CLAUSE I.—(Power to apply Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., to certain Polish forces.)

HC Deb 10 February 1947 vol 433 cc1479-571

8 p.m.

Major Dramall (Bexley)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "death", to insert: while serving under British command. This Amendment puts into more exact terms what I think the Minister had in mind in this first Clause. There will be little doubt, at any rate on this side of the House, that we do not wish, in making these perfectly right provisions for the payment of pensions to Polish forces—to meet, as has been said on all sides of the House, the debt which we owe to very gallant and valuable Allies—to make provision for those who sustained their disablement or wounds while fighting against this country and its Allies. A certain amount of reference was made to this point in the Debate on the Second Reading, and it was rather surprising to hear certain hon. Members opposite going to some pains to deal with this point and to suggest that no exception should be taken to paying pensions to these people. If I misunderstood the hon. Members, I must apologise. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor), for instance, dealt at some length with those people who had been fighting on the side of the Germans. He said, quite correctly, that they had been pressed into it, or that many of them had been pressed into it. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was also at some pains to defend those who had found themselves forced to fight on the side of the Germans. Few hon. Members on this side of the House would deny that they had been forced into that position, but there were many people in Germany itself, and in occupied parts of Europe, who did not allow themselves to be so forced—but that is by the way.

The point I want to make, and my only point in this connection, is that no one is proposing in this Amendment to place any stigma upon those people. We are not saying that we will not have them in this country, we are not saying that we are going to punish them; we are merely saying that we are not going to pay them pensions, and that I should have thought was something so reasonable that it did not need discussing. If there had not been a certain number of comments from the other side, suggesting that one should not make any differentiation between those who had fought on the Allied side and those who had fought on the German side, it would not have been necessary to comment on it. I feel that by putting this into words, by saying that the pensions to be paid should be paid to those who suffered disablement or death, as the case may be, while fighting under British command, we are strengthening this Clause.

There are two other small points. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in summing up on the Second Reading, said that the point was already covered by paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1). It does not, in fact, cover the point. That paragraph deals with the type of people to whom a pension should be paid, and deals only with those people who were in the Polish armed forces kept under the agreement of 1940. It does not deal at all with the people who come under paragraph (c), namely, those people who have not been in those Polish armed forces but have since come into the Polish Resettlement Corps. It does not deal with the purposes for which these pensions are to be paid. The beginning of the Clause deals with the purposes for which they are to be paid, and that is the reason why the Amendment is being put in this place.

The other point is the difference between this Amendment and the following Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think it is more suitable that it should be "under British command" rather than "British or Allied command," in view of the fact that there may be some doubt. There may be people who claim that they have fought under Allied command; for instance, some of the Poles who came with General Anders' Army out of Russia might say that they fought with the Russians before they came out, and there would be no means of checking that up. I think this narrows it down and makes it safer, thus ensuring that there will be fewer debatable cases.

Mr. H. Hynd (Hackney, Central)

As the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) has said, we feel that this Amendment puts the intention of the Government into words. During the Second Reading Debate I was rather alarmed by an interjection made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) when I drew attention to the words as they now stand in the Bill, and suggested that they might have the effect of paying pensions to men who were wounded, or to dependants of men who were killed, while fighting in the German Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman interjected: Much against their will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, r2th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 416.] But later on, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was replying for the Government, he made it quite clear, when I asked whether the Bill provided a pension for the man who was wounded in the. Germany Army: The answer is: No … it is not intended to give pensions to men who were wounded otherwise than under British Command. Later on, he said: We ate not going to give pensions to men who were wounded fighting against us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 474–475.) That, I suggest, is a categorical assurance which must he embodied in the Bill, and we suggest that the wording of the Amendment now before the Committee carries out that assurance in plain terms, and will make the Bill acceptable, I should say, to the vast majority of hon. Members.

Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)

This Amendment is far too restrictive. It would exclude those very gallant Poles who, when the German Army invaded Poland, resisted with a heroism to which every one of us, I am sure, will pay tribute. A good many soldiers were wounded in that campaign, and they afterwards joined the British Forces. They came through Russia into Persia, and from Persia to the Middle East, and joined up at Tobruk with the Carpathian Brigade of General Kopanski. They fought all through the Italian campaign, and I think it would be wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under British command."] When hon. Members say, "Under British command," are they forgetting those gallant troops who fought in France, men who resisted to the very last even when the French troops surrendered, men who held out in the East of France and in Brittany, and only with extreme reluctance withdrew to this country where they carried on the campaign and fought to the last? Why exclude those gallant men?

Mr. H. Hynd

Were they not fighting under British command?

Professor Savory

No, many of them were fighting under French command. One could hardly say they were fighting under British command at that time. They had joined up in France, the army was formed in France, they were Polish brigades who had fought in France, and I am certain that they were not under British command at that time. They were under French command.

Mr. Piratin (Mile End)

As I gather it is not intended to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, I take the opportunity to speak on this Amendment. This Amendment and our Amendment are very similar, but I think the addition of "allied forces" in our Amendment is worth mentioning. While listening to the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), I was rather apprehensive about whether we are on the right track. The hon. Member wants those Poles who fought in wider spheres than would he covered by the term "British command" to be compensated. I agree with the Amendment, but I would like the Minister to consider whether he would include those men who fought under Allied Command.

I know this suggestion may sound strange coming from me, but if we are to have justice, then let us have full justice. There may be some Poles who fought in the French Army, or under French command, and who are now in this country, who would come within the proposal I make. Hon. Members will recollect that last week I opposed this Bill on Second Reading, but nevertheless, now that we are discussing the Bill in Committee, it is our duty to make constructive remarks. The men who fought in the French Army fought for the Allied cause; they may have been wounded, but not wounded while under British command. There are also cases when such men subsequently came under British command, but were already suffering from wounds incurred while fighting under French command. It is that sort of case which I would like the Minister to consider. Therefore, in addition to the Amendment which was moved so lucidly and briefly, which is a credit in this House, I would like the Minister to consider including men who fought for the Allied cause in the way I have described.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

I propose to accept the Amendment in the form moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said this was the intention of the Government in drafting the Bill. We had intended to incorporate the limitation in the scheme which the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, is empowered to make by this Bill, but it is probably better that it should be specific in the Bill, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I want to make quite clear exactly what the Amendment does. It gives a pension to a man who incurs a disability while serving with the British Forces. There may probably be not a few men who served at one time or other under German command, but who subsequently joined the British forces, and incurred a disability while serving in the British forces. If the disability was incurred while serving under British command, it will be recognised, even if the man has for some reason or other served in the German forces.

I have been asked to extend this to the forces of our Allies, and I was asked to do this in the name of justice. I think the proper word for that would be "generosity." Anyone who has served in the Army, or has been associated with people who have served in the Army and who have come forward in later years in an attempt to prove that they had a disability which was attributable to their military service, knows the difficulty there is to get that checked. There are British Army records and records of people who served under British command, but it would be impossible to check the claim of a person who said he was suffering from bronchitis or asthma which was the result of service rendered in some force of which this country has no record. We desire to do the right thing and to make clear from the first exactly the limits to which we are prepared to go. I think the words which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley has proposed enable us to define the liability we are willing to accept with exactitude, and I venture to say that it does justice to the people who have a claim on this country.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law (Kensington, South)

I wonder whether the Home Secretary could clear up one point which slightly puzzles me with regard to the Amendment. Under whose command are the Polish Resettlement Forces? Are they under British command?

Mr. Ede

The Polish Resettlement Corps is an unarmed unit of the British Army serving under those responsible for the control of the British Army.

Mr. Paget (Northampton)

I am a little worried whether the Amendment which has been accepted by the Home Secretary fulfils its object. In the case of a man who was wounded while serving under our command, and who subsequently died after he had ceased to be under our command, the words "death while serving under British command" might confine the deaths to deaths occurring while under British command. Would the words cover the case to which I have referred?

Mr. Ede

The intention is to cover that case; that is to say, where the death is attributable to war service.

Mr. Paget

Do the words do that?

Mr. Ede

I am advised that they do, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend's legal knowledge and power to interpret a Clause in a Bill, and therefore, I will have the matter examined between now and Report stage to make quite clear that the words carry out the pledge I have given.

Mr. Paget

I was only raising a doubt.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I see the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in dealing with these people, but it appears to me that the acceptance of this Amendment will give rise to considerable inequality inside the Polish Resettlement Corps and among Poles who eventually settle in, and become citizens of, this country. I think there will be disparities, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Report stage, to see whether there is some way in which the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) could he fitted in so as to enable those who have fought with our Allies, but who have never been British troops, and yet have never fought against us, should be covered.

