CLAUSE 9.—(Obligations as to employment of quota of registered persons in substantial staffs.) (Hansard, 27 January 1944)

§ Sir I. Fraser
I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the first "a," and to insert: every Government Department, local authority, body corporate and other. The point here is to make sure that His Majesty's Government and local authorities and all other quasi-public bodies like the B.B.C. and the Port of London Authority are under the same compulsion to take their quota of disabled men as is the private employer.
It would seem to be anomalous to compel the private employer to take disabled men if Government Departments were not similarly compelled. I believe that it is constitutionally difficult to compel the Government to do anything—for the King can do no wrong—and I do not know whom we would prosecute if we found that there was not a percentage of men, for example, in the Ministry of Labour. In those circumstances it would give me very great pleasure to see the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary duly dealt with by process of law but they will understand that there is nothing personal in this. However, it is a point of importance, and Parliament and the country and employers should know that all our Government Departments, local authorities and quasi-public bodies shall be under the same compulsion for direction or, at any rate, obligation, so clearly stated that there shall be no possi- 907 bility of misunderstanding about it. It is to secure such a situation that I move the Amendment.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb)—in Clause 13, page 10, line 7, at end, to insert "and shall be deemed to include employment in a Government Department." It is practically the same as the present Amendment, and we are rather hoping that the principle of the two Amendments might be discussed now.

§ Mr. Lewis (Colchester)
I am very glad that this question has been raised. The Minister rather gave one to understand that all Government Departments are included, but it might be well that the fact should be emphasised by the insertion of some such words as those suggested in the Amendment. It is a mistake to suppose that Government Departments are necessarily interested in, or sympathetic to, disabled ex-Servicemen. On the contrary, I have recently come across two cases, which I mention by way of illustration, to show that the reverse is the case. The Ministry of Fuel and Power, for example, use their powers to-day under the rationing of petrol to prevent disabled ex-Servicemen from running hired cars. They made a bargain, I understand, with vested interests in the hired-car trade whereby, if a man were not employed in this occupation immediately before the outbreak of war, he could not now enter it. That completely debars a man who was serving his country at the outbreak of the war and who now becomes disabled from following his calling. A very bad case was put to me the other day where application had been refused on those grounds, and only yesterday the hon. Member for the Newton Division (Sir R. Young) raised a case in this House with regard to the Food Ministry. He drew attention to a case where a disabled ex-Serviceman wished to open a small restaurant in Manchester. The man had gone to great trouble to make his arrangements and he had got the necessary finance. The Food Minister in effect said, "No, I will not allow him to do it." If that is the kind of attitude that Ministers like the present Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Food will take towards disabled ex-Servicemen when the war is raging, 908 what kind of treatment can they expect when the war is a thing of the past?
It is most important that the obligations laid down in the Bill should be fairly and squarely placed upon Government Departments in the text of the Bill. I hope very much that the Minister in charge of the Bill will see his way to include some such words. The Minister of Labour has the reputation of being no respecter of persons. I hope that, if it falls to him to administer this Measure in the early days after the war, he will live up to that reputation and will see that these Government Departments play their part adequately under the terms of the Bill.

§ Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)
Unless my memory plays me entirely false, we were informed that the Government Departments would play their fullest possible part under this Bill. If indeed Government Departments, municipal corporations and other corporate bodies were not only to contract out of the Bill, but to adopt a low standard in regard to the Measure, it would really be meaningless. I hope the Government will dispel any doubt which may remain in the mind of any hon. Member on this point. I listened With interest to what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said. It would be intolerable if conduct of that kind were meted out to disabled men after the war. I do not attach as much importance as he did to these specific instances, as it might well be found on examination that the Ministry of Food in Manchester or wherever it was failed to give a licence for setting up a catering business on the ground that it might be very much against the interests of other persons.

§ Sir Robert Young (Newton)
The Minister made no such suggestion. He said that there were already 20 restaurants in the particular area.

§ Mr. White
That confirms what I am saying. Ministers, knowing the requirements of an area and how they could be met would be failing in their duty if they allowed a man to start in a business that was not wanted and which might do injury.

§ The Attorney-General
As far as local authorities, bodies corporate and others are concerned, these words are not necessary because, under the interpretation Act, the word "person" includes bodies either corporate or incorporate. 909 [An HON. MEMBER: What is meant by "incorporate"?] It may be a difficult conception to laymen, but it is quite simple to a lawyer. It is a body of people connected together by some bond or other which does not happen to make them a legal entity in the eyes of the law. As far as Government Departments are concerned, that is a matter of the greatest possible importance and it was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate, when he gave the House the assurance that the Government are prepared to undertake everything that they impose upon other employers. If it is suggested that the legal provisions of the Bill should apply, not only would that be contrary to precedent, but we would get into the most inextricable difficulties and produce a picture to the public which, I think, they would regard as ridiculous. The provisions of the Bill which we shall come to later in regard to prosecutions undertaken by, and under the authority of, the Minister of Labour will make sure that there shall be consultation and outside advice before prosecution is undertaken. It would be a somewhat curious spectacle, apart from wider grounds, if the Minister of Labour had to refer to a committee a question whether he himself had committed an offence and be in complete control of proceedings against himself. I do not think that that would be right. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the assurance that has been given and that the Committee and the House want to be assured that Government Departments will undertake the liabilities with regard to disabled persons which have been imposed upon other employers, but it would be impracticable to apply the legal machinery of the Bill. Questions can be asked and it is obviously a matter in which people are interested and information can be obtained at any time.

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
I do not like the line taken by the Attorney-General. There is in this country continual criticism of the way matters are carried on in Government Departments and I myself have had considerable experience of going to Government Departments. The one decision one can always obtain on the part of those responsible in the Department is, "Do nothing," and to get anyone to take the responsibility 910 of doing something is in the region of the impossible. I suggest that on this question, which is a very important one, an official in every Government Department should be given full responsibility for taking the necessary action to see that the quota is applied and carried out, on the understanding that, if he does not do his job and get things moving, he will be subject to prosecution. It is a scandal the way the whole of this administrative organisation of the Government is so hedged around by red tape, so that no man is responsible for doing anything, and they simply keep "passing the buck" from one to another. It must not be thought for a moment that because we get a statement here that they are going to do this or to do that, they will do it. There has been a great splash in the Scottish Press this week. The British Legion is calling for a meeting of ex-Service men and the wives of serving soldiers in a certain town to protest against the action of the local authority in having appointed an accountant who is not an ex-Service man. He not only happens to be an accountant but a conscientious objector, though conscientious objectors have their rights and are entitled to the same treatment as everybody else.

An Hon. Member
Why?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We must not discuss "Why?"

§ Mr. Gallacher
It comes into this question. This House decided that the conscientious objector has a legal standing in this country and has the right to live, and I only point this out to show what can really happen in local authorities or Government Departments unless some one is given responsibility and is told, "You have a job of work to do and you must see that it is carried through. If you do not carry it through you will be prosecuted." I wish to goodness that I could have a chance of controlling these Government Departments for a short period. I would make a clean up. It would be a good thing to get some of these disabled soldiers, who have experience, and who have suffered so much, into some of these Departments. They may be disabled in body but they are fresher and more able in mind than many of the people already there.

Mr. Piekthorn (Cambridge University)
I am not quite sure whether it would be in Order to take up fully the very interesting point which has just been raised. I thought the attack on State administration and upon democracy was moving and rather convincing, more particularly, perhaps, the attack upon tape and the assumption that red tape was the worst kind. I believe that in fairness something ought to be said for the other side, but I do not know whether you will wholly approve, Mr. Williams, of my putting the case for Socialism from these benches.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I rather hoped that we had had quite enough of this.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
In that case I will do my best to return to the Amendment. I quite understand the point about the difficulty of putting sanctions on a Government Department, although I thought that means had been found in the past. I agree at least that you cannot do it in the same way to all Departments, but could we have an assurance from the Government that each Department would make a statement to the two Houses annually, showing what percentage of their employees were on the register and would come into the quota if the Government Department concerned were a private employer?

§ Mr. Bellenger
I am in general sympathy with the Amendment, but I think the Attorney-General gave a satisfactory answer. The only point I would like to add is that I hope it will not be the purpose of Government Departments, in filling their quotas, to put these men in the lowliest possible positions. We see these disabled ex-Servicemen occupying very humble positions in Government offices. I hope a chance will be given to them, and to women, too, to fill much more important posts than I have reason to think they are filling at the moment. This not only applies to Government authorities but to civilian authorities who, from my experience, have done far better than the Government have done in fitting these men into responsible positions in industry. It is something we cannot deal with in the Bill, but I hope the House will not only ask for figures, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)——

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I am not learned.

§ Mr. Bellenger
—but will inquire into how they are being occupied.

§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on this point. He said that private employers had been more sympathetic than public employers. I have found the opposite in the mining industry, where I have seen scores of men thrown on the scrap heap. I like the Amendment. It is not often that I like anything coming from the other side of the House. This Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, because I am almost certain that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary stated that some obligation would rest on the Government and on local authorities. If that is so, why not have it definitely in the Bill? I think it would be wise, because there may be some local authorities who want to try and get out of their obligation. They might have a chance to do so if this is not definitely in the Bill.

