this question of compensation. Under the Greene award there had been an advance in wages, but thousands of partial-compensation men who were employed in the industry had their partial compensation reduced by half the amount of the increase, and also by the proportion
    1646
    of the supplementary allowance being deducted from their partial compensation. That immediately created a lot of dissatisfaction, not in one particular coalfield, but throughout all the coalfields. An attempt was made immediately to try to rectify that position. We were assured, before anything was done in the way of presenting a Bill to the House, that if the coalowners could be got to do what we were asking first of all, the need to introduce a Bill would be avoided. This is another example of injustices existing, and employers in the industry refusing to adjust the injustices and having to be compelled to do so by legislation. I believe that the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did everything humanly possible to get the coalowners to do this, but they failed, because of the legal position in respect of the determination of pre-accident wages and compensation.
    I suggest that Clause 6 does not meet the position. It does not restore the men on light work who have had partial compensation to their original position before the advances took place. Because of that, it does not restore the wages position. What will happen if the Amendment is not accepted? I would remind hon. Members of the words which are used, and of the fact that the average time worked for the period will determine the amount of the increase of the pre-accident wages. I would also remind the Under-Secretary of State—he is probably aware of it already—that the Bill is intended to cover cases back to 1925. There are hundreds of men employed in industry whose pre-accident earnings were extremely low, due to depression following the last war, or to the dispute in the mining industry in 1926. I had experience as a miners' agent in handling cases where the pre-accident earnings were below £1 per week, and in many cases were between 20s. and 25s. per week. It was not the earnings per shift that were responsible for the low figures, but the number of shifts that the men were permitted to work during the period of depression. In the mining industry, it was common to see long queues of men in the summer time signing on two, three or four days a week for unemployment benefit. In some cases the colliery closed down for a whole week. Men were working one week and laid off the next week.

    1647
    Men who were injured when their wages were very low—there are hundreds of such cases—may now be working side by side in the collieries with men who have been injured since the war started and who have been averaging six days a week, because of the application of the Essential Work Order. I quote this only as an example, but in all the cases when the Greene award applied, 15s. was added to the wages. That made half-a-crown per day. At the week-end the man on partial compensation and light work received 15s. in wages in all cases, no matter when the accident occurred. When they got their partial compensation, it was less 7s. 6d., plus their supplementary allowance.
    This in some cases comes to the figure of 13s. and 14s., which is taken out of their 15s. If the words in the Bill are to apply, there will be varying rates or varying amounts added to pre-accident earnings, because the amount to be added to pre-accident average weekly earnings will vary according to the number of shifts the men worked in the relevant period, and there will be hundreds of these men working side by side. Imagine if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Undersecretary were working together at a colliery and both were injured on different days, and if both received the same increases during the war. Then if this Bill were applied in their case, after a reduction in compensation the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might have 3s. 9d. restored and the Under-Secretary might have 6s. or 7s. or perhaps 10s. restored. It is ridiculous, and the miners' representatives cannot be responsible for unrest due to this at the collieries. How can we hold our men in the districts if this kind of treatment is meted out to them?
    We have been talking about a new world. What will the miners say about this instalment? In Lancashire our men have considered stopping the collieries until this position is adjusted. We have a conference on Saturday. I cannot go back and tell them that they will have restored to them the partial compensation deducted from their wages as a result of the Greene award, because that is not so, and I shall not be surprised if they confirm their previous decision to stop the collieries in Lancashire until the original position is restored. If there is an injustice which Parliament can remove, we should
    1648
    not exploit the patriotism of the men and tell them they must not strike in present circumstances. How can it be helped when men know there is an injustice which can be removed? If the Under-Secretary can tell me that it is not an injustice, I may agree to withdraw what I have said. But, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, the position as I stated it at the outset is the position in the mind of the Under-Secretary. This is what the Under-Secretary said yesterday:
    "It will operate both when wages rise and when wages fall, and the general effect will be, in cases of partial disability, to tend to stabilise the amount of the compensation payment. It is obvious that if 10s. a week, for example, is added to a disabled man's actual earnings and a similar sum is automatically added to the figure of his pre-accident earnings the difference between the two figures will remain the same as before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1942; col. 1510, Vol. 385.]
    Of course, it will if that is done, but it will not be done under this Section. The man with four days in his pre-accident average will have added to his wages 10s.; the man who worked six days will have 15s. added; a man who worked three days will have 7s. 6d., and so on. I am not going back to the men to tell them that they are to get back their partial compensation. I shall tell them that they are not going to get it. This matter is of immediate importance. Unless it is rectified I cannot guarantee that there will not be trouble in the Lancashire coalfields. That is not a threat; it is a reality; and it must be faced. I hope that my words have not fallen on deaf ears, and that they will be heard with the seriousness with which they have been expressed.
    Mr. Henry White: We are making a plea for that class of workman who has been specially affected during the period covered by this Bill. We have heard much about the period of short-time working in the coal industry That was something over which we had no control. There has also been the quota system, upon which we had no say, which affected the earnings in the industry; and on top of that, the breakages which have taken place in the industry have affected the pay packets of the men. I want to draw attention to one other phase of mining life which has a bearing on this subject. It concerns the great number of men who have minor accidents: perhaps only a bad bruise, or a serious cut, or something of that char-

    1649
    acter. We are a hardy race, and after one or two days' absence such men are back at work. But many of our men have to lose one or two days a week because of minor accidents. As a result, there have been smaller pay packages, apart from the effects of the lost time our men have suffered, through shortage of trade and for other reasons. Consequently, when compensation is calculated the figure is a long way below the maximum, rate. It is evident that hardship will fall upon the individuals concerned. It is to be hoped that those Ministers who are responsible for this Bill will accept the Amendment.