Mr. Ede

If a Frenchman who fought in the French Army and incurred a disability while so doing comes to this country, we do not pay him a British pension. He is the responsibility of the French Government. If he has a claim to make they, if anybody, have the records by which the claim can be checked. I think that what we are proposing to do is just. A Pole who fought under French command must look, if to anybody, either to the Polish Government or to the French Government for a recognition of the disability which he incurred. I could not undertake to accept liability for the claims that might be made by people who did not fight under our command.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

We want to be quite clear about this matter. We read in the Bill: The Minister of Pensions may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a scheme for applying, in relation to the disablement or death"— and the Amendment proposes to add: while serving under British command. Subsection (1) has paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) says quite clearly: The Polish Armed Forces organised and employed under British command. By the Amendment we shall already have said that they are under British command. The point is that paragraph (b) is on a different matter.

Major Bramall

The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is one of some substance, and it will be helpful if the Home Secretary would consider whether the words, "caused while serving under Allied command" might not meet the point better.

Mr. Ede

I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for suggesting at this stage an Amendment to his own Amendment. I have already given a pledge that I will look into the matter.

Professor Savory

Does the Home Secretary really mean that as regards Frenchmen, having fought in France with the French Army, having come over here and having been incorporated over here as men to whom we promised naturalisation, who served in the French Forces, he would not take into consideration the war wounds that they received in France while they were still under French command?

Mr. Ede

I cannot think that anybody in Great Britain would expect us to incur such a liability.

Major Legge-Bourke

Surely, it would be only generous that the right hon. Gentleman should do something for those men, if only by way of approaching the French Government, in regarding what he feels the French Government should do?

Mr. Ede

I am not called upon to do that. If I naturalise a Frenchman who subsequently is taken ill as the result of wounds or exposure incurred while he served with the French Army, I do not think he has any claim upon our Minister of Pensions merely because he has become a British citizen. The logic of what I am being asked to do by hon. Gentlemen opposite would impose a burden upon us which we could not possibly check when we were called upon to assume it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 to 24.

Clause 1 confers entitlement to pension under the Royal Warrant upon a considerable number of gallant and deserving Polish citizens who served under British command, and upon certain others. The proviso, however, limits the payment of those pensions to a period of five years, whether it be a case of disablement or of death. The proviso states: Payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by Order specify. That is to say that each and every one of the Polish soldiers who qualify for pension under Subsection (1) will be in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not his pension is to terminate at the end of five years. So will the widow of a Polish soldier who is in receipt of widow's pension.

The Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, spoke as follows, when explaining the Clause: Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Ministry of Pensions all those Poles who have served in the Forces, and brings them into the pensions scheme on the same terms as Britons who similarly, unfortunately, have to come within the purview of the Ministry of Pensions. He went on: For some time this has been the case, and a protocol which was signed in 1943 ensured to the Polish troops that they should have this right. We pay these pensions to the Poles while they are in this country, but these pensions are not paid to Poles who return to Poland. If they return to Poland, quite clearly they then become the responsibility of the Polish Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 379.] The first point I put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply is, Did the protocol contain any limitation or qualification to indicate that pensions might be limited in this way? If the protocol did not contain any such limitation or qualification, it is clearly a breach of an agreement and of a pledge given to those men to limit the duration of the pensions to an initial period of five years. I have been unable to secure a copy of the protocol. I have no doubt that it can be found, and I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench have the protocol with them. I would ask them to give the Committee the precise terms of the undertaking which was given to the Polish Government in London in 1943. The Committee ought to be in a position to judge whether the terms of the Clause, with this limiting proviso, carry out the undertaking entered into in the protocol of 1943.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour came to reply to the criticisms which were made during the Second Reading Debate on this five years' limitation, he was no doubt speaking on instructions and from his brief, but the reasons which he produced for the insertion of the five years' limitation were, in my view, wholly bad. If hon. Members will turn to HANSARD'S report of the Second Reading Debate they will see the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of this five years' limitation. He said: I was also asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the pensions, and why they were limited to five years. The short point is that the pensions have been established. They have been established on very inadequate documentation, and there is some doubt as to whether or not, if British medical boards and British methods were applied, these pensions would be as large, or as small, as they are now. As a reason for limiting the pensions to five years, that is wholly bad.

The Clause confers a new right upon persons who have served in the Polish forces. These pensions will be payable by the Minister of Pensions under the Royal Warrant and every one of these cases can, and will be, reviewed by the Ministry of Pensions as soon as the Clause becomes law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

Will the right hon. Gentleman read the sentences that follow?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I am going to criticise each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's reasons. I am merely pointing out that the first reason is a wholly bad one. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. Do I carry the hon. Gentleman with me so far?

Mr. Ness Edwards

Certainly not.

Mr. Peake

I feel sure I carried the Committee with me in stating that the fact that these pensions may have been granted on medical standards which the Minister of Pensions would challenge, is no reason for placing a five year limitation upon the duration of their payment. Is there any hon. Member in any quarter of the Committee who will defend that as a good reason for a limitation?

Mr. Piratin

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the next sentence he will not defend it himself.

Mr. Peake

I am going to read the next sentence, too. The hon. Gentleman continues: In order to review this position, and, in the hope that we can get a greater degree of co-operation from the Provisional Government in Poland as well, we decided on a five-year period. We are not without hope that, some day, the Polish Government may take over these liabilities and have these men back in Poland. And then, a little lower down, after an interruption by myself, the hon. Gentleman went on to say: What I said was that we did not want to tie ourselves for ever to this liability if there was a chance, through negotiations, of getting the Polish Government to accept the liability. Does anybody really think that we are more, or less, likely to secure a concession from the present Government of Poland if we are in a position to say to them, "This ought to be your liability. At any rate, to some extent, these poor men are only going to get a pension from us for five years, and therefore, you should be moved by considerations of pity and charity to contribute."

Mr. H. Hynd

It may not be the present Government of Poland.

Mr. Peake

I am speaking of any Government of Poland. Does anybody really think that our hand will be strengthened in an international negotiation because we have, under a domestic Act of Parliament of our own, limited our liability in this way? If anybody thinks that, let them look at the next statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. He immediately went on to say: I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention, if circumstances remain as they are, of depriving these men if their pensions at the end of five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, cols. 470–475.] In fact, he was saying if the present, of any future, Government of Poland declined to make any contribution, of course we shall go on paying these pensions. What is the position then when the British Government approach the Polish Government and say, "Please contribute to these pensions. They are only going on for five years"? Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an unqualified assurance to the House of Commons that they would be continued indefinitely if the Polish Government did not contribute. We are getting into a ridiculous position. It is, surely, much better to give these men the pensions to which they are entitled and not to submit them to any degree of uncertainty as to whether these pensions will continue in payment or will be withdrawn.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, so far as I know. It is very interesting, but what occurs to me is that it is out of Order. If the effects of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is moving is to make pensions payable as of right for a longer period than five years, then the effect of that must be to increase the charge. Surely, that would be out of Order?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

It is perfectly true that if this Amendment is carried it will increase the charge, but it is within the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Peake

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I might say that the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had occurred to me before I moved this Amendment. I do, however, say that it does seem to me to be rather mean and niggardly, considering how great is our obligation to these Polish soldiers, who fought for us throughout the war, and fought with the utmost gallantry, to place in an Act of Parliament a provision that their pensions may be limited to five years.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling)

The right hon. Gentleman, in the first part of his speech, asked me if I could tell him the terms of the agreement in the Protocol, of which he had tried to obtain a copy and had not been successful. I will read out the two articles concerned, Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 states: If the disablement on death of a person is the insult of his service as a member of the Polish Armed Forces during the period of the present war he and his dependants shall, subject to Article 5 hereof, be eligible during the present war for the award of pensions and other benefits in respect of his disablement or death similar to those which would be granted under the War Pensions instruments administered by the British Minister of Pensions with reference to members of the military, naval and air forces as therein defined in respect of the disablement or death in the like circumstances as a member of His Majesty's Armed Forces of corresponding rank and on the same conditions as would be applicable under those instruments. Article 3 states: Awards under the foregoing provisions of this Protocol shall be the liability of the Government of the Polish Republic, but the Government of the United Kingdom guarantee to provide such funds as may be necessary to enable the Government of the Polish Republic to meet their liability hereunder, until the general suspension of hostilities between the United Kingdom and Poland on the one hand and Germany on the other, and for so long thereafter as may be mutually agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland. That was carried out for a number of years during the war by the Polish representatives in this country, assisted by two people from my Department. When that Government finished, the payments were, and are being, carried on up to the present time by an Interim Treasury Committee, and that is the situation at the moment until we get this Bill.