§ The Attorney-General
Local authorities are in the Bill.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Then I withdraw my opposition.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
I think if Members looked up particulars of employment under the King's Roll they would find that Government Departments had met their obligations under that scheme. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that what he said does not only apply to disabled people. There are many other classes of people who imagine that they should be in better jobs than they are. I wish to repeat the statement I made on the Second Reading that the Government will take upon themselves the same obligations as they are imposing upon other employers. I will consider the question put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), as to whether it is possible to make an annual return to the House and in the light of that assurance I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I have the greatest doubts as to whether Government Departments will not slip up on this unless some annual statement, as has been suggested, is made to the House. Therefore, I welcome the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would see what can be done. Suppose, for example, all the 913 means of production, distribution and exchange are at some time in the future nationalised. Then there would be no private employers left whom you could compel to employ disabled persons and we would have passed this Bill in vain. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Barnes (East Ham, South)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "substantial."
It appears to me that the trend of the discussion on this Bill has emphasised that there is a general desire to widen the scope as much as possible, and my reading of this Clause leads me to believe that it is unnecessarily limiting in its effect. I am moving this Amendment, therefore, for the purpose of securing from the Government an interpretation of the word "substantial." Hon. Members will observe that later on the Order Paper I have a consequential Amendment dealing with the number, "twenty-five." If one looks at the language of this Clause it reads as follows: It shall be the duty of a person who has a substantial number of employees to give employment to persons registered as handicapped by disablement.… If the word "substantial" is there then, by inference, we relieve of any obligation any employer who has not a substantial number of employees. Later, the definite number "twenty-five" is inserted. I am quite aware that in brackets the Minister has inserted a proviso, and the very fact that that is inserted rather suggests that this language raises doubt and is limiting in its effect. It says: (or such other number as may be specified by an order made by the Minister for the time being in force)". It occurs to me that the general interpretation of that Clause would be that employers with fewer than 25 employees have no obligation under this Bill. The insertion of the proviso rather indicates that if any revision is made by order it is more likely to be upwards. I submit that an ordinary person reading this would come to the conclusion. I do not quite see why it is necessary to put in the word "substantial," or the number "twenty-five." If we look at the general machinery of the Bill there is a provision made to guard against any undue hard- 914 ship or difficulty in the consultations between the Minister and the trades concerned. In Clause 16 we have the machinery of the national advisory council and the district advisory committees.
This is, on the whole, a very good Bill; it has been warmly received by public opinion and our Debates have reflected that general good will. While everyone hopes that disablement arising from the war may be less than circumstances suggest, nevertheless we are dealing here with the principle of obligation on the part of employers generally to absorb into our industrial system those who suffer disability. We all know from experience that disablement is a handicap in industrial and other occupations. I speak from a fairly wide knowledge of different occupations and various sections of industry and, therefore, my views are coloured by the fact that many industries employ a substantial volume of labour but such industries very often have a greater degree of difficulty than others in absorbing disabled persons. On the other hand, I have knowledge of a wide range of industries where conditions of employment are very suitable for the employment of persons with different kinds of disablement. In many of these the employer employing 25 persons would be quite a substantial employer of a particular type of labour. In reviewing this Clause I fail to see why the word, "substantial," or the number, "twenty-five," should have a limiting effect. It is always difficult in these matters to insert a specific number and I think the wiser way is to recognise that industry should be flexible and should be required to suit particular circumstances, or the form of employment, as the case may be.
Therefore, I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to examine this language with the same sympathy with which I moved the Amendment, and to ask himself—and I think if he is disposed to meet the Committee we will be only too glad to assist him—whether any limitation of language of this kind should not be removed and we should cultivate a widespread view, right throughout the whole community, that every employer, according to the numbers for which he is responsible, should as far as possible, after reasonable consultation with representatives of the various industries, be able to 915 form appropriate groups. So we should get the maximum advantage at the start, the obligation being comprehensive throughout the country, rather than limited in the sense in which I think this Clause limits it.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
I appreciate the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved and, if I may say so, it was perhaps for some of the reasons that the hon. Member himself gave that the number of 25 was put in and the word "substantial" was included. Otherwise, it might apply to every employer in the country, however small, and, administratively, if we were to proceed on the basis of exclusion by application, it would be impossible to deal with the large number of smaller employers, down to the employer of one individual, with whom we would be called upon to deal in the first instance. The figure of 25 was, perhaps, chosen as being substantial in the sense of a number with which a beginning could be made. If you are working in terms of percentages, I submit that 25 is the lowest number with which you could reasonably begin, from an administrative point of view. The words in the Clause, leaving it to the Minister, in certain circumstances, to revise this number, mean, as far as we are concerned, at any rate, a revision downwards. It could never mean a revision upwards, for the reason that 25 is the number with which we can begin and with which it is administratively possible to deal, and, if it should be found necessary to go below this number in order to carry out our intentions, as well as the intentions of hon. Members, there will be no difficulty about it so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned.
With regard to the provisions of Clause 12, and in connection with the instance given of a large number of people employed in certain industries in small numbers, it may be possible in those instances to include numbers below the figure of 25. Under Clause 12, we are seeking to take power to have certain occupations specified for the disabled, and, if that power is granted, the figure of 25 will not apply as far as that particular Clause is concerned. It is primarily a question of administration and of the wording of the Bill giving the power to do the other things suggested by the mover of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woods (Finsbury)
We appreciate the difficulty the Minister is up against in promoting legislation, but our concern is that, if it remains as it is, it creates, first, a positive legal difficulty, because it can be pleaded that a man is not a substantial employer and you would have the legal difficulty of deciding what a substantial employer is. It seems to me that, in time, there will be novel legal disputes, and we do not want the money of disabled men squandered in legal argument, and I think it is necessary to have some modification—perhaps the deletion of the word "substantial." In regard to the number, our experience has been that, in many industries, the bulk of the employees are in small units. It seems to me that here is an argument that an employer whose total employees are fewer than 25 could stick out his chest and say "I am not covered; it does not apply to me," and feel self-righteous about it, when, among his small number of employees, there may be reasonable grounds for suspecting a high proportion of them to be disabled men and women of one category or another. It will have an effect which, I think, has to be considered in many of these industries organised in small units. Then there are also comprehensive units which have a number of different departments. Therefore, any employer covered by categories A, B, C and D, such as boot repairing, dairy work and so forth, each of which are small units employing in the aggregate as many as the larger units, would be quite immune from the operation of the Bill, whereas the organisation, which comprises all these smaller units, would be under this obligation.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) that there is genuine appreciation of the Bill. There is, I think, throughout the country a real anxiety that it should be genuinely operative, and that no man or woman, because of physical disability received in the country's interests, should be further handicapped through life. The problem is how can we modify this wording so that every person privileged to employ his fellow men carries an obligation to see that he takes his share of this handicap because of their service to the country. Although this actual phrasing may not meet the situation I appeal to the Minister to consider at a later stage whether there could be a removal of the hint that anybody employing less than 917 25 people is not touched, and an assurance that the small units would be considered in the same way as the larger.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think I should point out that we have been discussing the length of time as laid down in the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrewshire (Major Lloyd). Perhaps we may have a wide discussion, and the hon. Members will move their Amendments formally for discussion now?

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes)
I should like my Amendment to be included in the present discussion, but almost everything I wanted to say has already been said, and I have only one or two words to add. I only want to say, so far as my Amendment is concerned, that, in substituting 20 for 25, my aim is to improve the prospects of disabled individuals and define the areas in which they should be employed. After all, a man who employs 20 people is in a very considerable line of business, and I do not like to feel that he is to be excluded. I would like to press this point and say that, although we have some protection in the words at the end of the Clause, I do not think it is quite sufficient. I should like to see the Clause extended and the number lowered. Finally, my feeling is this. What, if any, assurance have we that any employer of less than 25 is going to help this House in doing what we are setting out to do to improve the prospects of the disabled? So far as I know, there is nothing that we can look upon as an assurance in that direction, and therefore I urge the Minister to consider whether he cannot widen the area for the employment of the disabled by lowering the number from 25 to some smaller number, such as 20, as I have suggested.

§ Mr. Bellenger
On a point of Order. Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) has moved his Amendment?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, he will move that formally, if he is not satisfied, and wishes to divide on it. At present, we are only discussing it.

§ Mr. Lewis
My Amendment is to vary the wording "not less than 25" to "such other greater numbers." The 918 Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill, speaking in reply to the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), has already explained that the words in the Bill do not mean what they say. He has told us that, whereas the words in the Bill include either a movement upward or downward of the figure 25, in fact, there is no intention whatever of moving it upward, but only, if circumstances render it desirable, of moving it down. I think that shows how undesirable it is to have these vague phrases in the Bill, because, but for that accidental remark of the Parliamentary Secretary, we should have thought that the words meant what they said. The case at issue is really this. Are we in Parliament to take responsibility in this matter, or are we going to put it upon the Minister? Are we to settle the question about this limit of 25, or are we to leave it to the Minister to make the number according to his wish or according to the pressure put upon him? It is one of those cases where we should be willing to take the responsibility ourselves. I will tell the Committee why. There is very wide support for this Bill, not only in Parliament but in the country, but I think also that all of us realise that it is very important in working this Bill that as little difficulty should be put in the way of industry as possible, because, after all, it is on the ultimate success of industry that everything depends.
Quite clearly, if you contrast the position of a man employing half-a-dozen workpeople with a business employing, say, 500 workers, it is very much easier in the larger business to undertake a responsibility of this kind. The more employees there are, the more the operations of the employees can be differentiated. Take the case of a man working a lift. A man who has lost one arm can work a lift perfectly well. If he goes into a business where the working of a lift is the full-time occupation of one man, he can take that job and do it. In a smaller business, a man has to work the lift and handle many things, and in such a case that man could not do the job.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin)
He could be the managing director.

§ Mr. Lewis
It is obvious, broadly speaking, that as the numbers go up, so it is easier to limit the kind of job a man has 919 to do right up to the extreme case. Therefore, it is much easier to operate a scheme such as is envisaged in this Bill, if a large number of people are employed, than if a small number are employed. If an effort were made to fix this obligation, in the terms of the Bill, on employers of a small number of people, the burden on industry would be out of all proportion to the good that would be done. Nobody suggests that if a man employs two or three people he should be discouraged from employing one disabled person. It has been suggested that 25 is a reasonable number, and I think that the Committee should be willing to take the responsibility of fixing that number and not leave it to some future Minister or future circumstances to decide. Let us decide it now.