    Let me point out my own particular case. I came out of the pit nine years ago suffering from nystagmus, and, after a period of short time and "breakages" in the mining industry at the time, when I went to draw my compensation I received 24s. 3d. a week. Was that because I was unable to work six days a week? Certainly not. The whole point was that the work was not there for me to do. Therefore, 24s. 3d. per week compensation was my lot. That was the position nine years ago, and to-day you will have to face up to the position with regard to men not getting the full benefit but having to lose money according to the present ratio. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
    Mr. Peake: I have no desire to shut out any speeches. There will be plenty of time for more speeches on the Amendment, but I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the Committee if I were to explain at this stage what this Clause does and why it does what it does. The problem with which we set out to deal was a limited one. It was the case of the partially incapacitated man engaged on light work, who, as a result of a general all-round increase in wages, such as the Greene award, for example, in the coal industry, lost one-half or a larger fraction of the advance by way of diminution of his weekly payment of compensation. We set out to deal only with partially incapacitated cases. In point of fact, the Clause goes beyond that and deals with total incapacity cases as well, and whereas our intention was to deal only with increases of wages taking place since the outbreak of war, this Clause deals with increases of wages and accidents going back as far as 1st January, 1924. We
    1650
    therefore open up for immediate review in an upward direction each and every case of workmen's compensation where any increase of any sort has occurred in the rates of remuneration since 1924 or since the accident, whichever of these two dates is the later. As regards the total incapacity case which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) quoted, the effect in the case which he cited was that that man will, somewhat unexpectedly as a result of this Bill, get an increase in his weekly payment of compensation of 3s. 6d. He did not choose the most favourable case from my point of view, but from the point of view of the Government it may be stated that the effect of this Clause will be, in an overwhelmingly large proportion of total incapacity cases, to put the men at once on to the maximum amount of compensation allowed under the Act.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that under the seven-eighths rule under war conditions a good many of these men will be robbed of shillings per week?
    Mr. Peake: No, what I said was that totally incapacitated cases, some of which are receiving compensation of 21s. to 25s. a week, will, immediately and automatically, as a result of this Clause, receive the maximum weekly payment of 30s. Of course, supplementation under the 1940 Act will be added to that, but these men, whom we did not set out to help originally, will pass on to the maximum weekly payment.
    Mr. Foster: Is it not a fact that it is because of the substitution of Clause 11 (3) by this Bill that you have had to include total incapacity, because you are now depriving them by this Bill of the right of review?
    Mr. Peake: That is true, but we are, in fact, dealing with all cases of workmen's compensation, many dating from many years ago. Nobody under this Clause will suffer any reduction in his total incapacity payment, and practically everybody not on the maximum will pass to it. So far as partial incapacity is concerned, the effect will be threefold. First, thousands of cases where compensation has ceased to be payable altogether owing to wage increases will become entitled once more to partial incapacity payment; secondly, thousands of cases in which it has been reduced will have it automatically and

    1651
    immediately increased; and, thirdly, for the future a very large measure of protection will be given against reductions as a result of all-round increases in wages.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that there will be thousands of men, who have lost partial compensation, who will not have it restored?
    Mr. Peake: Clearly, there will be some cases where that will occur. The hon. Member cited the case of a man with a weekly payment of 2s. and an increase in wages of 26s. and said it would be a hardship because the man's partial incapacity payment of 2s. would not be restored. I could not agree that it was a hard case, and no doubt the hon. Member chose as hard a case as he could find. What is quite impossible is to give an absolute guarantee that in every case in the way in which we are dealing with this matter there will be a complete stabilisation of the partially incapacitated man's weekly payment.
    Mr. Tinker: Why cannot you do that?
    Mr. Peake: I will explain. There are two ways of dealing with this matter and two factors you have to be given. One is pre-accident earnings and the other is post-accident earnings, and the difference between the two, divided by two, is the amount of the weekly payment under the 1925 Act. If you want to protect a man receiving compensation against failure to benefit by increases in his post-accident earnings, you have either to say that as regards his post-accident earnings you will disregard such and such increases in wages or you have to say you will add something, a notional figure, to the amount of his pre-accident earnings. Those are the only two possible ways of dealing with this situation. We examined very carefully the possibility of taking the first method and disregarding, for the purpose of calculating these payments, certain additions to the man's post-accident earnings. We examined this possibility very carefully with a view to its adoption, but it was hopelessly unsatisfactory in the case of the man who is unemployed, because there is no figure of post-accident earnings as regards which we could disregard increases when the man is in fact unemployed.
    Therefore, we were forced to adopt the method incorporated in Section n, Subsection (3), of the principal Act, that is,
    1652
    by deeming the man's pre-accident earnings to be increased. You can do that only by looking at increases granted in the industry in which he was employed at the time of the accident. Suppose there is a man who has been employed in the mines and who has transferred to agricultural employment owing to incapacity to do mining work; that man, under the method we propose for dealing with this matter, will get the benefits of any increases granted in the rates of wages in the mining industry, but if in his agricultural employment there is an increase in wages, then his partial incapacity payment will be to some extent reduced. That is inevitable once you have adopted the method of operating on the pre-accident earnings and not on the post-accident earnings for this purpose. This matter was very fully thrashed out between myself and the representatives of the Trades Union Congress. We started by trying to adopt the method of disregards in respect of the post-accident earnings. We found the difficulties were quite insuperable in regard to the unemployed person whom we wished to benefit by these provisions, and therefore, we were forced to adopt this method of adding any increases granted since the date of the accident to the man's pre-accident earnings figure.