The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised is the question of the five years. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman a good guarantee that there is no intention of stopping these people's pensions at the end of five years. All that this Clause is seeking to do is to have the ability to reconsider this in five years' time if certain things happen. If the conditions remain the same, then the pensions will go on just the same. There is no desire or intention to do any harm whatever to these people. Let me put it in this way. The acceptance of the obligation to pay pensions to mem- bers of the Polish armed forces who served under British command will involve a substantial expenditure by the British Government. The sum to be provided in 1947 will be of the order of £600,000, and this expenditure, though on a diminishing scale, would continue for the next 40 or 50 years. When the Pensions Protocol was negotiated in 1943, it was anticipated that, after the war, the liability would no longer fall on this country, and that any pensions would be paid by the Polish Government of the day. At the present time, there is no possibility of this happening, and the British Government are proposing to continue the payment of pensions to those who have deserved pensions unless they return to Poland.

No one can anticipate with accuracy what the future may hold, and the object of those words is to leave the future position open, and to provide that the whole matter shall be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the facts as they then are. If circumstances arise which enable the British taxpayer to be relieved of this obligation, hon. Members will, I think, agree that advantage should be taken of it. I can, however, tell hon. Members that there is no intention of just bringing the scheme to at end at the end of five years. If to do this would mean leaving the Poles or the Polish widows concerned high and dry, then the scheme will be extended, and the British Government will continue payment of the pensions. I suggest to hon. Members that we should be unwise to delete the words because we should thereby tie the hands of the Government of the day and possibly prevent them relieving the British taxpayer of a liability which someone else might be prepared to shoulder.

Mr. Law

I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment. I must say that I am not entirely convinced by the general line of argument which he has put forward. Indeed, his main argument is still that it does not matter having in the Bill a limitation of five years on these pensions because, unless circumstances have changed, there is no intention whatever of depriving any of these beneficiaries of their pensions. I think that, in the main, was the right hon. Gentleman's contention. But in what respect could circumstances change in such a way that this five-year limitation becomes essential or even desirable? The argument, as I understand it, is that some future Polish Government might be persuaded to take over this liability if they knew that the payments in respect of it had come to an end. I understood that that was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, just as it was the gist of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument the other night. But that argument really only seems to be valid if these unfortunate beneficiaries are to be used as a kind of lever with which to influence some future Polish Government. Unless His Majesty's Government are going to say to a Polish Government that, unless they accept this liability, these people are going to suffer—and the right hon. Gentleman has expressly declared that they are not going to say that—I cannot see how this limitation will in any way influence a favourable decision on the part of a future Polish Government.

With regard to the second point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and which was, I think, also made by the right hon. Gentleman just now, that it would be convenient to review these pensions at the end of five years because they may have been established on insufficient documentation, and so on, which may very well be the case, I still cannot see why it is necessary to put this limitation of time into the Bill. I may be wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am, but I understand that it is possible under the Royal Warrant to review pensions if the degree of disability changes, or if conditions are no longer what they were or appeared to be at the time the pensions were granted. Therefore, I should have thought that, even without this limitation, the right hon. Gentleman would still have had the power to review these pensions at any time, if they appeared either too great or too small, and not merely after an interval of five years. I cannot see what is gained by keeping this limitation of five years in the Bill.

I can see that it does create among the beneficiaries a condition of uncertainty which will increase as the end of the five years approaches, and I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government should want to create that feeling of uncertainty. We on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I think we would very much like him to agree to reconsider this matter.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Linstead (Putney)

I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) has said, because I cannot help feeling that what the Minister has said is at variance with the Bill. The Minister has stated that it is intended to carry on these pensions unless circumstances change. What the Bill says is that it is intended to stop these pensions unless circumstances change. The whole emphasis in the Bill is placed on the probable stoppage at the end of five years instead of, as the Minister has said, being put on their continuation. Generosity has a habit of cooling as time passes and memories fail. I would have thought that everything the Government desire to achieve could be achieved by a scheme, which could be properly revisable at intervals, to enshrine in the Bill this definite limitation. I hope the Minister will have another look at this point and see whether he can get the wording in the Bill to correspond more closely with the undertakings given to the Committee.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

Two grounds were put forward by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the Second Reading Debate for the incorporation in the Bill of this five years' limitation. One was that he was not entirely satisfied with the present system of documentation and so on, and he was not sure whether the pensions at present being paid might in some cases be too large or too small. If that is so, that is no argument for continuing for five years the pensions which may be too large or too small, and then revising them at the end of the five years. If there is this serious doubt as to whether the machinery is working satisfactorily, obviously, it should be revised at once. I was surprised to learn that before these pensions were agreed upon the matter went before a committee upon which two of the officials from the Ministry of Pensions were represented.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

They advised.

Mr. Molson

Clearly, there is no justification at all for putting the shadow of doubt fox the future over everybody, including the widows. I do not mention widows for the purpose of making any special appeal on their behalf although in their case it is difficult to take into account the uncertainty and to start off in a new way of life, which may be possible in the case of the disabled man. There must be no case at all for this shadow of doubt because the administrative machinery for settling pensions may have been unsatisfactory. I do not wish to say anything more than has already been said on this side of the Committee about the argument that the inclusion of this period of time will in some way strengthen the hands of the Government in negotiating with the Provisional Government in Poland. The fact that these assurances have been so explicitly given that if there is obstinacy on their part this Government will underwrite these liabilities to all those who have been disabled, will clearly mean that no humanitarian pressure can be brought to bear upon them. It means that if they refuse to undertake the responsibility themselves, the British taxpayer will do so.

That has now definitely been settled, and, therefore, it cannot be used as an argument. I find that in the financial agreement between the United Kingdom and Poland we entirely reserve our right upon this matter. If it is possible for us, by diplomatic or other means, to bring pressure to bear upon them we are still able to do so. But I would appeal to the Government upon this point. In the Bill, which is broadly and generously conceived, there is something rather unworthy in having a special proviso in order to bring pressure to bear, in some way or other, upon the Government of Poland by arousing doubts and anxieties in the minds of those to whom we are prepared to give pensions.

Mr. Michael Astor (Surrey, Eastern)

I was quite unable to follow the argument of the Minister of Pensions in this matter. He referred to changed circumstances and conditions in the future which may affect the matter and bring this Clause under review. But whatever the circumstances may be, these Poles can only belong to one of three categories. They will either be British subjects—or a large proportion of them will be—in which case their position is perfectly clear, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman; or they will be the subjects of a foreign country, in which case the matter of liability for pensions is equally clear; or they will be residents in this country, and not British subjects, in which case we have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman as to their prospects. There is one fact which is absolutely certain, and that is that a large number of these men will be absorbed into the life of the country, whether or not they are naturalised. The purpose of any Clause or any part of a Clause in this Bill must be to aim at instilling the maximum degree of confidence and desire for co-operation among the Poles in the resettlement corps. I must admit that I think the niggardly attitude which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to this Amendment will do nothing to achieve this purpose, if the Government really wish to derive the maximum benefit from the Bill as a whole.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than one minute, and perhaps less than that. In view of the repeated, emphatic and unanimous dissatisfaction of hon. and right hon. Members opposite with the perfectly plain undertaking given by the Government not to discontinue the payment of these pensions at the end of five years, perhaps I might prevail on my right hon. Friend to withdraw the undertaking. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members opposite will then be better satisfied.

Mr. Sutcliffe (Royton)

That last remark by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was, I think, quite uncalled for. What we on this side of the Committee say is, that the Minister has not gone anything like far enough.

Mr. S. Silverman

He has given the undertaking.

Mr. Sutcliffe

That is not satisfactory to us. The only solution of this problem which would be satisfactory to us would be the acceptance of our Amendment. I must say, I was disappointed with, and rather surprised at, the fact that the Minister of Pensions was not able to accept the Amendment. I would like to add a few words to support the very sincere appeals which have been made to him from this side of the Committee to reconsider the position. This proviso in the Bill is wholly unworthy of it, and goes a long way to spoil what is an otherwise very good Bill. I think we are agreed on all sides of the Committee that this Bill goes a long way to reward the wonderful services which the Poles gave to this country, and, indeed, to the whole world during the war, when they fought with such great distinction. There is no doubt at all about that. But the refusal of the Government to accept our Amendment will cause anxiety to a very large number of men, and needless anxiety as the years roll on. There will not be perhaps immediate anxiety; but as the five years get nearer to their end the anxiety will undoubtedly increase.

It does seem a great pity that that should be allowed to be the case. It may even result in undue pressure being put upon them to return to Poland, through their fear that they will lose their pensions after the five years. That is a very possible consequence which may follow the anxiety which will be caused. It does seem quite wrong that this period of a war pension should be limited to five years, and then continued only at the discretion of the Government; and, in view of all that has been said, and the facts that I have tried to put again before the Government, I do beg the Minister to say that he will, at any rate, look at this again between now and the Report stage, with a view to coming to a different decision from that at which he has arrived, if he can find it at all possible to do so.