§ Mr. Bevin
There is nothing magic about the figure of 25. I would like to impress upon the Committee that this Bill is the result, not merely of discussion in this House, but of long and patient discussion with industry, trade unions, employers, chambers of commerce and all sorts of people up and down the country. There has never been exhibited on all sides a greater willingness to join with the State in grappling with this problem. I do not want to lose that willingness. I am not suggesting, of course, that because the figure 25 was fixed in these negotiations that, therefore, the Committee is bound to that number. I am not foolish enough to do that, but 25 was regarded as the starting-off figure, as a result of the acceptance of the obligation. I have had to say, in considering this matter that I could not limit myself to 25. I do not know what is going to arise and therefore I could not accept the proposal that we should fix 25 as a rigid figure.

§ Mr. Lewis
Would the Minister allow me to ask why he did not say in his Bill "such lower number," if he means lower?

§ Mr. Bevin
I do mean lower, but if my hon. Friend would have patience and allow me to proceed I might be able to help the Committee. I do not propose to relieve anybody of the obligation, by putting up the figure of 25, but I do propose to take powers, under this Bill, to put it down if the circumstances need it. My hon. Friend has suggested 20. I am not wedded to 25, and if 20 would meet 920 the wishes of the Committee I am quite willing to accept that figure instead of 25, as the starting-off figure. It does, probably, give just a little wider field at the inauguration of the administration, and I am anxious to meet Members' wishes. Therefore, as I say I am willing to accept 20 as the starting-off figure, which goes a long way to meet the points that have been made and, at the same time, to retain power to make it lower if circumstances should warrant.
The only point I make is this. I do not know what the volume of disablement within the meaning of the Bill is going to be. No one can tell: If I gave the Committee an estimate to-day and if then big battles happen before the year is out, that figure might be completely falsified. The new medical treatments and the developments which are taking place in medicine are, fortunately, in this war reducing amputations. If we succeed by medical discovery in reducing such things as gangrene and amputations arising out of wounds, we shall be able to apply remedial measures quickly. I am looking to medical science in the future to help in reducing, at least, the amputation side of this problem and, therefore, I have kept an open mind concerning the figure of 25 until we see exactly what we have to face in the future. I cannot, therefore, budget for or arrive at any particular figure until I know what we may be called upon to face. But I can risk taking the 20 instead of the 25 and I am quite willing to do so.

§ Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)
I listened attentively to the Minister when he explained to us that prior to this Measure being drafted or introduced, negotiations had taken place with the representatives of industry. Presumably, he referred also to trade unions and, in particular, I should imagine he referred to representatives of the distributive trades, the shop workers, as being included in the negotiations, because he referred also to chambers of commerce.

§ Mr. Bevin
There is operating with the Ministry of Labour, a joint consultative committee through the Trades Union Congress. We do not single out industries; we deal with employers and unions in a combined council.

§ Mr. Walkden
I want the Committee to look at the Bill and to look at the Amendment and see how it would affect workers 921 with whom we are conversant. If we leave this Clause or even the Amendment as it is—that is 20—and if we examine the whole of the retail trade in any provincial town, eliminating the co-operative societies and the multiple firms like Woolworths and Marks and Spencer, we shall find 80 per cent. of the employers will not have any obligation whatever under this Bill. That is a fair assumption. I see the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bartle Bull) in his place.

§ Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield)
I want to make certain the Co-ops get their share.

§ Mr. Walkden
I believe that in the whole division that the hon. Member represents, leaving out the co-operative societies and the multiple firms and probably one of the big employers in the distributive trade, what I say applies—I am sorry to select Enfield as an example, but it is an area that I know well. But speaking from the angle of one who represents shopworkers in a trade union capacity, I believe there will not be more than 80 per cent. of the employers in any provincial town, affected by this Clause, if we apply 25 or 20 as the figure in the Bill. London emporiums, it is true, will employ more than 25, but if we go to the suburbs of London, again 80 per cent. of the shops in the suburbs employ maybe only two, three, four or six people. Did anybody ever see, for instance, after the last war, any silver-haired people behind shop counters in the provincial towns, except those employed by the good employers? Employers employed only young persons. They had no patriotism and they were out for cheap labour. Is it conceivable that they are at last going to oblige the Minister or the nation by changing their attitude after this war?
Let us take the case of coal. If you look at any railway depôt you will find probably eight, nine or 10 coal merchants, but most of those coal merchants employ three, four or six people and no more. How can we agree on the matter of coal merchants? What about boot repairers? I will again mention Enfield, if I may, as an example. In the whole Enfield area I know of only one firm that employs more than 20 people on boot repairing. All the rest employ very small numbers indeed—three, four, five or six at the most. Boot-repairing is the kind of job a disabled person can do. The Minister may prefer to schedule them as he intends to do later 922 on. If we look at the building trade, house decorating, plumbing, and similar crafts or even at the legal profession in any provincial town, we find such trade or profession does not employ more than three or four people. Are they all to escape? Are they not to be included? Is there to be no obligation on them? I am putting it frankly to the Minister when I say we could take the whole gamut of the groups I have referred to, and I still maintain that 80 per cent.—leaving out the multiple firms—will not be covered by this Clause at all. Therefore, the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) is suggesting a most reasonable Amendment and one that ought to be acceptable. I do not agree with the idea of 20 being substituted for 25 because it is equally dangerous. I want to include all the small firms because they must have some obligation imposed upon them. Remembering the treatment we had after the last war, I hope the Minister will, at least, accept the very reasonable suggestion moved by the hon. Member for East Ham South.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
There are two points which still seem rather obscure to me. The first is the point upon which we have just heard a rather impassioned defence of big business—the second we have had from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden). We have had four, altogether, the other two being from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) and the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes). It was the first to mention the Co-operative Societies. I apologise to the Committee if it is because I did not listen carefully enough that I was not sure whether each branch counted as a separate undertaking or whether all counted as a single undertaking. I gather that all count as a single one, and there is a feeling, therefore, that you might have shops with only four, five or six employees not under the obligation of employing somebody on the register, and therefore at an advantage compared with the Co-ops.
We have been assured by the Minister that to accept this suggestion will make the Bill administratively unworkable and, if that is true, the question arises, which do they want most—that persons on the register should have a considerably increased chance of employment, or that businesses employing more than 25 should have exactly equal treatment with 923 those employing fewer? On that comparison, decision on the Amendment must rest.
The second point that is still obscure to me is this. It is surely the business of the House of Commons not to give any Minister any power which is more likely to do good than capable of being abused, and especially now because we are, as we are often reminded, in many ways an unrepresentative House of Commons. Ministers are nothing unless they are an emanation of us, so that whatever unrepresentativeness there may be in us, is a worse defect in them. Therefore, all the stronger is the argument that we should not give them powers except those for which there will be a strong chance of useful employment and no very great chance of ill-employment. On this occasion, Ministers themselves, unless I have got this muddled, tell us that the Bill gives them power to vary the figure upwards and, though they think it would be foolish for them to do so, and they feel sure that no Minister would do so, they are fighting for the retention of that power in the Bill. Unless there is some explanation which has not occurred to us, that case seems to be one which no House of Commons can decently swallow.

§ Mr. Barnes
I should like to thank the Minister for his statement. It is clear now that the proviso enables him to vary the figure downwards, and that is his intention. The whole purpose of the Amendment was to widen the scope of employment. It has served its purpose. Although I do not agree with the number going into the Bill, nevertheless, if the Minister feels it is a substantial point and that he can go to 20 and gain experience before he modifies it still further downwards, I accept that and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevin
As there seems to be some ambiguity, I am quite willing to look into it and see if I can accept the words "lower than" between now and Report. It was not my intention that 25 should be the minimum figure. It will now be 20 and I am willing to try to find words to make it lower, so I think I meet everyone's point of view.

§ Sir Douglas Thomson (Aberdeen, South)
There has been a lot 924 of discussion in the House and in the Press about this figure of 25. Twenty is the figure that we should all like to see in the Bill but there has been a lot of advertisement of the figure of 25. Regulations will never receive the same publicity and, if the Minister makes a Regulation, small employers may suddenly find themselves infringing the law. I feel that we ought to have stuck to the figure of 25 or 20 and, if necessary, have a small amending Bill later. That would get much more publicity and there would be no question of people not knowing that a Regulation had gone through.

§ Mr. Messer
I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, after "employment" to insert: at the standard rate of wages recognised for the type of work performed. This Amendment is moved for the purpose of erecting a safeguard to prevent wage cutting and cheap labour. There is some danger that the situation might be exploited. We are proposing to give vocational training and rehabilitation and send into the workshops and factories men who would previously not have been on the same scale as those already there. I am anxious that they should not be exploited and that there shall not be wage cutting in relation to those already working on the same job.

§ Mr. Bevin
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because it is impossible to lay down such a rigid condition when you are dealing with disabled persons. There are some people who will not be able to work full time, and certainly people for whom there will have to be accommodation in the arrangement of hours and the rest of it. We have had a good deal of experience of that. I announced last week that it is the Government's intention to deal with the minimum wage fixing machinery so as to cover almost every type of employment. Under that machinery there is already provision in certain circumstances, and after inquiry, to give exemptions or variations. It is really a great protecting factor. Again, in dealing with disabled persons we shall get up against the problem of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and all kinds of lines cut across it. I do not believe there will be much difficulty except in isolated cases. If you take the great industries, by and large, 925 we have had very little difficulty on the wage side at all. Also I want the trade unions and the employers in their collective agreements to make provision for training and for working up to the scale of production and all that kind of thing, and I am sure they will do it.
In other words, I think this problem will form part of the major collective agreements. I would rather rest on that footing because it gives much greater flexibility in dealing with a variety of cases which you cannot foresee in trying to deal with it legislatively at the moment. For these reasons if we are allowed a little freedom we can carry industry with us, as we wish to obtain full employment instead of the wretched position we were in between the two wars, and I am sure that the chances of dealing with the difficulty will be better than we have known in the past. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and allow us to watch it very carefully and make provision in the minimum wage legislation or in industrial agreements to cope with the difficulty.