    Mr. A. Bevan: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the principal obstacle in the way of taking the post-accident earnings was the question of the unemployed man?
    Mr. Peake: I will explain that. In the case of the man who is unemployed, you have to take a notional figure, which is the amount he is able to earn in some suitable employment after the accident.
    Mr. Bevan: What is the difficulty?
    Mr. Peake: It is this. If you set up a system of disregards, and a man is unemployed and is, therefore, suitable for work in a variety of different trades, you cannot select any one out of those trades to see what increases in wages have been granted for the purposes of disregarding them. There may be a wide variety of trades which the county court judge may have to look at, and in some there may have been increases and in others there may have been no increases.
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that hon. Members on this side are not at all clear about

    1653
    the situation. The hon. Gentleman has explained quite clearly that there were two alternatives available, but he has rejected the alternative which would have met our case, because if he had accepted it it would have been very difficult to find out what were the potential earnings of an unemployed man, for the reason that that man might become employed in a variety of trades. At the present time that calculation has to be arrived at day after day.
    Mr. Peake: It is not a question of finding out the potential earning capacity of an unemployed man at this moment, but of ascertaining precisely what wage increases have taken place in the work for what that man is suitable. There is a wide variety of trades for which the man is suitable. How is the county court judge to say "I will look at the building trade, at the agricultural industry, at this or that, in order to discover the precise wage increases which have been granted and which I must disregard"?
    Mr. Bevan: That is precisely what the county court judge does at present. He is asked, on a question of fact to find out what sort of work the man is able to do, and then to find out what are the earnings in the kind of work the man is able to do and to fix the partial compensation accordingly. So that this difficulty already exists and is met, and, if there is no more insuperable obstacle than that, the hon. Gentleman will have to explain why the other alternative was adopted.
    Mr. Peake: Obviously there is a big difference between ascertaining what a man might earn in some suitable employment and discovering what increases in wages have taken place in the employment since his accident.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in every coalfield in the country there are unemployed men whose hypothetical earnings are determined by the calendar? This has been the position for the last 25 years,
    Mr. Peake: The hon. Member must take the matter up at the annual Congress of the trade union movement.
    Mr. Bevan: That is not a statement that any Minister ought to make from that bench. I have not the slightest concern with what the Trades Union Congress have decided, and he must not represent
    1654
    that any outside body with whom he has negotiated has any effect on our decisions here.
    Mr. Peake: I was not suggesting that the hon. Member was bound by any agreement that I happen to have reached with the Compensation Committee. I am endeavouring to point out that this difficulty of ascertaining precisely the extent and amount of wage increases granted in respect of a particular employment is a difficult thing to ascertain in the case of a man who is unemployed, because you are not bound to look at previous employment alone. The county court judge has to look at what employment is suitable. It may be easy to say that if he were a bricklayer he would be earning so and so, and the increase in bricklayers' wages has been so many shillings a week, but the man is entitled to say, "I am equally suitable for work of some other nature in which there has been a more substantial increase in wages since my accident." The representatives of labour whom I met were so impressed by this difficulty that they had no difficulty whatever in accepting the alternative method and operating upon the pre-accident rather than the post-accident earnings. The adoption of that proposal had substantial benefits, in that it brought in cases of total incapacity which would not otherwise have been included.
    I want now to say a few words about the effect of the Amendment. The hon. Member desires to include the words "or in the duration of employment in each week." He wishes to give the benefit of more regular work to the old cases of accidents which occurred in the days when depression was on and trade was slack and the man was working shorter time than at present. He called in aid some words from an Amendment that I am to move presently. It is suggested that the tribunal shall have regard, in the case of juveniles or minors, to any other material change of circumstances. Those words are not intended to cover the question of greater regularity of employment. They are included in order that the judge may have under consideration in those cases the improvement or the worsened physical condition of the workman at the time of the review. The hon. Member's intention is undoubtedly a good one. He wants, in the old cases of accidents which occurred during the depression, when the

    1655
    increase in wages conies along, the compensation to remain stabilised. In some of those cases, where a man was working four days in 1931 and six days at present, it is true that while he gets 15s. extra a week now he will suffer a reduction in his compensation of 2s. 6d. The intention is good, but I am afraid the remedy suggested is worse than the disease and would in the future be fraught with danger from the point of view of persons in receipt of partial incapacity payments. At present industry of all sorts is working at full pressure. Everyone is working a full week, and many are working many hours of overtime, and their average weekly earnings are calculated upon the basis of the greatest possible regularity of work.