Professor Savory

I should just like to confirm what my hon. Friends have said on this side of the House. I have gone over this Bill very carefully with some of these gallant Poles. They have asked me to interpret its very obscure language, and I have done my best. I did try to remove their impression with regard to this period of five years, because it does appear to them a most unfortunate prospect. I tried to assure them it would be considered, but I was not able to remove their apprehension. I cannot conceive why, in view of the pledge given by the Minister, this should not be put here in the Bill in black and white. I can conceive a situation arising, when we should have a less generous Minister than the present Minister of Pensions or a less broad-minded Home Secretary; and I do feel that we want some guarantee. I cannot conceive that we can grudge giving this guarantee to the men who stormed the Falaise Gap, to the men who fought in that marvellous parachute corps at Arnhem, to the men who fought for us in Norway when our own troops were defeated. I appeal to the generosity of the Government. Can they refuse to give these men a definite assurance that their pensions will be continued for more than just the beggarly period of five years?

Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)

The Minister has said that it is not the intention that these pensions are to be discontinued at the end of five years, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says they shall he discontinued. [HON. MEMBERS:"No.''] I will read what it says in the proviso in Clause 1: provided that payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act, or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by order specify … That is a definite statement that these pensions will be continued: but they may equally not be continued under this Clause; and there is no doubt whatever that, in the minds of the Poles themselves, there is considerable anxiety about this Clause.

When I hear all the jeers and laughter of Members of the Socialist Party, when the great services rendered by the Poles to this country and the Allies in general are mentioned, I am amazed; and I am ashamed to think that any body of people in this country would deride the great services of the Poles, or would do anything to lower what we can and should do for the Poles to ensure their future. There is no doubt that this Clause as it stands may indirectly exert pressure on the Poles.

Mrs. Leah Manning (Epping)

Why not?

9 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

Because we have pledged ourselves up to the hilt not to do anything to force the Poles to go back to Poland, and if there is indirect pressure, we are going back on our pledge. We all hope that circumstances may change in Poland, and that this Communist Government, set up under the elections, may not exist in five years' time. We all wish to see a real democratic government set up, but that may not happen, and as it may not happen, I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter, and will not lay down a period of five years for the payment of these pensions, but will ensure that they will continue.

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) spoke in most impassioned tones of how the Poles fought hard here and there, but many of the hard fighting Poles have gone back to Poland, and he has not one thought for them. His consideration is only for the reactionary Poles in this country.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

Who are the reactionary Poles?

Wing-Commander Millington (Chelmsford)

I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I think it is important that one or two words should be said by someone who has tried to retain a slight sense of balance in this matter. Why is it that hon. Members opposite do not talk about any of our other Allies in the recent war? They do not lay this great emphasis on the gallantry—

Mr. Paget

On a point of Order. Have any of the last four speeches been relevant to this Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman

To admit that would imply a criticism of my own chairmanship. Suffice it to say they have been on the borderline.

Wing-Commander Millington

I am certain that most people in this country would like to feel that the Poles who are staying here could shed, within a short period of time, some of the prejudices they have in their minds, and could reconcile themselves with the rest of their compatriots and go home. I am convinced it is most desirable we should do nothing by legislation which will tie these people to this country. We have an assurance from the Government that if the conditions stay the same and the Poles in this country are still of the same outlook, these men will not lose the pensions provided for under this Measure. I would resist any attempt being made, particularly by way of legislation, to bind the Poles and makes less possible a reconciliation with their compatriots. I consider them to be completely misguided in their social and administrative outlook.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

In spite of what has been said, I think that hon. Members opposite are making more of this than they should. I am sure that their fears are exaggerated. I was rather surprised that one or two Members opposite should speak of meanness. The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) said that we were niggardly. When we are taking over these people, putting them on exactly the same basis of pay and standards as our own people, paying them up to £600,000 a year, probably—and may be some of it will go on for 40 or 50 years—to say that we are guilty of niggardliness is too much—

Mr. Astor

I am not referring to the Bill; I am referring to the particular Clause with which we are dealing.

Mr. Paling

The hon. Member cannot separate the Clause from the Bill.

Mr. Astor

That is exactly what the Amendment is trying to do.

Mr. Paling

The hon. Member must accept the Bill as it is. It has been said that we want to use this question as a bargaining power with the Poles. It is not in our minds to do anything of the kind. We have no intention of treating them worse than our own people, and we do not think we are asking too much, in the circumstances, that we should be allowed to look at this matter again to see whether it needs any alteration.

Mr. Peake

The right hon. Gentleman, most courteously in response to my request, read out the terms of the Protocol of 1943. I followed what he said as closely as I could but, not having a copy of the document, I have not given it detailed study. But, as I interpret the Protocol, under Article 2 we undertake the primary liability for payment of these pensions. Under Article 3, we reserve the right of recourse against the Polish Government after the close of hostilities. I have here a copy of Anglo-Polish Financial Agreement of June last year, which has not yet been ratified, in which the attitude of the British Government on the question of recourse against the Polish Government is made quite clear: It says: The Government of the United Kingdom will leave in abeyance at present the question of the repayment of the military credits amounting to a further £47½ million, but reserve their right to re-open discussion on this question. We made it clear that we would keep our rights open to proceed under the Protocol against the Polish Government, at a later stage, with our claims in respect of these pensions. We say, about the five year limitation, that if the assurances given by His Majesty's Government are accepted—and I am sure they will be by the Polish soldiers—they will equally be accepted by the Polish Government. The right hon. Gentleman has given an unqualified assurance that these pensions will not be terminated at the end of five years. The Polish Government will accept that undertaking, just as the Polish soldiers wilt do, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues gain nothing whatever in bargaining power vis-a-vis the Polish Government by putting the five year limitation into the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman

rose—

Mr. Peake

I will not be interrupted. We must get on. The five year limitation in the Bill forms a Statute. The right hon. Gentleman knows that small disability pensions are sometimes commuted for small lump sums—

Mr. Wilfred Paling

They used to be.

Mr. Peake

I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has power to commute low rate disability pensions for lump sums. When these cases come before the pensions appeal tribunals they will look, not to undertakings given in the House by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the terms of the Statute to find out what is the entitlement of the injured soldier. I say, therefore, that on grounds of general policy, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman gives this assurance, and seeing that that assurance will undoubtedly be honoured, it would be much simpler to make his assurance correspond with the Statute and take this proviso out of the Bill. I think that all arguments have been exhausted on this subject, and I am sorry that I have failed to make any impression on hon. Members opposite, so let us now proceed to a Division.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 72.