§ Mr. J. J. Lawson
I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this and I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I should say that most of the employees will be in shops where there is a trade union organisation, and I suppose the organisers will get a chance of investigating whether these men or women are getting the proper rate of wages or not. I suppose most employers would pay the wage they have been paying in the ordinary course of their business but there are always people who will take advantage of a situation like this if there is any chance whatever. It is known as a fact, and hon. Members will probably come in contact with cases, that old age pensioners who are working in industry have been used to reduce wages and, unless the Minister is specific on this matter, there is a very great danger that wages will be affected.
I am not so sure that you will not need to have a kind of special trade board for this class of worker. I wonder if my right hon. Friend had now been in the position of a trade union organiser whether he would be quite as optimistic as he has been this afternoon. I am not so sure that he would be. Giving all allowance for the good will of employers and of the general community towards 926 this class of worker, any man who faces the ordinary world to-day is bound to admit that there is risk not only of these men being used for the lowering of wages, but it may have a bad effect upon legislation. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is apprehensive of this and I hope the Ministry of Labour—whether the present Minister is there or not—will watch this matter very closely because it is really dangerous.

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I thought I was going to have the unalloyed satisfaction of being able to support the Government right through the Committee stage, but I am afraid my right hon. Friend's answer to this Amendment rather disappoints me. Obviously nobody believes, the Minister least of all, that it will be a good thing if these men, when the burden of their employment is carried by industry, should be employed at cut rates. Nobody wants that, and I acquit at once the Minister or the Government of desiring any such thing. But what I understand the Minister to say is this: "We do not want them to be employed at cut rates, we want them to be employed at the full rates they would earn. But do not legislate about it, leave it to our general legislation which is still to come about minimum wages, or leave it to collective agreements between the trades unions concerned in the different industries." I suggest to the Minister, with great respect, that if he were to apply that principle to the object of this Bill, there would be no need for the Bill at all. He could equally well have said: "This burden of disablement ought not to be borne by the victims of the particular accidents, it ought to be placed on the shoulders of industry as a whole in general legislation for social welfare and in agreements arrived at between the trades unions and industry." Then there would be no need for the Bill. But it has not been thought right to do that, and I think the whole country rejoices that it has not been thought right to do it.
What the Government are doing, wish the enthusiastic support of most of us, is to say: "Let us have a law about it. Let us have it organised, and let us have the burden spread on lines that the legislator has approved, so that the individual victim shall not be penalised for his disability." If you are saying that, what 927 can be the reason for not saying it with regard to the rate of wages at which he is employed? I cannot see what the objection is. It is quite true that a man who is disabled may not be worth as much to the employer as a man who has not been disabled, but what does that matter? Of course he is not worth as much; if he were, you would not need to legislate about it and he would be employed anyhow. What we are saying is that we must care for him just because he is not worth as much, but that he must be paid because he produces as much. It is difficult to see why my hon. Friend's Amendment should not be thought a reasonable provision to include in the Bill. I hope the Minister will reconsider it.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)
I have listened with interest to the short discussion. We all agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment but I think we have to be practical-minded people, and this Amendment would produce chaos. I do not know what "standard rate of wages" means. I do not know whether it refers to daily, hourly, monthly or an annual rate. I am going to ask the Committee to assume that two men are on piece-work, one disabled, the other fit, and the disabled man produces less than the fit man. Quite clearly, not in the interests of the employer but in the interests of the consumer of the goods produced, the man who produces less, ought to be paid less than the man who produces more: otherwise your whole system of remuneration in accordance with output is destroyed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose system?"] Anybody's system. They have in Russia, for example, a very extraordinary system of premium bonus which they have developed in the coal mines there. But it does not matter whose system it is. [An HON. MEMBER "That would not seem to arise here."] It only arises to the extent that the interruption is in order.
Let us take the case of a man who has suffered an accident. Because of that accident he receives compensation for loss of earning capacity. If a man has had compensation for loss of earning capacity, obviously if he can earn the full rate, he is no longer entitled to his compensation. It depends on the nature of the accident what his compensation may be. I am 928 assuming the man has had, from somebody, a sum of money because he has suffered some kind of injury and loss of earning capacity. Whether it is a lump sum obtainable from his employer, or from the insurance company with which the car which ran him down was insured, I do not care. If he has had a sum of money which produces an income to compensate him for loss of earning capacity, then, obviously, if you say he is to be paid the same as the man who is producing more, you are destroying the whole basis of remuneration being related to production. If the hon. Member says, "What does it matter if the employer has to pay?" I say the employer does not pay these things; it is the consumer of the goods who pays, quite clearly.

§ Mr. Silverman
Is my hon. Friend suggesting for a single moment that the general body of consumers in this country—40,000,000 of us—are really going to raise a very strong objection to paying the infinitesimal increase in cost which he alleges in order to see a disabled man working as hard and working the same hours as the man next door to him and getting the same wage?

§ Sir H. Williams
It is one of the elements in the cost of production which we must take into account as sensible people. We are trying to get people into employment after this war. We have to sell our goods in competition with other people and we have to be efficient. It is not a question of being unsympathetic. We are dealing with the realities of the situation. If you have two men working alongside one another at the same occupation on piece work, no one is offended if one man makes 20 per cent. more than the other. They regard it is fair, because he has produced 20 per cent. more. All remuneration, so far as you can achieve it, should be related to output. There are many occupations where you cannot measure output, and there you have a series of conventional means to arrive at an annual, monthly, or hourly rate of remuneration but, in the long run, all remuneration must be related to output. Here is a proposal which I regard as reactionary, just as I regard family allowances as reactionary. That is a case of being remunerated, not for your efficiency as a worker but for inefficiency as a parent in bringing into the world a lot of children whom you are going to ask other 929 people to keep. There is no getting away from the link between production and reward, and for that reason I am opposing this Amendment.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into the realm he has entered, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that America has gone farther than we have in this country in the employment in wartime of disabled persons and of keeping close and accurate records in connection with that employment. I have here a report from a number of employers in America dealing with this subject. It starts in this way: Replies were received from more than 100 employers, most of whom are large corporations engaged in the manufacture of war materials and equipment and are employers of a considerable number of persons with physical impairments. These replies indicate, conclusively, that physically impaired workers produce as much or possibly a little more than the able-bodied workers.

§ Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Moseley)
There are two points from the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) with which we ought to deal a little further, although he very nearly got on to the point which I would like to bring to the Committee now. It is this. If a man is disabled, whether in war or in civil occupation, in nearly every case he applies for—and in some cases is granted—some form of compensation or pension, if it is disability. The extent of that is measured, whether by the civil courts or by the company's administration, in accordance with the amount of earning disability which his disablement has produced. If the court knows perfectly well that a man who has lost a leg in industry can be guaranteed his full rate of wages and also get employment, how can that court say that he is suffering any disability at all, and how can they award him damages for the injury he has received? The same thing applies in the case of pensions. With regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I quite agree. 930 I have had a great deal of experience in this. He must know that a similar Measure is not in force in the United States from which he gets his figures. My own experience is that, as long as this works voluntarily, then so long the disabled man is, as the United States authorities say, as good as or even in some cases better than the man who has not suffered. But guarantee all those men their full wages, and full employment, and I venture to say that those percentages will be very different indeed.

§ Mr. Bevin
I would appeal to the Committee to help us to get along with this Bill. The discussion has become a little discursive, covering a wide economic field. We have even got on to a discussion as to the link between production and reward in connection with family allowances. This Debate shows how unwise it would be to try to put a thing like this in a Bill. Other wages are not regulated by Bills, and (except in cases where there is insufficient organisation) the whole trade union movement is opposed to wages being regulated legally.

§ Mr. Silverman
There is no organisation for these men.

§ Mr. Bevin
Certainly there is. These men will be employed in all the staple industries of the country, or the Bill is no good at all. In so far as they are employed in those industries which are properly organised and have wages regulated. I prefer to leave it to the normal course of negotiation in the industry. Secondly, I would like to impress this upon the Committee. It was suggested that I should have a trade board for disabled men. The one thing you do not want is to single out disabled men in that sense. It would be the worst thing in the world. Someone else said "If you pay compensation, then the next employer is entitled to take that into account." It never happens. I hope it never will. Suppose a man loses a limb in a mine and I train him to be a boot-maker, why in the world should he not have a boot-maker's wages? What business is it of his new employer how he lost his limb, as long as he can produce the goods? Therefore, this is regulated by those wage agreements. But I said with regard to minimum wages where you have an exceptional case, under the Trade Board Act, if owing to disability a man cannot 931 perform full service, the trade boards are entitled to issue a permit to the employer after investigation in subnormal cases.
There may be exceptional cases, and it may be better in extreme cases to allow that to happen rather than have a man doing nothing. So far as is humanly practicable, I want to see the disabled man with a full citizen's life in spite of his disablement. The tragedy I found when I came to this Ministry—and I am not criticising any of my predecessors—was that owing to unemployment there were 185,000 people whose cases the local committees had coolly and calmly investigated and who had been written off by the committees as being of no further use to society. That number represents in man-power an enormous army, and I determined as Minister to try to tackle their problem. I have had some experience of it. By patient endeavour and training I have brought the number down to 18,000. That has been worth doing. I have had virtually no case arise over wages as a result of that effort. There have been adjustments in bad cases, but they were made by arrangement. I would like that to continue. Give us as much flexibility and opportunity as possible. I know that hon. Members do no trust Ministers, but I think that I have a couple of months before I get the sack, so they might trust me for that time.

§ Mr. Messer
The Amendment has not been a wasted effort, for it has enabled the Minister to make a statement which I welcome. He has clarified the position and met the situation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Messer
I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "registered as," and to insert "who are."
I move this for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is not possible for people who are disabled and are already in employment to be counted in the quota. Disabled people may be in employment but may not wish to be on the register, and if they are not counted in the quota the employer may discharge other people in order to get his quota.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
There is no question that the quota provisions must be maintained, and it would be impracticable to 932 work it in the way suggested by the Amendment. If these words were inserted they would prevent us doing what the hon. Member wants us to do.