    While everyone hopes that at the conclusion of the war wage rates will not fall, at the same time most of us hope that there will not be so much overtime and that we shall return to more reasonable hours of employment. [Interruption.] It is quite clear. There is a good deal of case law on the point. If a man works overtime throughout the year, that is brought into the calculation of his average weekly earnings. I, for one, hope that after the war there will be shorter hours of work generally, and also that in the coalfield that I know best we shall return from the six to the five-day week. In all those cases, under the hon. Member's proposal, when hours become shorter or regularity of work becomes less, the employer will be able to apply for a reduction in the weekly payment on the ground that work was less regular, and supposing we even return, which God preserve us from doing, to the sort of position we were in in 1931, when men in the coalfields were working three days a week, it would have a most disastrous result. To my mind it would be a most disastrous result that a man's weekly payment of compensation should be cut down by half for no other reason than that he was working three days a week at that time, whereas in the period preceding the accident he had been working six days. It is at the very moment when a man's earnings have fallen because he is working three or four days instead of six that you would make him vulnerable to a reduction in his weekly payment of compensation. The principle embodied in these Amendments is wrong. They are well intentioned to
    1656
    deal with a small number of hard cases, but their general result would be extremely bad and it would be a great mistake for the Committee to adopt them.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: After the powerful speeches we have heard and the explanation of the Under-Secretary, the impression left on our minds is that the Government have started out with the best intentions to meet a promise to carry out their pledge, and that they then seem to have faltered by the way. They tell us that we have got something in the Bill that we never expected—the case of the totally incapacitated man. Then they faltered because they found that there was an obstacle in the way of carrying out the pledge, that obstacle being the unemployed man-. This is a Bill which is not just dealing with miners. It will apply to industry generally, but as miners we are, of course, particularly interested in it on account of the short time and the irregular work from which we suffer in our industry. The Under-Secretary's statement in regard to the difficulty of finding a basis for the unemployed man so that he might or might not come within these provisions, leaves us absolutely cold. We know that the calculation of partial compensation in such cases has not been easy, but we know also that such a man has had to accept the partial compensation which has been found for him. There is no question at all that the Parliamentary Secretary has not carried out the pledge to the men who during the period of their employment were working short time? because it has been admitted that under the method of calculation proposed at least a number of men will not get their partial compensation fully restored. In view of the pledge that was given that the partial compensation would be restored, may I ask that steps will be taken when the Bill is in another place to carry out that pledge? If the words of this Amendment are not the right words and the Government are fearful about the consequences, and we respect their fears—
    Mr. Peake: I am very sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I cannot allow his statement to pass that there has been a pledge in this matter. There has not been any pledge.
    Mr. Taylor: Then we will say that there was an understanding, that there

    1657
    was a great belief that the partial compensation would be restored. It is agreed that a number of men, and it will be a very considerable number, who in the old, bad days of the coal industry, when we were working only three or four days a week, had low wages will not get the full benefit. I was asking when I was interrupted whether, if the Government are not satisfied with the words of this Amendment, they will find other words which will carry out the object which this Bill set out to achieve, and that is to restore the partial compensation to the men who ought to receive it. May we ask that in another place the Government will find the words to fit the occasion, and that we shall get what we came here expecting, and that was an agreed Bill which would go through the House almost automatically?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether I am taking the risk of drawing the lightning of the Government Front Bench on to myself, but it is only fair that those who had an opportunity of discussing all the details of these changes and went very fully into the question of partial compensation should speak. Yesterday I mentioned that there are cases where the injured workman will not get all the difference in the increase in wages. We are concerned with the question of the unemployed men. There are many industries in this country where wages are fixed in the way that they are in the mining industry. Those who represent a number of industries and who negotiated these things say that if you adopted the proposal first discussed with the Home Office, it would be a hardship to the unemployed man on compensation; it would not be easy to decide how much his wages would have been increased as you could not discover in which industry he might have been working.
    The coal miners' case is much easier. I was hopeful that we could have got all we asked, seeing that when we discussed the matter we went into it very fully. It was a case of two alternatives open to us. Whether new ones will present themselves later, I do not know. This matter was discussed as we were asked to discuss it, and it was reported back to those who asked us. The mining industry was represented at the discussion. We did the best we could in the circumstances.
    Mr. Sloan: If we were disappointed before the Undersecretary spoke, we are more disappointed now. I think he does not really understand the situation. The fact that so many miners have spoken in this discussion shows the intense feeling which exists in the mining industry in regard to the question of compensation, while the paucity of Members on other Benches to-day proves how little they are interested in the case. The Under-Secretary of State spoke about the benefits that are in the Bill, but none of us attempted to suggest that there are not tremendous benefits in the Bill as it stands. The point is that tremendous anomalies are left to be adjusted. Hon. Members on this side of the House, especially from mining districts, know how often cases have gone to the court and received adverse decisions, and all the pledges, promises, speeches and statements made in the House of Commons have no effect whatever when a case is being considered in court.
    I support the Amendment, because it is clear that an undertaking was given and is not carried out in the terms of the Bill. We are accustomed to opposition from the Government Front Bench when great principles are at stake and tremendous amounts of money are involved, but we cannot understand the stubborn attitude of the Under-Secretary of State in regard to this very minor point, which is nevertheless of vital importance to vast sections of the working class. We did hope that the promises made would be carried out in the Bill without leaving loopholes for escape. In the light of the statement and promises that have been made, Clause 6 is entirely meaningless. It states:
    "the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident shall…be deemed, so long as the changed rates obtain without further change, to be the average weekly earnings which he would have earned during that period if the changed rates had obtained throughout that period."
    It has been demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that people working in a low-wage period and a period of broken time, when unemployment was rife, will be at a disadvantage. Instances have been given that show that if you are to lift a man from a low-wage period and attempt to define his wages under the Bill, he is bound to suffer tremendously.