Division No. 88.]	AYES.	[9.11 p.m.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, Scuth)	Goldrick, W.	Gooch, E. G.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)	Collindridge, F.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Collins, V J.	Grey, C F.
Anderson, A (Motherwell)	Comyns, Dr L.	Grierson, E.
Attewell, H. C.	Cook, T. F.	Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Austin, H Lewis	Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)	Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Awbery, S. S.	Corvedale, Viscount	Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Ayles, W H.	Cove, W. G.	Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.	Davies, Edward (Burslem)	Hardy, E. A.
Bacon, Miss A	Davies, Ernest (Enfield)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Baird, J	Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Balfour, A	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Barstow, P. G.	Deer, G.	Holman, P.
Bechervaise, A. E.	Delargy, H. J.	Hoy, J.
Belcher, J W	Diamond, J.	Hubbard, T.
Berry, H.	Debbie, W.	Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Beswick. F.	Donovan, T.	Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Bing, G H. C.	Driberg, T. E. N.	Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Binns, J.	Dumpleton, C. W.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Blackburn, A. R.	Dye, S.	Irving, W. J
Blenkinsop, A.	Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Blyton, W R.	Edelman, M.	Janner, B.
Boardman, H	Edwards, John (Blackburn)	Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.	Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)	Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)	Jones, P. Astertey (Hitchin)
Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)	Evans, E. (Lowestoft)	Keenan, W.
Braddock, T (Mitcham)	Evans, John (Ogmore)	Kendall, W. D.
Braman, Major E. A.	Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)	Kenyon, C.
Brook, D (Halifax)	Fairhurst, F.	Kinley, J.
Brooks, T J (Rothwell)	Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)	Lee, F. (Hulme)
Brown, George (Belper)	Follick, M.	Levy, B. W
Brown, T J (Ince)	Foot, M M.	Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.	Fraser, T. (Hamilton)	Lipson, D. L.
Buchanan. G	Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Burden, T W	Gaitskell, H. T. N.	Longden, F.
Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)	Gallacher, W.	McAllister, G.
Byers, Frank	Ganley, Mrs. C. S.	Mack, J. D
Castle, Mrs. B A.	George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)	Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull; N.W.)
Chamberlain, R. A.	Gibbins, J.	McLeavy, F.
Champion, A. J.	Gibson, C. W.	MacMillan. M. K. (Western Isles)
Chater, D.	Gilzean, A.	Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Cobb, F. A.	Glanville, J. E. (Consett)	Mathers, G.
Mayhew, C. P.	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Friedland, H. M.	Randall, H. E.	Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mellish, R. J.	Rees-Williams, D. R.	Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Messer, F.	Reeves, J.	Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Middleton, Mrs. L.	Reid, T. (Swindon)	Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Mikardo, Ian.	Rhodes, H.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.	Ridealgh, Mrs. M.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)
Mitchison, G. R.	Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)	Tiffany, S.
Moody, A. S.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Titterington, M. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)	Tolley, L.
Morley, R.	Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)	Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)	Rogers, G. H. R.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Mort, D L	Ross, William (Kilmarnock)	Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Moyle, A.	Royle, C.	Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Murray, J. D.	Shacklelon, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.	Viant, S. P.
Naylor, T. E.	Sharp, Granville	Walker, G. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)	Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)	Wallace, G. O. (Chislehurst)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)	Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)	Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Warbey, W. N.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)	Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.	Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Neel-Buxton, Lady	Silverman, J. (Erdington)	West, D. G.
O'Brien, T.	Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)	Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Oldfield, W. H.	Simmons, C. J.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Oliver, G. H.	Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.	Wigg Col. G. E.
Orbach, M.	Skinnard, F. W.	Wilkes, L.
Paget, R. T.	Smith, C. (Colchester)	Wilkins, W. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth).	Smith. Ellis (Stoke)	Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Palmer, A. M. F.	Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)	Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Pargiter, G. A.	Soskice, Maj. Sir F.	Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Parkin, B. T.	Sparks, J. A.	Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)	Stamford, W.	Willis, E.
Paton, J. (Norwich)	Steele, T.	Woodburn, A.
Pearson, A.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Wyatt, W.
Piratin, P.	Stubbs, A. E.	Yates, V. F.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)	Swingler, S.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)	Sylvester, G. O.	Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Porter, G. (Leeds)	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Proctor, W. T.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES;
		Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.	Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)	Pitman, I. J.
Astor, Hon. M.	Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)	Raikes, H V.
Baldwin, A. E.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Ramsay, Maj. S.
Birch, Nigel	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)	Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Ropner, Col. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Keeling, E. H.	Savory, Prof. D. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Challen, C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Smithers, Sir W.
Clarke, Col. R. S.	Linstead, H. N.	Snadden, W. M.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Spence, H. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Low, Brig. A. R. W.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Lucas, Major Sir J.	Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Cuthbert, W. N.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.	Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)
Darling, Sir W. Y.	Maclay, Hon. J. S.	Studholme, H. G.
Digby, S. W.	Manningham-Buller, R. E.	Sutcliffe, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Marlowe, A. A. H.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Drayson, G. B.	Marsden, Capt. A.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Marshall, D. (Bodmin)	Vane, W. M. F.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)	Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)	Ward, Hon. G. R.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)	Molson, A. H. E.	Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Gage, C.	Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)	White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.	Neven-Spence, Sir B.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gammans, L. D.	Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.	Nutting, Anthony	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grimston, R. V.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Mr. Drewe and
		Lieut.-Colonel Thorp

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Piratin

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "exceptions," to the end of the Subsection.

May I point out what this would mean? Subsection (3) of Clause 1 reads as follows: Provisions of the said Royal Warrant applied by the scheme may be applied with modirications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions … We desire that the Subsection should end there. The remainder of the Subsection reads: … and the scheme shall contain provision for securing that no payment shall be made thereunder to or in respect of any person as to whom the Minister of Pensions is satisfied that he is resident in Poland. The purport of this is that that should any Polish person in this country desire in future years to emigrate abroad he will retain the pension, but if he desires to return to the country of his birth he will not receive it. In this connection the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said on 12th February with regard to the Poles in this country: They will be treated in exactly the same way as British soldiers. If they emigrate they will take with them the same rates as disabled British soldiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 474.] In that sense, I think this is entirely satisfactory. The case for my Amendment is, therefore, clear cut and I hope the Committee will accept it. Let us examine it. Hon. Members on all sides have said at one time or another that in time to come Poles who are now resident here will seize their opportunity of going back to Poland. Members of the Opposition have qualified this by saying that it would be only in circumstances of a different type of Government in that country, but we cannot foresee the future and, however that may be, we all really believe that a Pole should be in Poland however and whenever it may be.

We have also heard statements from different Ministers with regard to the encouragement which is being given to the Poles in this country to return to Poland and the efforts which are being made to counteract the propaganda which takes place in the Polish Army to the opposite effect. But surely the present arrangement is in conflict with such statements? Not only are we to provide pensions for Poles in this country—subject to the five years' proviso—but also, when the five years have expired, any Pole who leaves this country and goes to Canada, for example, will be rewarded, as if it were a merit, in that he will continue to receive his pension. On the other hand, if he decides to return to Poland he will not continue to receive the pension. There may be hon. Members of this Committee who will argue that the Polish Government should be responsible—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Piratin

In that case may I recall to hon. Members who were present at the time—as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was not—that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said with regard to a question which was being raised on an earlier Amendment in connection with Poles who had served in the Allied Forces? The right hon. Gentleman said that if a Frenchman served in the French Forces and came to this country after having received an injury in the course of that service, we could not be expected to be responsible for giving him a pension. Since the Amendment in question has been accepted, hon. Members presumably agree that since the man had served in the French Forces the French Government were, in fact, responsible. That argument can be extended here—

Major Bramall

Would the hon. Member not agree that the correct analogy is that of a British soldier returning to Britain after having served abroad?

Mr. Piratin

My point still remains. These Poles served under British command—

Hon. Members

But in the Polish Forces.

Mr. Piratin

But under British command. I am only quoting what the Home Secretary said about an hour ago, and I think I have it right. In this case they served under British command—

Hon. Members

In the Polish Forces.

Mr. Piratin

But under British command—

Mr. S. Silverman

As I understood the arrangements made during the war, the whole of the British Forces who fought from D-day onwards through France and Germany fought under the command of General Eisenhower. Would the hon. Gentleman say that that makes the American Government responsible for them?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Piratin

I have nothing to answer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wants to joke with me across the Floor, he is at liberty to do so—

Mr. S. Silverman

It is not a joke.

Mr. Piratin

I ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and some other hon. Members who seem to agree with him to read the first Amendment the Home Secretary accepted, which contained the words: While serving under British command. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did not sec fit to raise the question of the United States then. The questions are identical. These people were under British command. All I am asking is that Poles in this country who are about to receive pensions as the result of wounds inflicted or sickness incurred while fighting under British command should be entitled to receive that pension. I do not see the purpose of the intervention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne accepts that if a Pole goes to Canada—I take it he accepts it—he is entitled to his pension. If that is accepted, all I ask is that if the Pole returns to Poland he should continue to receive his pension. That is the purport of my argument, which I believe to be a strong one.

I am waiting to hear what the Minister will say, but I hope that other hon. Members of the Committee will support my Amendment. I am not exactly longing for or going on my knees for such support, but I am particularly interested to see whether hon. Members opposite will support it. I would recall what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said earlier in an intervention. The argument is logical. There may be some administrative twist to it with which the Minister will admonish me in due course. If hon. Members opposite are so generously inclined towards the Poles who desire to stay in this country, they should extend that generosity to Poles who go back to Poland. I hope to receive support from some parts of the Committee even if it comes from the other side.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), if he will allow me to call him so, will not think I am making a joke about this. He has made a perfectly serious argument. I have listened to it, but there seems to be just no force at all in what he said and his contention is based on a complete misapprehension of what the Bill is about. This Bill is intended to secure that this country shall take financial responsibility for cases for which normally we would not be responsible at all; that we should take upon ourselves the responsibility of paying pensions to soldiers wounded in a foreign army. That is what we are doing, and it is an unprecedented thing to do. I think it is a right thing to do in the special circumstances, but it is paying the pensions of soldiers who belong to a foreign army, and we are doing it because we believe that, in the special circumstances which have arisen, we cannot compel them to go back to the country whose responsibility they actually are. It is true that we say we will only take that responsibility while they remain members of a foreign force under British command, but that is for a very good reason of which my hon. Friend approves. It is in order to make certain that soldiers of the Polish forces, or a Polish force serving under a German command against us or against our Allies on the East, should not benefit by this extraordinary Measure.