§ Mr. Messer
I do not understand the explanation, but I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
I will communicate with the hon. Member.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that this point might be discussed better on the Minister's proposed new Clause—(Preference for ex-servicemen and women).

§ Sir I. Fraser
I shall be happy if that is done, and I do not, therefore, move this Amendment.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, to leave out "twenty-five" and to insert "twenty."
We have had a discussion on this point and I move the Amendment formally.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
I understand that in my absence this Amendment has been accepted, and I am very pleased that it has been.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that this Amendment ought to be moved as a new Clause rather than as a variation of this Clause.

§ Mr. Lewis (Colchester)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 49, after "employment," to insert: for a longer period than one month. 933 My purpose in raising this point is to call attention to what may be a difficulty which may arise in practice under the Bill as drafted. Government Departments are apt to be very long-winded. I suppose that there are few, if any, Members in the present House who have not at some time or other had to write a letter to the Secretary of State for War. I venture to say that if any of them has received an answer of any substance, other than a formal answer, inside a month, he will have been very lucky. If any business were carried on in that way it would head straight for bankruptcy, but that is how they do things at the War Office. I am not suggesting that the Ministry of Labour is as bad as that. All Government Departments, even the Ministry of Labour, are of necessity somewhat long-winded. There are a lot of clever and industrious people in the Departments passing responsibility from one to the other, and that takes time. Suppose in the course of business a man who employs only a few workers suddenly loses the services of somebody who carries out an important job. He may run only one motor van which is driven by a man who also handles heavy goods for delivery. It is the kind of job for which it would be difficult to find a disabled man. When he suddenly loses the services of the driver he would in the ordinary course of business take the quickest method open to him to replace him. He might know of somebody he could get in a few hours, even if only in a temporary capacity. Under the Bill he would have to get permission to employ somebody. Suppose that he were so circumstanced that he had among his few employees a high proportion of men who had served in the Army during the war and who had been fortunate enough to come through unharmed. They were reemployed by him, and in consequence of that he has not yet got his quota of disabled people. The position falls vacant and he must fill it. It is not suitable for a disabled man, and he had to get special permission to employ somebody other than a disabled man. I suggest that that will take a considerable time and grave inconvenience might be caused because of it.
I do not care about the particular form of words of my Amendment, but I am suggesting that some provision should be made so that in an emergency of that kind the employer can take on for a short period somebody to fill the vacancy and 934 get the necessary permission afterwards. I want to enable the employer in such circumstances to be able to act with the promptitude he would exercise in the ordinary course of business and not be made to go through some laborious application to the Ministry which might mean considerable delay. I agree that we must be careful that no loophole is left to enable the employer to evade his obligations under the Bill, but it is clear that cases such as I have described may arise, particularly a few years after the war. The Minister may not like the form of the Amendment and I have not had an opportunity of speaking to him, but if he thinks there is anything in the paint I have made and will promise to look into it and see whether it was a point of substance, I shall be satisfied.

§ The Attorney-General
We may be long-winded, but we have appreciated the point of the hon. Member and, on the whole, we would not advise the Committee to accept it. I do not believe there will be any practical difficulty in the class of case to which the Bill will apply. If an employer has a vacancy he will do what every employer covered by the Bill will do, and get in touch with the employment exchange. If a suitable man on the register is not available I do not think there would be any delay in the exchange saying, "We have not anybody but we will give you a permit." There will be no difficulty in working it in that way.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
For a non-disabled man?

§ The Attorney-General
The point which my hon. Friend puts is this: somebody drops out which puts the employer below his quota. Unless he gets a man from the register he will be committing an offence, unless he gets a permit. I am saying that the employer will get into touch with the employment exchange, and if there is a man on the register who fills the bill, the man will be sent along. I think there would be great difficulty about the procedure suggested in the Amendment. If the employer takes on a man and it is later found that he ought to have been on the register and a permit is refused him, that man would lose his job. Nobody could say that that would be satisfactory. The position could be dealt with through the employment exchange at the time, and it would therefore be much better to stick to that method.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am glad to have had from the learned Attorney-General an assurance that this point has been considered very carefully, and the assurance also that arrangements will be made for permits of this kind to be given promptly by the local managers of employment exchanges without referring the matter to higher quartets. That is clearly implied in what the Attorney-General has said. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert: Reasonable cause for discontinuing the employment shall include substantial increase of the industrial handicap due to the disablement but in other respects shall be the same as is applicable to any ordinary worker, but every such disabled person discharged for increase of industrial handicap shall have the right of appeal to the District Advisory Committee.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment a somewhat similar Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert: () Any disabled person who claims that his employment has been unreasonably discontinued shall be entitled to appeal to the Minister against such discontinuance.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
It will be noted that the Amendment just referred to also suggests that an appeal shall lie if a man is discharged for any handicap. I think the Bill is so good that it is very necessary to preserve a balance. On the one hand, a good many of the Clauses are directed against employers, and very heavy penalties apply to them if they make mistakes. On the other hand, we are doing our utmost to make life easy and to provide employment for disabled persons; but there is a tendency for disabled persons in employment occasionally to make a certain amount of capital out of their disablement. I have had two or three such instances brought to my notice, although I am not in a position to say whether the charges were wholely justified. Complaints were directed against disabled individuals who were said to have made life a perfect burden for their employers. They were ordered to be retained in their existing employment and they were not discharged. We should prevent that sort of 936 thing from happening if we wish to be fair to employers and to the disabled men, and for that reason I am trying to the best of my ability to provide a definition of "reasonable cause" which is in Clause 5. I do not know whether "reasonable cause" is in any other part of the Bill, but I do not think so.

§ Mr. Messer
I put my Amendment down because I have found such a wide variety of things which have been called reasonable. We have it in the Bill that an employer shall not discharge a disabled person without reasonable cause, but I have never yet known an employer who has discharged somebody without thinking it was reasonable. What is reasonable to the employer is usually unreasonable to the worker. I do not know any better way of defining in an Act of Parliament what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. All sorts of conditions may make something reasonable at one time and unreasonable at another, and all sorts of factors can be reasonable or unreasonable according to circumstances. I do not know any better way than to give a right of appeal. I may be wrong in suggesting a right of appeal to the Minister. I do not know wheether the Ministry has grown into such a position now that we are doing with it what we should not have dreamed of doing previously, but I am concerned to give somebody who may be victimised an opportunity of ventilating his grievance. Even in the case of the Assistance Board, if somebody is not getting as much as he thinks he ought to get he can appeal. I am sure that the Minister of Pensions feels that the establishment of pension appeal tribunals has taken a load off his. shoulders. If we can have an instrument to examine a case from both sides there will be a better chance that in the end there will be a fair decision.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Under the Essential Work Order an employer must get the opinion of the national service officer before he can dispense with the services of a man; what is to be the position if an employer thinks he has a reasonable cause for discharging a disabled person? Will he be able merely to discharge him, and no further action will be taken, unless the man goes to the Minister or to the district advisory committee; or will the employer have to get a certificate from somebody at the employment exchange 937 or the district committee before he can discharge the man?

§ The Attorney-General
I do not in the least complain of the Amendments that have been put down or of the way in which the case has been presented. Like many other human things, probably this difficulty is not capable of any absolutely perfect solution. Of course, the broad picture of the Bill is in the mind of every Member of the Committee. The Clause deals with one of the two sanctions. If you set up a scheme you must have some sanction, although you hope that most people will do their duty and carry out its provisions without it. Here we are dealing with the sanction of not dismissing without reasonable cause. The broad picture is, that, under the Bill, provided an employer keeps his quota, he has the same right to dismiss a disabled man as a non-disabled man. This is not a Bill for fixing particular individuals on an employer, but for saving that employers must have on their books a certain percentage of disabled men. If dismissal takes an employer below his quota, that is made an offence. The employer has to keep his quota and, prima facie, if he dismisses a man and it takes him below his quota, he has done something which is wrong only if he did it without reasonable cause, in which case he can be brought before the court and prosecuted.

§ Mr. Messer
What is reasonable cause?

§ The Attorney-General
That, of course, is the point to which I shall, successfully or unsuccessfully, try to address myself. The first attempt to answer it was to try to define "reasonable" in the Bill. The suggestion was that you should be able to dismiss for the same reason as you would dismiss anybody else. I do not care for that. It sounds all right on the face of it, but if it was simply a case of redundancy it would not be reasonable to take the last disabled man in your quota and dismiss him, although redundancy is a perfectly good reason for dismissing a man in the ordinary course of things. That contention breaks down. It would be loading the dice in favour of an employer who might not be acting reasonably. The second suggestion concerned when a man's handicap had substantially increased. If the handicap has increased so much that a man is incapable of any contribution, or only a negligible contribution, obviously 938 he has entirely passed out of the idea of the Bill, but again I do not care——

§ Mr. Woodburn
Is his pension automatically increased?

§ The Attorney-General
That should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minsiter of Pensions, but I know that the pension does not go down if the man becomes able to earn more. When one analyses the suggestion, I do not think it would be on the whole to the advantage of the cause which we have always at heart. Now my hon. Friend asks "What is reasonable?" What I can say is this: whereas it may be, as I think it is, proved, in this case, impossible to define by words in an Act of Parliament what is reasonable, various judges and magistrates have had to base their decisions on the point, on the circumstances and the merits of individual cases, and upon the facts as brought before them, and they have done so without arousing any undue dissatisfaction in the community as a whole. It will be for the courts to decide. If my right hon. Friend's Department, after a matter has been looked at by the committee, decide that it is a case which should go to court, the court will have to decide: Was this dismissal without reasonable cause?

§ Mr. Messer
Does the Bill give the man the right to go to the Committee if he can show the Minister he has got a right of appeal?

§ The Attorney-General
This is not giving a right to the man. This is a sanction by the prosecution of the employer if he puts himself below his quota without reasonable cause.

§ Mr. Bellenger
What happens to the man? Does he get reinstated?