    1659
    It is disappointing to me that we have not been able to introduce a more far-reaching Measure that would at least have been able to deal with many of the glaring anomalies we have to face. This Clause leaves the unfortunate victim of accidents in the same position, when the new Regulation is applied, as he was under the application of the 20 per cent. review. We have all these anomalies in that. We can only review in the light of the wages that a person had earned and if he was a low-wage earner, the 20 per cent. review still left him drawing a low level of compensation. Only the wages actually earned are reviewed, The wages a man might have earned are not reviewed, the wages which, under the normal working system of a six day week, he could have earned. It is a false assumption to say that we are by any means doing justice to the wage-earner when the wages he could and would have earned are not reviewed. These unfortunate pre-war accident cases require all the sympathy that we can offer; we do not require to keep them down to the wages and levels of compensation they were then drawing. That has been the whole trouble among my hon. Friends, the very low rates of wages carrying with them very low compensation rates. There is no earthly reason why we should take half-a-dozen or even two bites at this cherry. This is a matter which must be adjusted in the face of things. Why cannot we do it now, when we have the opportunity?
    I notice my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel. [Interruption.] He can speak when I have finished. The unfortunate thing about a Scotsman is that when he intends to say something he says it irrespective of any influence that may be brought to bear. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power stated in the Debate yesterday that the partial compensation men will, as a general principle, have restored to them the partial compensation that may have been removed as a result of any war-time increases in their wages. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) interrupted to ask a very simple, plain, straightforward question. He asked whether full compensation would be restored in every case. My hon. Friend was not going to be caught by that.
    Mr. Tom Smith: Let us be perfectly fair. I was racing against time. That Bill had got to be through. I had only about 12 minutes allowed. If I had delayed matters another 15 seconds, we would not have got the Second Reading of the Bill, but I would have liked to have replied.
    Mr. Sloan: I do not think it would have taken 15 minutes, or 15 seconds, to have said "Yes" or "No." But my hon. Friend, like all Labour Members who gravitate to the Government Front Bench, has developed some astuteness. Instead of answering the question, he said, "I want to get the Bill through in 10 minutes." He could have answered the question in less than 10 seconds. The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan is still unanswered. On that rests the whole case. We would have had no reason to divide the Committee if that had been answered satisfactorily; and I hope that we shall divide unless we get a straight answer to the question. [Interruption.] Yes, I see the clock: the hands are still going round. The position in Scotland is very much worse than in Lancashire, where my hon. Friend says he does not want to face his conference on Saturday and tell them that many of his people to whom compensation is due are not going to benefit under the Bill. I and other Members from Scottish constituencies cannot face miners' conferences unless we are able to say, at any rate, that we have opposed this principle; and we shall oppose it in the Division Lobby unless we get a straight answer.
    Mr. Peake: Cannot I make an appeal to the Committee? This Bill has given us a great deal of difficulty in drafting and preparation. We hope to get it through before Christmas; but if the Committee stage goes over another day it is most unlikely that it will get into law before Christmas, because it will have to go to the House of Lords on the second Sitting Day in the next series of Sittings and pass all stages in a single day in order to get the Royal Assent before Christmas. As the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) pointed out, we have examined this question most thoroughly. There were only two ways of dealing with the problem, and we chose the one which conferred the greatest benefit on the recipients of workmen's compensation. It would be hardly honest for

    1661
    me to say that we will reconsider the point again before it is taken to the House of Lords. We have examined it, and we see no possibility of meeting the point which has been made, which deals with only a limited number of cases; because in every case of workmen's compensation as far as I can see, there will be some substantial benefit under the Bill. There are two important and valuable Amendments on the Paper, and I appeal to hon. Members to allow us to get the Committee stage to-day.
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot understand the position the hon. Member has taken up. He has not convinced the Committee, and I do not think he has convinced his own side. He has told us that the reason he has chosen this alternative is that if you take into consideration existing earnings, it will be frightfully difficult to apply the principle in the case of men who are not in a job. He was reinforced by what my hon. Friend said. The fact is that such a difficulty is practically non-existent.
    Mr. Isaacs: Do not believe it.
    Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend will admit that we in the mining industry know more about workmen's compensation than is known by people in any other industry in Great Britain. Every day judges are making awards in the county courts on that principle. There is, therefore, no justification whatever for adopting a principle which perpetuates hardship for the most unfortunate. That is the difficulty. It is the man who had unemployment before the war whose lower rates of compensation are to be perpetuated. That is the unfair part of it. There is no reason why it should be done at all. My hon. Friend opposite may not accept the words of the Amendment before him, but there will be the Report stage, and he will have time between now and the Bill reaching another place to discuss the matter. We are not anxious to make difficulties, but my hon. Friend has to go back to Lancashire, and as far as Lancashire is concerned, the suggested arrangement is worse than the existing arrangement. Why should it be impossible to put into an Act of Parliament a form of words already embodying a practical arrangement between certain coalowners and mine-owners in the district? Why should it be impracticable?
    1662
    The reason why it is impracticable, my hon. Friend said, is because of what would happen after the war. This is a wartime Measure. There are certain proposals concerning workmen's compensation in the Report of Sir William Beveridge. Does the hon. Member suggest that we ought to consider the effect of what we are going to do upon post-war workmen's compensation when everybody expects the Beveridge Report to be carried out? I wonder what my hon. Friend has to say about this, but it is impossible for us to go back to the coal pits and justify an amendment which puts the heaviest burden on the weakest shoulders. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to assure us that he will find a form of words before the Bill goes to another place in which our principle can be embodied in the Bill. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, I shall divide the Committee.