Then we go further, and say we will not only pay him that pension while he lives here, but we will pay him that pension if he goes anywhere else in the world with one exception, and the exception is if he returns to his own country. But if he returns to his own country, he ceases to be a member of the class for whom this Bill is being passed. It is being passed for the benefit of those members of the Polish force under British command who cannot go back to their country. If we were to pay the pensions of those who can go back to their country, we would have to pay the pensions, in fairness and logic, of all those Poles who never left Poland at all. [Laughter.] Certainly, that would be the inevitable consequence. If you take upon yourself the onus of paying the pensions of people who belong to foreign forces merely because they were allied with you, or with a force under your command, then there is no reason in the world why we should not accept that for everybody. It might apply to a great many other countries besides Poland. All I am trying to show the hon. Member is that the exception which is made here is a necessary and logical exception because, in that case, you would go outside the class of people we are intending to protect by this legislation, and I should have thought that was a perfectly fair and simple point.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

I think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) had in his mind a rather narrow point when moving this Amendment, namely, the point that if a Pole here gets a pension, and then goes back to Poland, it is stopped in certain circumstances, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would be wider than that. It would include a lot of other people also, particularly women. I will give him some details. There are still resident in Poland a considerable number of widows whose husbands were killed whilst fighting under British command. As regards the men themselves, some 60,000 Poles have left the United Kingdom, the bulk of them for Poland. It is, moreover, held that ultimately many more will also return. Both these widows and disabled men must look to their own Government for pension Not only would any other course be unreasonable on merits, but for the British Government to accept any liability in respect of them would place a substantial burden on the British Exchequer, and would create really insuperable administrative problems.

No definite information as to numbers is available, but the number of Poles killed while serving with the British command was over 7,000. In addition, a number would have died of disease. The number of widows resident in Poland may be extensive. No information is available as to the proportion of those men who have returned to Poland who are suffering from some disability due to their war service. But if the proportion were only of the order of 5 to 10 per cent., the total numbers involved would be substantial. Now I come to the narrower point of the man who decides to go back. It is intended, if he decides to go back to Poland, that his pension here should cease. We propose in that case to give him 26 weeks pension payment as a lump sum. But, if he wishes to go back to Poland, he cannot expect his pension to be paid from the British Exchequer.

Mr. Gallacher

It may have been better to have extended the Amendment to make it read that pensions would be paid until proper arrangements can be made with the Polish Government. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation for these brave fighters, whom hon. Members opposite are very anxious to bring to our attention. A man may have lost an arm, or an arm and a leg, or both his arms, or he may be blind, but he may always desire to get back to his own country. Everyone understands the great difficulties that exist in Poland. I would like to encourage him to go back.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does not the hon. Member agree that the very best inducement the Polish Government could give such a man to persuade him to return, would be to offer to pay his pension when he returns? Does the hon. Member think it would be any advantage to the Polish State to have a lot of British military pensioners?

Mr. Gallacher

I quite agree that it would be desirable for the Polish Government to help as far as they can, but, as has been remarked, Poland was left in a devastated condition. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have spoken so much of the brave and gallant Pole, that one would have thought the war was won by the brave and gallant Pole. If these gallant fellows, broken in body, blinded, crippled, go back to their own country, are they to be no further concern of ours? We know that Polish officers in this country, as a consequence of conditions which obtained before the war, when there was a military caste there, had Fascist ideas. But are we to say that whatever the condition of these people desiring to go back to their own country, in a state of terrible poverty, where the hardest and most conscientious work must be done, even while terrorists with contacts in London are trying to sabotage reconstruction—are we to say that as soon as these men, the men who have fought under British Command, and who fought at Falaise Gap, as the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) said, go from these shores they will be forgotten completely? I only wish these Polish officers who are here could be transported to Northern Ireland. It would not be long before they realised that the hon. Member for Queen's University and his friends were their worst possible enemies. I hope some consideration will be given by the Government to these men who have given loyal and gallant service, and that they will be able to go back to their awn country, and will be given conditions in which they can earn their own livelihood.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Law

I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after "Treasury," to insert: in order to bring the scheme or any substituted scheme made under this Subsection into conformity with any Royal Warrant that may be issued. The point we are seeking to make on this Amendment is very simple. It is common ground throughout the Committee that the purpose of this Clause is to ensure that so far as pensions for disablement and death for the Armed Forces are concerned, the Poles shall be treated in the same way as if they had been members of the British Forces. It seems to us that Subsection (4) differentiates between the Polish forces and the British forces, and that because of that differentiation, the purpose of this Clause is largely defeated, or may be defeated, and that the intention of the House, when it gave the Bill its Second Reading, might also possibly be defeated. The distinction between what is proposed here and what is proposed for members of our own forces is that under this Bill it is open to the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, to amend the scheme as it applies to the Polish forces, and to produce an entirely new scheme.

I suggest to the Minister and to the Committee that there are three possible reasons why the Minister, with or without the consent of the Treasury, might wish to amend the scheme. In the first place, he might wish to do so in order to place the Poles in a less favourable position than they would occupy if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. In the second place, he might wish to place the Polish forces in a more favourable position than they would be if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. The only other reason I can see why he might wish to amend the scheme is in order to bring it into line with any amendment which there might be in the Royal Warrant. If that is the intention—I cannot see that there can be any other intention which the Minister might have—I suggest to the Minister that it would be as well to state that intention in the Bill. That is what, in effect, our Amendment proposes.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am informed that any provision seeking to do what the Amendment proposes would run counter to Subsection (3) of this Clause, which provides specifically that the Royal Warrant may he applied with modifications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions, …. The effect of the Amendment would seem to be that while the original scheme may contain modifications of the Royal Warrant, any subsequent new provisions would have to apply automatically. We propose to do certain things, one of which concerns the onus of proof. We cannot allow that to stay. It is impossible to work it in a good many cases which we shall have to decide. There will be in some cases, perhaps, no papers whatever, no information of any kind, and certainly no information of the prewar history of these people, all of which considerations are weighed in the balance very much in this country in the decision a3 to entitlement. That is clearly one thing we cannot do.

9.45 p.m.

There is another matter too which came up in the courts and which we have accepted as a compelling presumption, which means that if a man—or a woman for that matter—went into the Services A.1 physically and came out, invalided or discharged, something less or worse than A.', then there is a compelling presumption in his or her favour that the worsening of the condition is due to war service. In the circumstances of the Poles, it would be impossible to accept a condition like that, and it is our intention to deal with the Poles on the evidence, such as it is, that is available, to deal generously too, I hope. Clearly we cannot accept this Amendment. If we put this limitation in it would mean that all those things would grow.

Mr. Law

In the light of the explanation which the Minister has just given, I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, but before I do so I would like to suggest to the Minister that in withdrawing our Amendment we set him an example which he might well follow by accepting our next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gallacher

I am not satisfied yet about the Amendment that was accepted and its relation to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and I want the Minister to tell me, if he can, what men of the Polish Resettlement Forces have been under British command and are not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). There is, in my opinion, no need whatever for paragraph (c) once that Amendment has been accepted, unless it is intended to bring in under (c) certain individuals who were not under British command. There is nobody in the Polish Resettlement Forces who has been under British command who is not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). Will the Minister tell us the people in the Polish Resettlement Forces who came under British command and are not covered by (a.)and (b)?

The other point I want to make concerns the interjection by the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall), and this will be an answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If an Englishman who had served in the French Foreign Legion came back to England, who would pay his pension, the French Government or the British Government?

Major Legge-Bourke

I want to make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to reconsider the question of those Poles who served with the Allies, because when the Minister of Pensions gave the reply just now he told us that there were a great many in Poland today who had served with the British Army during the war. While the argument of the Home Secretary in reply to what said—

Major Bramall

On a point of Order. Is it permissible, when a matter has been thoroughly debated on an Amendment, to raise it again on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman

I hope hon. Members will be moderate in their further references to such matters.

Major Legge-Bourke

Since that Amendment was accepted, certain things have been said by the Minister of Pensions to which I want to draw attention. When the Home Secretary replied to my remarks on the first Amendment, he said that if a Frenchman who had fought for France came to this country, one would expect the pension of that Frenchman to be paid from France. There are men in Poland today who fought under British command. I should say that I do not agree with the Home Secretary's argument and I do not suggest that we should pay pensions to Poles in Poland who fought under British command, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right that those who fought with the Allies during the war and are now in this country should have their pensions paid by the Allies for whom they fought, we are just as much under an obligation to pay a pension to those Poles now in Poland who fought under British command.

Mr. Ede

I thought that the point which has just been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was effectively disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose clear logic I always recognise, and I regret that I am unable to state my arguments as concisely and irrefutably as he does. It seems to me that there can be no doubt that we have no means by which we can check what happens to a man in any other force than our own. On that I base what I have to say.

Major Legge-Bourke

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not for one moment trying to tell him that we should pay a pension to Poles in Poland, but if the argument which he used against me when speaking on the first Amendment is a good one, I still maintain that we are under a similar obligation to pay a pension to those Poles in Poland. On the point of Order aspect of this Clause, I am glad now that I said what I did say at the end of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. It is obvious from what has been said this evening that we have not appreciated that there are two different main groups of Poles in this country who intend to stay here during the next few years. There are those who have made up their minds never to go back to Poland, who never want to go back to the type of life they lived before the war, apart from what they might get now, and there are those who intend to go back as soon as they feel it is convenient for them to do so. I ask the Home Secretary to remember that to put in this qualifying provision regarding five years—it is true there was an Amendment to alter it, but the right hon. Gentleman did not accept that Amendment—means that those men who want to stay here permanently and become British citizens for good and all, if they are to have a qualification about five years—

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of Order, Major Milner. I recognise that even though a point has been dealt with and disposed of in a Debate on an Amendment, it is still within the bounds of Order to raise it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"; but does not the Standing Order referring to tedious repetition apply? We have heard every word of this speech before.