§ The Attorney-General
No.

§ Mr. Bellenger
So he suffers any way.

§ The Attorney-General
As I said, there have to be sanctions——

§ Mr. Bellenger
Under the Essential Work Order that man would have to be reinstated. Would the Attorney-General apply himself to that point?

§ The Attorney-General
I cannot deal with more than one point at once. I shall come to the Essential Work Order in due course. If a man is dismissed in breach of contract he has an action in damages, but the whole point of the Sub- 939 section is to put a sanction on an employer. Prima facie an employer has the right to dismiss, but if the dismissal takes him below his quota he is liable to be prosecuted if it can be shown that he did it without reasonable cause. I think the Committee will agree with that as a reasonable scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked about the Essential Work Order. I think the answer would be that in so far as the Essential Work Order applies to persons in a certain industry then it would apply, would it not, to the disabled persons whether they were within the quota or not, just as much as to other people? The Essential Work Order is, as it were, a scheme which descends on certain industries and certain people in them.

§ Mr. Shinwell (Seaham)
It may not exist then.

§ The Attorney-General
No, but assuming that it did I think anything would have to be done under it in the way I have mentioned. I hope it will be felt that it is much, more satisfactory to leave this question of "reasonable cause" to be decided by the Court on the particular facts of each case. That is the type of problem with which they are familiar. I am not sure whether the Amendment would rule out the prosecution, but I think it is quite clear that if we are to keep, as we wish to, a sanction of taking an employer before the Court it would be inappropriate to provide for an appeal to the Minister. I think the satisfactory thing is to leave the prosecution provisions as they stand and leave it to the Court to decide in each particular case what is "reasonable cause."

§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. and learned Friend has explicitly declared the impracticability of defining "reasonable cause" in the Bill. That may well be. I gather that the Committee would be in agreement with that view, but it is precisely because of the difficulty of a clear definition as to what "reasonable cause" means in the Bill itself that some provision requires to be made to enable a man who may be dismissed without reasonable cause which is not apparent to the Ministry of Labour, to appeal against the action of his employer. That is as I understand the position.
940 Let me furnish an illustration of what might happen. It is perfectly true, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that we are dealing with a sanction. How does that arise and how may it arise? An employer is employing a number of disabled men on the basis of a quota but he decides for some reason or other to dismiss one of the disabled employees, but in order to come within the terms of the quota he employs another disabled man, so that he complies with the terms of the quota, and so far he is protected against prosecution. That is quite clear, but the disabled man who has been discharged—[Interruption.] My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is a little precipitate. Perhaps he will be good enough to listen to the substance of my argument. I repeat that the disabled man who has been dismissed may be of opinion that his dismissal was not due to a reasonable cause. Now the employer is protected but not the man except in so far—as the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale points out—as he remains on the register. But remaining on the register does not necessarily imply immediate employment. Of course not. So for the time being the man is left high and dry.
Surely in those circumstances, as we are all without exception so anxious to do the right thing by these unfortunate men, it would be legitimate to provide for some means of appeal. There is at present no means of appeal, and whether proceedings are to be instituted against an employer depends on the view taken by the Ministry. The view taken by the Ministry may be that rigid hard official rule which is quite irrelevant to the circumstances in which the man finds himself. If, as I have said, that is the correct position, or is likely to be the correct position—I am anxious to deal with the matter fairly—I cannot understand why the Ministry of Labour should offer any objection to some form of appeal. I am bound to say that I can hardly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) to ask for direct appeal to the Minister. I do not think that is the appropriate appeal machinery for dealing with such cases. It is difficult. The Minister is clogged up with all sorts of responsibilities, and in any event he would require to delegate the matter to some other body. I think that something 941 pretty much like the hardship tribunal that operates during the war might be appropriate to the circumstances.
At any rate I put it no higher than this, that in all the circumstances it would offer some consolation, however slender, to a man who is unfortunately situated—the knowledge that he had this right if an employer is disposed to victimise him. That is a harsh word I know, but we know that in certain circumstances an employer may conceive a dislike for a man even if he is disabled, and be inclined to dismiss him. We ought not to ignore such a possibility, because do not let us forget that in the case of a disabled man an occasional outburst is much more likely than in the case of a man who is completely normal. He comes back from the battlefield, maybe after fighting in the air or on the seas, with a touch of neurosis—who can tell—and he may "fly off the handle." Indeed, it is likely that kind of thing may happen, and his employer may not be disposed to care very much for that kind of thing, and accordingly dismiss him. These factors have to be taken into account and it would be some consolation to this man to know that if the employer conceives a dislike, whether well founded or not, he had the right to go to somebody and appeal, throw himself on the mercy of the Court, so to speak, and at any rate be assured of reasonable and sympathetic consideration. May I beg my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whose sympathies are well known in matters of this kind, as indeed the sympathies of all hon. Members are known in matters of this kind, to give this matter further consideration, and if they cannot agree to it now, to see whether on the Report stage they can agree on a form of words?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Dower
It seems to me that the hon. Member has gone outside the purpose of this Bill, which is that a certain percentage shall be employed and not to fix a person on a definite employer. It also appears to me very relevant that my hon. Friend has not considered that another disabled man might be fitted into that employer's establishment who may be more suited for that particular job. I gather that the Ministry of Labour are not contemplating that any one of them will be out of work for very many days, so I 942 really cannot see that any great benefit will accrue by forcing a particular man to remain in a particular job. It seems to me that that will not really help the man any more than anybody else.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I think the Government are responsible to some extent for this misunderstanding by the wording of the Sub-section, because they have made a personal thing of something that is a percentage. According to my reading of the Bill if five men have to be employed in a particular firm and one of these five is dismissed without reasonable cause then the employer comes under this Clause. If there are six disabled men employed in that firm, that is one above the quota, and if the sixth man is dismissed the employer does not come under the Clause. If this is a question of dealing with the unreasonableness of dismissing injured men it should apply to all disabled men, not to a percentage. I think it should not be dealt with under this part of the Bill. The Government should consider it as a general rule which applies to wrongful dismissal of all injured men, whether inside or outside the quota.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
That is the definite underlying intention of my Amendment. I find it very difficult to put it into the right phrase.

§ Mr. Hogg
I listened with attention and sympathy to what the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said. I think the measure of support which these Amendments have had shows the extent to which the consciousness of this problem has burned into people's minds. But I believe sincerely that that feeling, natural and inevitable as it is after the years we have been going through, is misleading them in this particular case. We are familiar, and have been for centuries, in one form or another with this particular problem. The courts have always found it impossible to enforce what they call in their legal language specific performance of a contract of employment. That is to say, where the relationship is unhappy and one of the parties, be it employer or employee, breaks the contract they have always in the end been driven to accept the inevitable, that the only remedy must be a money remedy, not tying the employee to the employer or the employer to the employee. It is not possible to turn the contract of employ- 943 ment into something which can be specifically enforced without, sooner or later, reintroducing slavery into this country. I was interested to notice that on this very point the Tomlinson Committee itself made this observation, which seems to me completely sound and completely to dispose of various arguments which have been put forward. In paragraph 9, on the general question of re-settlement, the Report says: The Committee wish to emphasise at this stage of their report that the only satisfactory form of resettlement for a disabled person is employment which he can take and keep on his merits as a worker in normal competition with his fellows. That seems to me to be inevitable. One may want to protect him in other ways, by tying a particular worker to a particular employer, but, although one may be actuated by the best of motives in that, I feel sure that the protection so afforded will be absolutely illusive. Sooner or later the contract must be severed, and the only remedy, if there is to be a remedy, must be a money remedy or a criminal sanction. Any attempt to render permanent a contract of service will be an attempt to do what we have always found impossible.

§ Mr. Silverman
I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has rather misinterpreted what I, at any rate, understand to be the law. It is true that the courts have always refused, and rightly, for the reasons which have been given, to tie a particular man to a particular employer or a particular employment, or to give what is called specific performance of a contract for service; but that does not mean that the law has not taken to itself powers to enforce contracts for service. There are some very interesting examples under the Essential Work Order, the object of which is to protect persons in their employment. While it has been found quite impossible, so far at any rate, to compel an employer actually to avail himself of the services of his workmen, it has been said "Very well, you may please yourself whether you get anything for your money or not, but unless you can satisfy the National Service Officer, or, if you are dissatisfied with his decision, the Minister, through the National Advisory Council, that you are entitled to rid yourself of the man, you shall continue to pay him his wages." 944 There is a whole series of decisions about that, and there can be no controversy about it.
For very good reasons, it has not been said, although, it may yet be said, that the employer shall actually put the man back at his bench and give him work to do, but the law says, "You shall not get rid of that man except for good reasons, which the Minister approves, and if you seek to do so you shall get no benefit out of it, and the man shall get precisely the same remuneration as he would get if he were working." There seems to be no reason why that kind of protection should not be available for men who get the benefit of this Bill. There is no slavery about it—at least, no more slavery than the economic system under which we are living imposes upon all of us. There is no reason why the man should be compelled to work; there is a sufficient economic sanction, because if he does not want to work he will have to starve. Also, there is no sanction to make the employer carry out his general obligation to keep the man usefully employed. There is no reason, however, why there should not be upon the employer the sanction that, once his liability to employ a certain person is established, he shall not get rid of his obligation by a money payment. I do not see the point of the last speech, unless it was intended to provide a kind of escape clause whereby obligations under this Bill could be evaded.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I beg the Committee to consider this matter from the point of view of the human relationship between the employer and the disabled man. This Bill is not for war-time only, but for all time. I hope that it will not be very long before some little part of the freedom of decent employers and decent workpeople to agree to work together may be returned. What is the reason for the Essential Work Order? It is surely that the national emergency and need require men to be directed to particular places of work and obliged to stay there. There must be a quid pro quo. A man cannot be made to leave his employment if he is not free to leave if he wants to. There is reason to hope that that unnatural, embarrassing relationship between employers and employees is transitory. We do not want it to apply in this Bill. Where the Essential Work Order applies in a 945 factory, it will apply to disabled men who happen to be in the factory, with its merits and its demerits, but do not make it apply where it does not apply already. Good will is at the basis of this Measure. We do not want to set up a machine which will keep the disabled man watching his employer, to catch him out and bring an action against him. I think that the Attorney-General is right here, and I hope that, not only because of the merits of his argument, but because some of us are so anxious to get through the Clauses which are on the Paper to-day, hon. Members will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I think the Committee was much impressed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) had to say. I was also impressed by many things which other people have said. I still think that difficulties may be made by employers, and indeed by employees who are disabled, but I think that, with reasonable judgment and good will, they can be got over. Therefore, I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I want it to be under-stood that some of us, at least, on this side are not at all satisfied with what the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, and that after listening to the Attorney-General we are not satisfied with the conditions. This Bill was introduced to give preferential employment to a certain class, namely, disabled persons. Now some hon. Members wish to limit it to one particular section out of that class. Once we give that right to employment which we are attempting to give in this Bill, it is not good enough to say that the ordinary relationship between employer and employed will be sufficient. [Interruption.] The hon. Member would like many things: so would I, but we have admitted that under the present economic system it is not possible for all disabled persons to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the fit person. I think it is most unsatisfactory that a disabled man can be discharged by an employer who does not like the look of his face, and that, merely because the employer fills up his quota immediately, with somebody more amenable, the discharged man has only one possible remedy, as I understand it, namely, to obtain damages through the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only 946 if he can prove wrongful dismissal, even then."] Yes. Is that what we mean when we talk in such grandiloquent language about giving the returned soldiers, sailors and airmen a fair deal? This Debate has exposed a good deal of the falsity of the arguments which have been put up by hon. Members opposite, who say that they want to see that ex-Servicemen get a fair deal. If the ex-Serviceman who is disabled happens to be a trade union secretary and becomes a little inconvenient to his employer, his employer can get rid of him at once, and fill up the quota with some other disabled man who is more amenable. I am not at all satisfied.