    Mr. Grenfell: May I make a very sincere appeal to the Committee and to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? They can see that there are Members on this side of the Committee who are so pledged and so much in concert that they cannot fail to take the opportunity of dividing on this issue. Nobody wants a Division. We would not like to divide the Committee on this Bill if it is possible to get it through as an agreed Measure. There is yet time to overcome the scruples of those who differ from us on this side, or to overcome the difficulties of those who have to draft the words and find the responsible formula to give effect to what all people in this Committee want.
    I speak more directly to the Leader of the House. He can consult his colleagues, and if he finds out that what I say is right, I hope he will exercise his personal influence, though I am not wishing to discourage the work of the hon. Member the Under-Secretary, and I am very satisfied indeed with the attempt to bridge over some of the difficulties which this Bill was intended to remove. May I ask whether it is not possible between now and the next Sitting Day to find a form of words which will meet the wishes of people in this Committee? I can assure him that there is substance in this, that it is a large problem and may lead to dangerous precedents. Nine-tenths of these cases are of men already at work. It is not worth while running the risk of

    1663
    dividing the Committee for 10 per cent. or a smaller proportion of disabled men who might be unemployed, or employed in another industry. I am sure he will find it worth while to secure agreement on this important issue. You could get the agreement and the good-will of the men in the most important industry in this country and it would be a large contribution towards ensuring that agreement and good-will if the Leader of the House would tell us that before the next Sitting Day what I have suggested can be done.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely sincere in what he says but at the same time, having listened to this discussion, I think I should be doing wrong if I held out any hope. Quite frankly, from the speeches I have heard I do not see any way of meeting this trouble. Obviously, it is not possible to complete this Bill to-day and the only course left for me now is to ask the Committee to report Progress. While I make no promise of any sort or kind, we will examine this matter again between now and the next time we discuss it, but I am advised by those who know far better than I do that there are immense difficulties. I think that is the fairest thing I can say now and, therefore, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I can explain this Bill in a very few sentences. It arises in these circumstances. There is at present before the Parliament of Northern Ireland a Bill extending the jurisdiction of their county courts. That is a matter within their powers but in extending the county court jurisdiction it is necessary to make certain amendments in the Acts affecting the High Court, in particular those provisions of
  1664
  such Acts which deal with the matter of remitting actions which are within the jurisdiction of the county court, from the High Court to the county court and vice versa. The High Court, being a matter within the powers of this House and not within the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland, it is necessary that those alterations in the law, consequential on the amendment of the county court jurisdiction, should be dealt with by a Bill here. That is the purpose of Clause 1. The jurisdiction in matters of contract has been put up to £100 and there are additions in other matters such as disputes affecting the title of land and the equitable jurisdiction.
  Clause 2 deals with a matter of court procedure of a somewhat different kind. At present in Northern Ireland the rules of court have to be laid before Parliament for 100 days. That is an unduly long period and causes inconvenience, particularly in war-time when the House sits less frequently, and it is made worse by the fact that if the 100 days condition is not fulfilled in the course of any one Session, you have to start again at the beginning of the next Session. I should have said, in connection with Clause 1, that there is also a general provision there that if at any future time the Parliament of Northern Ireland desires to alter the county court jurisdiction it can deal with the whole matter, including these consequential matters, and will not have to ask this Parliament to deal with the matters which are dealt with in this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  DISCHARGED ARMY PERSONNEL (CLOTHING ALLOWANCE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Mr. Bellenger: I wish to raise a matter which will, perhaps, seem somewhat trivial after the debate which has taken place on the Workmen's Compensation Bill, but I venture to suggest that there is more substance in this matter than would appear. A few days ago, I asked the Secretary of State for

  1665
  War a Question concerning the amount of cash paid to soldiers discharged from the Army on grounds of ill health, and he replied that they had the alternative of having either a suit of clothes provided by Army contractors or a certain amount of cash in lieu. He told me that the amount of cash was £2 15s. 10d. Now, an Army Council Instruction was issued earlier this year which stated what was to be paid in cash in lieu of a suit of civilian clothes, and at that time it amounted to £2 16s. 5d., so that a reduction of 7d. has been made. That reduction may not in itself seem a lot, but we elucidated from the Secretary of State for War the fact that these figures are based on what it costs the Ministry of Supply to make a suit of clothes, plus a cap, tie and collar, for a man who is discharged from the Army. The Secretary of State justified this upward and downward movement by the upward and downward movement in the contract prices which the Ministry of Supply have to pay for the suit of clothes. I doubt whether that is the true explanation, because, until recently, the Navy were paying only 18s. to their men who were discharged from the Service. As a result of representations, the Admiralty increased that sum to £2 15s. 10d. When the Secretary of State for Air was tackled on the subject in the House he told us that the sum of £2 15s. 10d. had been arrived at by agreement between all three Services. Apparently, the Admiralty have their own contractors, the Air Force have theirs, and the Army have theirs. Do I understand that each of them charges £2 15s. 10d. for the suit of civilian clothes and the other accessories which a man gets when he is discharged from the Services? I doubt it. I think that one of the Departments arrived at this figure of £2 15s. 10d. because that happened to be the figure which their contractors told them, and the other two Departments conformed.