The Chairman

Not having been in the Chair at the time, I have not had the disadvantage of hearing it. It is the, case that there is a Rule against repetition, and I hope, the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not continue to repeat anything he has already said.

Major Legge-Bourke

I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and I have no intention of causing dissatisfaction to the Chair if it is considered that it is a disadvantage to have to listen to me.

Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)

No, it is the hon. and gallant Member's repetition.

Major Legge-Bourke

It is not a question of repetition at all. What I am saying now is fair comment on the Clause as it stands after one Amendment has been accepted and others rejected. I feel it is only right that we should comment on this Clause, and my comment is that it caters fairly well for those who may conceivably go back to Poland at the end of five years or before the five years are up, but it does not cater for those who intend to stay here permanently. It seems that some of the people are having grave doubts about His Majesty's Government at the moment. If a number of people who understand English have that opinion at the present time, what are these Poles thinking who do not understand a word of the language?

Mr. Ede

I had hoped that this Bill could have, been discussed on the basis that we desire all Members of the Committee to do the right thing by these people, and it is to be regretted, therefore, that in the closing words of his speech the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) should endeavour to make one of those cheap party gibes which may be legitimate on matters where there is an acute controversy between the two sides of the Committee, but which I do not think are very helpful when we are trying to do our best for a large number of men whom both sides of the House desire to honour for the service they did to this country. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to listen to any argument put forward from the other side of the House based on that kind of spirit, and if on this matter we are to make cheap party scores we shall degenerate into party discussion on the Bill, which I do not think will be very helpful. I am not going to reply further to the points made by the hon. and gallant Member, for he spoke more than once on the Amendment which we accepted at the beginning after we had announced that the Government were willing to accept it.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) as to why the words "the Polish Resettlement Forces" are found in line 5 of page 2, the answer is that a man may meet death or be injured while in the Polish Resettlement Corps. It could be his misfortune that that injury would deprive him of the use of some of his faculties by the use of which he is enabled to earn his living. We desire to include these people who have left the Polish forces and joined the Polish Resettlement Corps, which are a unit of the British Army. I am sure that no one would desire that on that mere technicality a man should be deprived, through carrying out an. order given him by his superior officer, of the benefits which soldiers in the British Army secure.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

Am I to understand that only those who served under British command in the Resettlement Force will be so treated, or does anyone in the Polish Resettlement Force—for instance, someone who fought against us and is now in that force—come under this provision?

Mr. Ede

Everybody in the Resettlement Corps is under British command. It is a British unit and the people in it are carrying out orders given by the competent British military authority. As I said on an earlier Amendment, there may be men who at one time fought in the German army by compulsion and who, when they got the opportunity, enlisted in the British forces, or served under British command. If their disability is caused by what they did under British command, they will get suitable recognition. If their disability is caused by what happened under German command, they get no recognition under the Bill. The same thing applies to the people in the Polish Resettlement Corps. If at any time they served under German command, they get nothing in respect of any disability incurred while under that command. But if an injury now occurs to them, they will get a proper recognition.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Allowances from the Assistance Board.)

Mr. H. Hynd

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "war", to insert: on of before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven. I can be very brief in arguing this Amendment, not because it is not important but because the principle seems to be quite simple. As the Clause stands, it seems to leave the door permanently ajar. This Clause deals with civilians. We have now left the question of the fighting forces and we are dealing with the civilian elements now in this country. Subsection (2, a) provides for civilians who, for one reason or another, come under the general heading of "circumstances attributable to war." If the Bill is generous to the people who fought in the Armed Forces, certainly it is setting a precedent in regard to civilians.

This country is traditionally hospitable to political refugees of all kinds. There are many people in this country today, not only from Poland, who have come through "circumstances attributable to war" and who, for one reason or another, do not wish to return to their own country. Here, for the reasons that have been generally agreed, we give special preference to Polish citizens. That is all right, so far as it goes, except that there is no time limit in the Clause as drafted. It seems to me that, as many Polish citizens are still outside Poland and would like to come into this country—and will come into this country—they will be able to come within the umbrella of Clause 2 unless it is amended. Thus, they will be able to get all these very special privileges of allowances from the Assistance Board.

The time limit suggested by the Amendment is 1st January of this year. I suggest that that is reasonable. Anyone who came into this country after 1st January of this year presumably should not be regarded in the same category as those who came during the war or immediately afterwards. We must have a time limit somewhere, and I think 1st January is reasonable. I am not concerned with odd individuals. The main body of people I have in mind are the huge numbers of displaced persons on the Continent. Concerning the displaced persons who are in camps in Germany and Italy, are we going to say that the Poles who can, by one means or another, get into this country at any time, are to get the allowances laid down in this Clause? If I am wrong in assuming that they can, I hope the Home Secretary will say so, but I feel that, as this Clause stands at the moment, my Amendment is essential in order to clarify the point.

Mr. Ede

As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) has said, we are now dealing with people who did not serve in the Armed Forces of the Polish Republic, and, therefore, we have got away from the limitations that we were imposing, and were engaged in widening, in the discussion on the last Clause. The people mainly concerned are the civil servants of the London Polish Government, and the effect of this Amendment, in the main, would be that those civil servants of the London Polish Government who were employed in this country would be brought in, but those people who were employed by the London Polish Government, but were stationed abroad, for one reason or another, might not be brought in—in fact, would not be brought in—unless they had managed to return to this country prior to 1st January this year.

I am quite sure that everyone will feel that, where that is the class of person concerned, that would be a quite unjustifiable distinction, and, therefore, we do not desire to close the door in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend looks at the words in the Clause he will see that those people who enter or remain in the United Kingdom in view of circumstances attributable to the war have to be certified, where there is any doubt, by the Secretary of State as having entered in those circumstances. Every alien who enters this country is interviewed at the port of arrival by an immigration officer belonging to my Department, and if he has no good reason for coming in, or if he has no visa on his passport, or, let us say, like Professor Smertenko, I object to his coming in, my officer is able to reject him, and, at any rate, at that stage, very strict inquiries are made. It is not my intention to widen admission to the benefits of this Clause to others than the people employed as civilians by the London Polish Government or their relatives, and I do not think it would be fair to draw a line between those who have come in before a certain date and those who come in in the future. I can assure my hon. Friend that, generally, admission of displaced persons who have had no connection with the London Polish Government will not come within the categories that will receive my certificate as arriving here through causes attributable to the war, in the meaning that is to be attached to it in this Clause.

Major Bramall

I am very glad that the Minister has been able to give this assurance that it is not a case of a job lot of displaced persons being allowed to take advantage of this Clause, and I can see that he will exercise his scrutiny when considering whether he should admit Poles to this country. I would like him to bear one point in mind. He has said that he intends to admit the people who were either the employees of the London Polish Government or their relatives. I would ask him for the assurance that he will see that these people have not come to this country previously for some good reason. The point I have in mind is that there are a number of these employees of the London Polish Government whose purpose for being in whatever part of the world they are at the moment is, quite definitely, to carry on their activities as representatives of the London Polish Government in opposition to the present Polish Government recognised by this Government. I do not think that we should allow these people to remain at large in the world to carry on this propaganda for just as long as they wish and then, when they feel that they have done their work, to return to this country and receive all the benefits of this Bill. I hope that, when considering this point on each application for admission, my right hon. Friend will satisfy himself that these people are coming to this country at the particular time that they arrive because they have been unavoidably prevented from coming earlier and not merely because they are staying at the desire of the so-called Polish Government to carry on their work at their convenience.

Mr. Warbey (Luton)

I hope the Committee will not think that those of us who are concerned about this Subsection desire to prevent Polish civilians from coming to this country, or if they do so, from availing themselves of the social services of this country. Some of us take quite strongly the view that this country should, in the future, open its doors more widely than before to workers of all countries, and that, in so doing, it must be prepared, not only to admit them, but to see that they obtain reasonable treatment on the same standards as British workers. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that a general admission of alien workers must be covered by general conditions, and that there is no case, in that respect, for making special conditions applicable to Poles as such. Therefore, we were concerned that this should not be an open door to Poles of any description who might come in at any time in the future and avail themselves of special privileges not available to other civilian aliens.

I am pleased to hear the assurances given by the Home Secretary. I would, however, like to ask him two questions. First, can he give the Committee the approximate figure of persons covered by this Subsection, and, second, is he satisfied that, as worded, the Subsection does enable him to prevent persons whom he does not want to admit from availing themselves of its provisions? As it stands, the right hon. Gentleman has only to issue a certificate if there is any doubt. A displaced person who is coming in might well argue that there is no doubt whatever that he is coming in owing to circumstances attributable to the war, and that, therefore, no certificate is required. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can tell us if that point would be covered?