§ The Attorney-General
I am anxious to co-operate, as we all are, in getting through these proceedings to-day, but I must repudiate the suggestion that there has been any sort of concealment or any attempt by anybody to pretend that this Bill is any more than it is. If anybody has still in mind the Tomlinson Report, on which this Bill is based, and the Second Reading speeches, he will realise that we made it as clear as we could that the solution which we were putting before Parliament was based on a quota system, and not on giving the individual disabled man a right to permanent employment or a right in excess of his ordinary contractual employment by a particular employer who happened to have taken him. There has never been any suggestion from this bench, or from the benches behind me, that that was the solution; and I honestly believe that if Members will read the Report and the speeches that were made they will agree that if they had such a misconception it was no fault of anybody here. I agree with the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that if people were going to give disabled men a sort of freehold of employment it ought to apply over the whole field, and not merely to the last man in the quota. To be logical you would have to do that. Once we get to that position, my hon. Friends will realise how impracticable that would be. We believe that this solution is far more in the interests of the disabled man than an attempt to impose by law some contract which in law cannot be good. We give disabled men collectively the right to have a certain share of the employment of the country, on ordinary terms and on ordinary conditions.

§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. and learned Friend, I am sorry to say, appears to have completely misunderstood the case which was put to the Committee. So far as I could gather, no hon. Member on this side suggested that a disabled man should be permanently employed by an employer, that he should have a freehold in employment with a particular employer. Indeed, it would be most impracticable. But the argument arose, be it noted, from an attempt to define what was meant by the words "reasonable cause."
That is the sole purpose of this argument. My right hon. Friend himself admitted that it was difficult to define precisely the meaning of these words in this relation. In these circumstances the argument developed, and it was suggested that we should try to afford to the men concerned some measure of security against the employer who would reasonably dismiss a man even though he complied with the terms of the quota arrangement. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who has always concerned himself with the position of the ex-Service men in the past and is concerned about their position in the future, is anxious to return to the happy relationships between employers and men by which, no doubt, he means——

§ Sir I. Fraser
I will tell the hon. Member what I mean.

§ Mr. Shinwell
—the right of the employer, whenever he feels disposed, to dismiss the man.

§ Sir I Fraser
Order the employee to leave whenever he does not like the employer.

§ Mr. Shinwell
The poor, unfortunate disabled man is to have the empty consolation of being put on the register.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
That is the whole point of the Bill.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I am not responsible for the Bill. My point is that it is really for the Government to say whether there is anything in the Bill or not. They present the Bill to the House on the assumption that there is some substance in it and the House give it a Second Reading. What I am about to say is not strictly relevant, but let it be noted that hon. and right hon. Members opposite all declare 948 with hon. Members on this side, that we must give a distinct preference to the disabled man who has suffered as the result of the war. But now, when it "comes down to brass tacks," and we are considering the realities of the situation and how best we can afford that measure of security for these war disabled men, so as to safeguard them from the blast of unemployment, we get these plausible, specious arguments about happy relationships between employers and men. Some of us have seen something of these happy relationships and—I say this to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who speaks usually with great sense and sensibility—in spite of the suggestion that we might impose some measure of slavery on the men, with all the desire we have to permit individual liberty, sometimes a measure of so-called slavery is preferable to being thrown on to the scrap heap. I wonder whether hon. Members realise this. It is not so present to them as it appears to us in discussing the matter from these Benches. We who can put ourselves in the places of these men must not only do the very best for them, but safeguard them, even if we have to get rid of silly traditions. We have to get rid of a lot of silly traditions in economic matters after this war is over; a lot of things will have to be consigned to the dustbin. I am in favour of safeguarding these men in matters of this kind. It is not very difficult to define the precise wording and how we would constitute the appeal board.
What is the actual position? You can in certain circumstances prosecute the employer. That is a sanction, and no doubt it will terrify the employer up to a point. It does not always follow that the sanction will be employed, because it depends upon whether the national advisory council so decides. You have to take all the circumstances into account. The matter is referred to the advisory council and then referred to the Minister. If action is taken against a recalcitrant employer, he will be penalised and will pay a fine, and the man will have the consolation of remaining on the register. Let the Parliamentary Secretary say that, if the tribunal finds for these men, they should be given a money payment. That is the thing for which the hon. Member for Oxford asks. They should give to the man, if he is dismissed, something to keep 949 him going until, as a result of being on the register, he is again absorbed into employment. If that is done, it will satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Is that fair? Will hon. Members opposite object to that? Of course not. I challenge them to get up and say that it would be unreasonable to have some money solatium for the men concerned. With all their desire to protect ex-Service men let them now say that. I shall be delighted to afford them the opportunity, and already I see some of them are now about to embark on the adventure. Now is their opportunity to say it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Messer.

§ Mr. Messer
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an undertaking that he will consider this matter. It is very evident that feeling has been aroused, and the more one thinks the matter over the more one is convinced that something should be done. It is assumed that these unemployed people would come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the same as anybody else. When a man is discharged for a reasonable cause and he has no opportunity of appealing against his dismissal, he will have his benefit stopped by the employment exchange. If he has been discharged for alleged had time-keeping or other reason he cannot draw unemployment pay. He can have the right to go before the tribunal. But what is more important is that the Attorney-General said that it is a matter between the Ministry and the employer. The man does not come into it at all. Is the Ministry, every time somebody is discharged, going to inquire into the case to see whether it is one in which they can take action? Some provision should be made for the man to appeal and to be provided with the opportunity of taking proceedings. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking in this matter or, if necessary, it should be taken to a Division.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
We have been discussing for a long time two entirely different propositions dealing with two entirely different sets of circumstances. In the first instance, the question arises as to the implication of the quota system and the sanction which is to be applied in the event of the employer not engaging his quota. That is where the question comes in of whether or not the individual is rightfully 950 or wrongfully dismissed. If the man is employing above his quota, he is at liberty to dismiss a disabled man just as he is at liberty to dismiss an able-bodied man. The disabled man has all the available resources of the able-bodied man to meet the employer. There is a sanction purely and simply to compel the employer to employ his quota of disabled people.
The question which my hon. Friend introduced into it comes in under Clause 5. It is the same thing but it has a different point. It clearly shows, and there is no attempt to burke it, that an unscrupulous employer could, by engaging six disabled men, and if five were his quota, get rid of any one of the six at any time he wished. Although it is open for that to be done, I hope that there will be a sanction, greater than any of the sanctions of the law, which will prevent that being done, and that is, the good sense of the employers of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know it may be asking a lot. I have had as much experience as anybody in this Committee on the way workers can be treated, but I say from this Box that if there is not to be a difference in the attitude both of employers and of all others in connection with this question, then this Bill has no hope of success, even if it hay compulsion behind it. After meeting a good many of the employers of the country and the representatives of trades unions I am convinced that this Bill can be made to work with the minimum of sanctions imposed, and I believe that, by pressing this point with a view to making it watertight on the lines that have been suggested by my hon. Friends, we should do more harm than good to the implementation of the objects for which the Bill has been framed.

§ Mr. Silverman
I follow what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, and everybody will give him credit for the best intentions in the world. I am sure that he is doing a good job and we all appreciate it, but it does not explain why he should miss, as I think he has done, what is being pressed on his attention. He says that we should leave it to the good sense of employers. The Bill does not do that. It imposes a sanction, with a great many difficulties in the way, and ultimately it says that, if the employer commits a breach of the law, he shall be fined or imprisoned. That sanction is in 951 the Bill. We are saying that we ought not to be content with a sanction that merely penalises the employer but should have a further sanction which confers rights on the men. There is no reason why, if an employer commits a breach of this Clause and discontinues the employment of a man who, under the law, he ought to continue to employ, he should not only be subject to a fine or other penalty but should be under the obligation of continuing the man's wages until the man finds another job. What is the matter with that? Why should the Parliamentary Secretary resist it? It is not a question of not having sanctions. You have sanctions, but you have not the proper sanctions. Give the workman the advantage. If his employment is stopped and ought to be continued, treat the employer as you treat employers under the Essential Work Order. Make him continue the man's wages until he puts himself right under his legal obligation.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I would like to ask one question. Is it not the case that the consensus of medical opinion in this country is strongly opposed to drawing any distinction between disabled persons and fit persons with regard to terms of employment, believing it not to be in the interest of the disabled person? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) appears to be contending for something which the medical profession do not consider to be of advantage to the disabled. I would point out to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that the Essential Work Order is not of universal application. What he is seeking is to alter the general law of master and servant, as it applies throughout the country. So far as this Clause is concerned, it is merely to provide what doctors, as I understand it, desire to see, namely, that the disabled person shall get a chance like the fit man in employment.