  The bigger point which I wish to raise with my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State is that in many cases these men, when they are discharged from the Services, get no pension whatever, unless they can substantiate their case on grounds of attributability or aggravation of their disease while they were serving with the Colours. In those circumstances I should have thought that the War Office, and particularly my hon.
  1666
  and learned Friend, would have been desirous of setting up these men in the best possible way and not offering them what amounts to a suit of clothes which, generally speaking, any self-respecting man, soldier or civilian, would not wish to wear. Most of these men do not want the suit of clothes offered to them by the Service Department when they are discharged. Most at them prefer the cash, the sum of £2 15s. 10d. I would like my hon. and learned Friend to give the figures for the different items which a man is supposed to receive when he leaves the Services—the suit of clothes, the cap, the collar and tie—so that I can see for myself where the reduction has been made. I know that it is rather difficult for the War Office or any Service Department to say without consultation with the Treasury, that they will sympathetically consider this case.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Mr. Bellenger: I suggest that £2 15s. 10d. is not sufficient in itself to set a man up with a suit of clothes to make a presentable appearance and get decent employment after he leaves the Service. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a sympathetic answer and to tell the House that, apart from the reasons that he will give as to why the figure has been reduced from £2 16s. 5d., he will discuss with the other Service Departments and the Treasury the possibility of raising it, so that a man leaving the Service on account of ill-health will be able to start afresh in civil life with a decent suit of clothes to his back and in a position in which he can be, at least, on equal terms with his comrades who have not been in the Army but have probably been working in a well-paid war industry. I suggest that the Service man who is discharged on account of ill-health is, in this respect, being as it were thrown on to the streets with very little sympathy and consideration from the nation he has served for varying periods, probably with some effect on his health.
  Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. and learned Gentleman the

  1667
  Joint Under-Secretary will no doubt say that it is difficult to increase the cash value given for these suits. If he refuses to increase the cash value, will he see whether it is possible for the people who make clothes for the Army to produce a better suit? These clothes can be made wholesale in large quantities and from the Service point of view this may be the cheaper method. Is there anything to prevent the manufacturers making, not a Savile Row model, but a suit that compares favourably with the Fifty Shilling Tailor suit?
  Mr. Granville: I would like the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us the kind of suits that the Army produces for discharged soldiers and give us some idea how many accept suits and how many accept cash in lieu of suits. These men may have served for three years or more and when they come back to civil life they may have to go to a factory where there will be considerable wear and tear on their clothes. I should like to know how they stand with regard to coupons and whether they can apply for extra coupons? I feel sure that in appealing to the hon. and learned Gentleman we are not appealing to a stony heart, because his political record is such that I am certain he would not want men who have served the country to go back to civilian occupations unless they can look their best. I hope that we shall not have an answer that the £2 15s. 10d. is a figure that has been agreed and that it cannot be raised. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to go into the matter carefully and, if necessary, to tackle the Treasury to see whether the figure can be raised to an amount consistent with the kind of clothes that these men should have.
  Mr. Martin: Some of the men who come out of the Army have been serving for some time and they come back to difficult and distressing home circumstances. Is anything done in those cases to inquire whether they require more than the £2 15s. 10d.? I have had one or two cases where the men have no clothes surviving from their civilian life and they want something more than one suit. Cannot such cases receive extra consideration?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The point raised about coupons by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) is a matter for
  1668
  the Board of Trade and not for the War Office. I would remind the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) that the cash payment is not intended to set a man up in clothes, but is an alternative to the issue of the clothing which the War Office expect the discharged soldier to accept. I cannot accept some of the phrases used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) as being anything like an accurate description of the position. He said that soldiers were being discharged with very little sympathy and little assistance and that no self-respecting man would wish to wear the suit of clothes that is offered to him on his discharge. In view of what has been said by my hon. Friends it is only fair that I should place oh record exactly what is done for the soldier on his discharge. He is entitled to a suit of clothes. The clothing provided is of uniform quality and the cloth of the suit is one of the better quality Board of Trade utility ranges. In anticipation of this discussion I had a suit brought into my room at the War Office the other day so that I could see for myself exactly what is offered to the soldier, and if my assurance that it is of very reasonable quality is not sufficient I should be willing to arrange for any of my hon. Friends to go to one of our quartering depots to see for himself one or more of these suits.
  Mr. Granville: Is there a choice of sizes?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, the size varies according to the trade classification. There are sizes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on—any hon. Member who has bought a ready-made suit in the past will know.
  Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. and learned Member himself wear one of the suits in the House?
  Mr. Henderson: I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity of seeing these suits for himself. I do not think it is necessary for me to wear one. I frankly say that the suit I saw, which I understand is quite a typical one, because of the uniform design and quality of these suits, is one that even my hon. Friend, with all his usual elegance, might be by no means unashamed to wear. In addition to the suit, a cap, a collar and a tie are provided, and the soldier is allowed to retain one pair of boots, three shirts and underclothing—in summer two pairs of cellular pants, in winter two woollen

  1669
  vests and two pairs of woollen pants—four pairs of socks and one woollen pullover. Those are the clothes which every soldier is entitled to be in possession of at the time he receives his discharge. If a soldier is discharged on medical grounds between 1st October and 31st March then he may receive in addition a civilian overcoat, but if he is not discharged between those months he does not receive it.
  Mr. Granville: The hon. Gentleman says that the question of coupons is not the responsibility of the War Office but of the Board of Trade, but does he not think it only reasonable that in lieu of a coat the soldier might be given the requisite number of coupons with which to purchase an overcoat for himself?
  Mr. Henderson: I should be quite willing to look into any suggestion that a discharged soldier is penalised as the result of not being able to get coupons to cover those requirements.
  Mr. Granville: If he does not get an overcoat issued to him between October and March.
  Mr. Burke: Is it the case that only when they are discharged on medical grounds do they get an overcoat—that they "may" receive it; or do they get it automatically?
  Mr. Henderson: I think I am entitled to say that they do receive it if they are discharged on medical grounds.
  Mr. Burke: Every one of them?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes. A great deal has been said about the insufficiency of this sum of £2 15s. 10d. I think the House should appreciate the fact that this sum is not given in order to "set up" the soldier, but is given to him if he does not choose to receive the clothing which is offered to him. It was suggested that I should give details of the various articles to which I have referred and I will do so. The current allowance is £2 15s. 10d. in lieu of the civilian suit, cap, collar and tie. If he is entitled to an overcoat but prefers a cash payment the sum is £1 17s. 0d. These prices came into operation on 1st August, 1942. I am advised that the approximate retail value of the suit, cap, collar and tie is £3 16s. 0d. and of the overcoat £2 10s. 6d. The totals are made up as follows: suit, wholesale price £2 12s. 6d.,
  1670
  retail value £3 11s. 10d.; cap, wholesale price 1s. 11d., retail value 2s. 5d.; collar, wholesale price yd., retail value 8½d.; tie, wholesale price 10d., retail value 1s. 0½d., making the respective totals wholesale £2 15s. 10d., and retail value £3 16s. 0d. Those retail values do not include Purchase Tax, as utility clothes are not subject to the Tax. The reason why the allowance was reduced, as my hon. Friend was informed on another occasion, from £2 16s. 5d. to £2 15s. 10d. was because the Ministry of Supply, as a result of making larger contract than previously, were able to obtain the cap at a lower cost. This meant that the vocabulary rate of 2S. 6d. was reduced to 1s. 11d. That explains the reduction to which my hon. Friend has referred. If the cost of any article falls further, the allowance will be further reduced, and if it rises, the allowance will be increased.
  A point with regard to the Army Council Instruction dealing with this matter was raised by my hon. Friend. This allowance is not normally notified in Army Council Instructions, but the Instruction to which he referred, and which has now been cancelled, was specially published because the vocabulary of clothing and necessaries—that is the document in which the rates are normally published—had at that time become out-of-date. Later on that vocabulary was brought up to date and the A.C.I. ceased to be necessary and was cancelled. It may interest the House to know that the vocabulary is the price list of all clothing and accessories stocked by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. It is used as the basis for all financial transactions in connection with those articles and, of course, is a document which is in the possession of all quartermasters. The price of the clothing is, of course, properly a question for the Ministry of Supply, who buy the clothes. They make their own contracts; the contracts are not made by the War Office, whose responsibility in the matter is limited to prescribing the quantity and quality of the clothing to be provided. The reason for the method of calculating the allowance described is that we provide for the soldier a suit and other accessories, of what is regarded by us as being reasonable quality.
  In our view, if a soldier, of his own free will, prefers to take a cash allowance instead of the clothes that are available,

  1671
  there should not be imposed a greater charge upon public funds. Therefore, I suggest that, assuming that the suit of clothes and other accessories are of reasonable quality, it is for the soldier to accept them. If, for his own purposes, he prefers to take a cash allowance in lieu thereof, there is no reason why public funds should be called upon to bear a greater cost than if the soldier accepted the clothes that are made available for him. Any other course would have the effect therefore of encouraging the soldier in every case to say, "I will not take the clothes that are provided. I prefer to take this larger allowance." That would completely defeat the object of the scheme which is now in operation, and it is obviously a course which, as at present advised, the War Office could not possibly accept.
  Mr. Granville: The hon. and learned Gentleman has given a very detailed reply. That refers to soldiers who are discharged and who leave the Army now; may I ask whether this is to be the general attitude of the War Office in regard to all men upon ultimate demobilisation?
  Mr. Henderson: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to answer that question now, but I would say this: that the policy of the War Office would depend entirely on whether there was an adequate supply of clothing available when the period of demobilisation commenced. After the last war I understand that there were not sufficient suits for issue to the troops who were being demobilised, and they were given allow-
  1672
  ances equal to the retail value of the clothes they would have to buy, and not the wholesale value which has relation to the supplies of clothes available for issue to them. I do not know whether that meets my hon. Friend's point.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my hon. and learned Friend make it clear whether, when a soldier elects to take cash instead of clothes, the coupons go along with that cash allowance? There can be no possible reason for giving cash, unless coupons to buy the clothes accompany it?
  Mr. Henderson: I would prefer to have notice of that question, but I think I am right in saying that all that is handed to the discharged soldier by the Army authorities is the cash payment. He is then in the same position as I was in myself when I left the Army, and I imagine other Members have been in the same position. He has to make his application as a citizen to the Board of Trade for the coupons he requires.
  Mr. Granville: Would my hon. and learned Friend take up this question with the Board of Trade and see what can be done about it?
  Mr. Henderson: I have already assured the hon. Member that I will look into the point he raised, without committing myself or the Department as to what attitude may be taken.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.