§ Mr. Silverman
And lose it next week?

§ Major Manningham-Buller
Let us remember that the disabled person is on the register and that the employment exchange can send him next day to an employer who is bound by law to fill up his quota. That gives a preferential position in regard to securing employment.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Rear-Admiral Beamish.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Are you calling my Amendment in page 6, line 41, to leave out from "person," to the end of line 4, in page 7, and insert: without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions"?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, to leave out "four," and to insert "seven."
I want to preserve the balance between people who are to get employment under this Bill and those who are to employ them. It struck me that the word "four" indicates too short a period. As hon. Members know, employers and other people are sometimes sent notices which they get four or five days later, and as the Clause reads at present such an employer would subject himself to prosecution because he had not carried out his duties. I suggest that a longer period of seven days be given.

§ The Attorney-General
We would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. We think that four days is rather a short time.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I want to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) for not having called him before.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I am not quite sure, Mr. Williams, what Amendment you are now calling me to move.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It was a mistake on my part. I should have called the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment in page 6, line 41. Obviously, I cannot go back now but if his next Amendment is accepted his previous Amendment will have to be inserted at another stage.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, to leave out from "the," to "until," in line no, and to insert: Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions that such consent has been given shall be sufficient evidence thereof. 953 I wish to thank you Mr. Williams for giving me this opportunity.
I think it will save time if I cover the two points contained in this Amendment and the previous Amendment which I had wished to move. The first point is, I think, one of some substance. When an employer commits an offence under Subsection (5) the matter has then to go before an advisory committee for them to go into it and to give the employer an opportunity of being heard and then report to the Minister. Before a prosecution can take place the Minister gives his consent. Hon. Members will see that at the end of Clause 9, it is provided that a certificate shall be produced at the subsequent trial before the court, not merely saying that the Minister has consented to the prosecution but that the matter has been before the advisory committee, and that they have heard the accused or have given him an opportunity of being heard. That certificate would seem to say that the accused had been found guilty by the advisory committee, otherwise he could not have been there. This seems to offend against the ordinary principles of law, which provide that a conviction shall not be assumed before the accused is found guilty. There is a precedent to some extent for the production of a certificate in the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, but that does not provide for the admission of any such certificate, and I have put down the Amendment to delete the words that apply to the production of a certificate. The further point is: Whose consent is necessary for the prosecution? I suggest the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, instead of the Minister.

§ The Attorney-General
First of all, on the question of there being a certificate, that is common form wherever Parliament puts in a condition precedent to prosecution. For example, the fiat of the Attorney-General must be obtained, which is quite common. You have either to have the actual fiat before the court or evidence that conditions precedent have been fulfilled. The court is entitled to be satisfied that that condition has been carried out. My hon. and gallant Friend's other point is this: If you provide that a case shall be considered by a committee before it comes to the court then the man will start at a disadvantage because the court will say, "This man has been before the 954 committee and they, at any rate, thought it was a case for prosecution." If there was anything in that one would be in a dilemma. Obviously, it is desirable that before prosecutions are launched there should be careful consideration of the matter and it would be most unfortunate if that careful consideration—which is to the advantage of the people as a whole in that it prevents unjustified prosecutions—were to be regarded as creating unfairness to the man against whom proceedings are being taken in that the tribunals would say, "He has probably done it." I will give an example with which the Committee will be familiar. Every man who appears at assizes or at the Old Bailey has been committed by a magistrate or magistrates on evidence as being a proper case to go before the judge. Although all that is known to everybody it is out of the picture. No juryman, judge or anybody else begins to say, "This man has been committed, therefore, there is probably something in it."
The fact is that the people of this country are very fair-minded. Where a man stands his trial the prosecution have to prove their case. I do not believe that the fact that a man has been committed by a magistrate prejudices him in any way before a jury. I do not believe that a prosecution which has had to have my sanction or the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions—which means that we have to give it very careful consideration—enters into anybody's mind or prejudices the man. I do not believe that the fact that there are these safeguards, which are of benefit to all, will prejudice the man in the least. I am quite certain it would not be a case for decision by myself or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is given in connection with serious offences, but in this kind of area I think it is right that the prosecution should be in the hands of the Ministry, who can be criticised as in other matters. I can see that it might be felt that the fact that the committee had previously considered the man's case might prejudice his case, but in practice I am quite sure that it would not do so. Therefore, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment and leave the Clause as it is.

Major Lloyd
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General seems to have suggested that there is little or no difference between putting a matter before 955 himself or the Director of Public Prosecutions and putting it before an advisory committee, who then send it on to the Ministry. It seems to me that there is quite a substantial difference, because everybody realises that the superior knowledge and expert ability of my right hon. and learned Friend or the Director of Public Prosecutions would not prejudice a man when he came up for trial. Everybody would be satisfied that expert knowledge had been applied to the subject. We have no guarantee that the advisory councils will proceed anything like as far. They will do their best and try to be fair, but they will not be anything like so efficient and in consequence, probably, not so fair as in the cases put by the Attorney-General.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I have listened with attention to what the Attorney-General has had to say, but I am not personally satisfied that the two cases he cited were analagous in any material respect. I would ask the Committee to consider the Price of Goods Act, 1939, where a similar procedure was adopted and a prosecution was instituted without any certificate of this sort being produced in any court which has to try the offence. I ask the Minister to consider whether he will remove this possible injustice to a fair trial, and merely make provision that the prosecution shall have to secure the consent of the Minister and leave it at that. If he can say that the weaknesses through these other conditions have been satisfied, and that there will be an absolutely fair trial, with no question of the court which tries the case misunderstanding the accused, I should be quite content.

§ The Attorney-General
Certainly.

§ Mr. J. J. Lawson
I do not understand this extreme solicitude. Why should a court in some cases be bound by the decision of a committee? It surely ought to be the decision of the court? Why cannot the ordinary court be trusted?

§ Major Manningham-Buller
The petty sessions, before which these cases come, are not courts of appeal. They are courts trying the matter for the first time. The danger, as I see it, may be remote, but it is that some people on that court may not appreciate the real significance of this 956 certificate and might then, it seems to me, come to try the case as if the matter had already been determined, as if the man had already been found guilty and all that they had to do was to impose a fine. I would like it made quite clear that if any employer who commits an offence is being tried the justices will see to it that his trial is fair.

§ Mr. Lawson
Why should there be this extreme care and why should special arrangements and provisions be made in this Bill for one kind of case when the same provision is not made in other respects? I cannot understand it.

§ Mr. Bevin
I will certainly look into the legal points raised by the Attorney-General, but I would like to bring the Committee back to the realities of the Clause. It was put in because we promised, as a Ministry, that we would not rush people off to the court. We gave a solemn undertaking to industry, on both sides, that before we decided there should be a prosecution, we would use the advisory committees, because 90 per cent. of these cases are settled without going to a court. What the employers want—and it was asked for by them for their protection—was that employers should not be rushed off to court without the matter being investigated by the joint Committee, just like the court of referees and the rest. It is a machine to try to settle, by this means of a tribunal, and I hope by compromise and adjustment, and to make sure that, when we went to the courts, we should satisfy the courts that our procedure had been carried out. We have to certify that we have actually carried out the procedure laid down in other paragraphs of the Bill. If there is some legal point about which I am not clear—because I never was a lawyer and I hate being confused and do not like confusing others—I am quite willing to look into the legal part of the Bill. But I want the Committee to understand that it was put in as one of those illogical but commonsense methods which work. That was the idea behind it.

§ Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)
I think hon. Gentlemen on the other side are really placing too much emphasis on this. After all, if this is not put in and an employer is guilty there is nothing to hinder these people from saying that the man coming before the court was before 957 the advisory committee, and using that as an argument why the man's punishment should be heavy. It is constantly done in the courts. As it is, before anybody prosecuting can say that, he must produce his evidence to the court that such and such a thing has been done, and, far from being a handicap to the employer, it is in most cases a help. In some cases, not many, under the Essential Work Order, we see where prosecution has taken place, although the advisory committee took the person's side. Here, if it is insisted on going to court, it means that the Ministry of Labour can never take action where an advisory committee has taken the view that the employer has acted properly. For my part, I think it is not a bad procedure.

§ Mr. Woods
Although a promise has now been made that this point will be looked into, I would make an appeal to the Minister regarding the advisory committees and suggest that the prosecutions under the Prices of Goods Act have not in any way been prejudiced by the fact that there have been proper inquiries.

§ Mr. Craik Henderson (Leeds, North-East)
I am rather worried by a remark made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He said that under the Essential Work Order in some cases a report was made which was adverse to prosecution being taken but that in spite of that the Minister had gone ahead.

§ Mr. Buchanan
No, the Minister has not gone ahead. What happened was that the Procurator-General in Scotland went ahead when the appeal tribunal had decided in favour of the man.

§ Mr. Craik Henderson
I wanted to be clear that, in these cases, there is no possibility, if the report of the Committee is favourable to the employer, of the Minister having power to go ahead with the prosecution. There is nothing in the Clause, apparently, to prevent that, but I take it for granted that it is the case that, if the report was favourable, no prosecution would follow.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
In view of what the Minister has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

"Above that of the able-bodied	23.8
Same as that of the able-bodied	65.7
Below that of the able-bodied	10/"