Mr. Ede

With regard to the number, it is very difficult to give that with any precision. The figures which I have heard mentioned by people who ought to know, and who advise me on this subject, range from 12 to 30. It will be seen, therefore, that the number is quite small. In regard to anybody getting in who should not, it is, of course, my job to prevent people I do not want to come into this country for reasons for which I am answerable to this House. Judging by the correspondence I occasionally receive, I appear to be doing it almost too efficiently. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not whether the person himself has a doubt, but whether the Assistance Board have a doubt which decides whether the person comes within the category or not. When the Pole who has been admitted goes to the Assistance Board and claims assistance under this Clause, and they have doubt about his bona fides, they come to me and ask if I am prepared to issue my certificate. The various documents I have relating to the man are then perused —and generally they are fairly numerous and exact—and I issue my certificate in accordance with the facts that are there recorded. It is not my intention to do more than admit the kind of people to whom I alluded in my first reply on this Amendment I do not wish to differentiate between these people merely because they happen to arrive one side or the other of midnight on a particular night.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not think my right hon. Friend need be quite so apologetic. I think we want to avoid this rapidly growing tyrannical obstructionist attitude to the free movement of people about the world. At the moment it seems to be harder for a poor man to get into this country than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Silverman

The answer with regard to the difficulty of a rich man getting into Heaven is that I accept it on authority. As for the difficulty of a poor man getting into this country, I have plenty of evidence.

Mr. H. Hynd

In view of the assurances given by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Linstead

Before we part with this Clause, I would like to ask the Home Secretary about one of the categories of people referred to in this Clause, whose position requires a little consideration. The category of people to whom I am referring are those described in Clause 2 (2) (b), namely: former members of any of the fortes then tinned in subsection (1) of Section one. As I understand the argument, a Pole may pass through three categories. He starts off as a member of the Polish armed forces. He then goes to the Resettlement Corps and then into civil life, either with work or with no work, in which case he has need of an allowance and comes under Clause 2 (1). I would like to ask what will be the position of some of the senior and older of the Polish officers who will be affected by this transfer from the armed forces to the Resettlement Corps and then to civil life. When some of the most senior of these people have no further work in the Resettlement Corps, presumably they will not be kept there, as they are at present, and in receipt of their full salary. They will go out into civil life, and those men, some of the most distinguished of the people we are trying to help, will, at 60 or 70 years of age, find it extraordinarily difficult to obtain work at all. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a place which they would fit. Now, are those people suddenly to find themselves, between one day and another, reduced from the full salary of, maybe, a major-general to whatever is the small weekly allowance, 17s. 6d., or something of that kind, which they can get under this Clause? It that is the situation it ought to be brought out into the light of day, or we ought to know what the position of these men will be. Certainly the length of time they are to be allowed to remain in the Resettlement Corps will be a very vital matter to those quite distinguished officers. I hope the Home Secretary can throw some light on this matter.

Mr. Peake

I should like to put a point to the Home Secretary before we part with this Clause, with regard to the meaning of the fourth category of persons who may qualify for an allowance from the Assistance Board. It is contained in Subsection (2, d): persons who have been permitted to enter the United Kingdom on or after first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, as being followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom…. I must confess I am extremely puzzled by the meaning of the phrase, "followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces." In order to obtain an allowance under Subsection (1) a person has to be in need. But in order to be a person who qualifies as an applicant for an allowance under paragraph (d) he or she has to be a person who has entered the United Kingdom as a follower of and as a person dependent on a body of Polish forces.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) thought this a very bad phrase, and she saiu so during the Second Reading speech of the Home Secretary. She asked: What are 'followers'? the right hon. Gentleman said: I am quite sure that all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have ever served in the Armed Forces have a pretty good idea of the heterogeneous mass of people who can be described as camp followers'. A little later the hon. Lady said: I think 'camp followers' is the wrong term to use. And the right hon. Gentleman replied: I did not introduce the word followers into this discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th February, 1947: Vol 433. C. 375–6.] But the right hon. Gentleman, or some body else, has introduced the word into the Bill Therefore, I think we are en titled to know the meanings of these two conditions. A person has to have been a follower and also to have been dependent on a body of Polish forces at the moment he or she entered the United Kingdom. I can well understand anybody being dependent on an individual. It is a common phrase in our Acts of Parliament. The question one always then asks is: Does it mean wholly dependent, or partly dependent, or mainly dependent? The epithet "dependent" is invariably qualified by something which explains the test to be applied. But here the condition which has to be fulfilled is that the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom. A person may have been dependent upon an individual in a Polish force, but I do not know whether that means the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom.

Were these people on the pay roll, or something of that sort, of the Polish forces at the time they came in? We all know there were a large number of camp followers with the Polish troops in Italy. Why is it necessary as a condition of applying for an allowance—one has to be in need before one gets one—that one was dependent upon a body of Polish forces at the time one entered the United Kingdom? It may have been that one had some means of one's own, and had some money; but if one loses it all and is in need, surely one ought to qualify for an allowance under Subsection (1) of the Clause. The condition, that one had some money and therefore was not dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering, does seem to me to be a harsh test to apply if, since entering, one has fallen into need. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will explain this before we part with the Clause.

Mr. H. Hynd

Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) define the qualifications for obtaining these allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Act. One qualification is "that he is in need of an allowance"; the next, "that he has no work" or not sufficient work; and another is that he is required to be registered for employment. It seems to me that the Clause makes no provision, as is usual under the Unemployment Regulations, for a man who is registered for work, and who is offered suitable employment, and refuses to accept it. I wonder if there is any omission there, and why it is not necessary to provide for people in that circumstance.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr)

Before we part with this Clause we must acknowledge the unlimited generosity and magnanimity of the Government towards these unfortunate people who are amongst us. But I am just a little bit perturbed, because I am compelled to compare the conditions laid down here with those other conditions that govern the destinies of our own people who may be unemployed. Perhaps I could satisfy myself by putting one or two questions. Is it the intention of the Government under Clause 2 to waive the conditions determining unemployment assistance as now applied to our own people? What scales of payment will be applied under Clause 2? Will they be equal to, or will they be greater than, the scales of payment that now apply to our own people? There is not a British man or woman who is entitled to assistance from the Assistance Board unless he or she can prove to that Board that when he or she became unemployed he or she had paid a certain minimum of contributions. I find it difficult to be impressed by the tre- mendous support given to this Bill by the Opposition, because invariably they have almost malignantly opposed any kind of improvement in the conditions laid down for our own unemployed in this country.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

On a point of Order. You will, I suppose, Major Milner, allow other hon. Members of the Committee to controvert the hon. Member's argument on this point?

The Chairman

I hope any hon. Member who follows the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) will confine himself to the Question that Clause 2 stand part; and I hope, also, that the hon. Member for Merthyr will do the same.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Davies

I am trying to do so. Possibly I may satisfy the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) by saying that there may have been one or two exceptions amongst Opposition Members. I should like to know, also, under what circumstances the Board might request an applicant to register for employment. That is also important. I do not think it will be necessary, in the future, when requests are made to the Government to consider favourably improving the conditions of the unemployed, that we shall have to press as determinedly as we had to press in the past. But we will be entitled to request that our people shall be treated with precisely the same measure of generosity—and I am not asking much—as is being extended to the people who are covered by this Measure.

Mr. Bing (Hornchurch)

There is one short point which I think would have saved the time of the Committee, and clarified the point put by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peaks). I would remind the Committee of the definition of "followers" in the Hague Convention. There, the definition is "Sutlers, contractors and newspaper correspondents." That being so, it is desirable that my right hon. Friend should put some limitation to these words in this Clause.

Professor Savory

I must say that I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench in regard to the words, "dependent on." The right hon. Gentleman has said that they include the Polish Government and its officials here—the Government which was recognised until July 5th, 1945. In what sense can those officials, and they include a number of very distinguished men—for instance, the great Polish Ambassador in Berlin who resisted Hitler, and the very distinguished Ambassador in Paris—how can these men be said to be "dependent on"? I can understand that they are "followers of," but in no sense are they dependent on the Polish forces. I should be very much afraid that some difficulty might arise in the interpretation of these words. The legitimate Polish Government in London employed, roughly, 1,000 officials. Of these, 200 are out of work at present. How any of them who arrived with the legitimate Polish Government from France can be said to be "dependent on" these Polish Forces, I do not understand. I sympathise with the desire of the Home Secretary to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I am far from obstructing it; but I would be glad if he would remove the unhappy feeling which I have regarding these words.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington)

Surely the words referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) are covered by Subsection (2, a). It is a very wide provision, and refers to Poles whose registration under the Aliens Order took place on or after 1st September, 1936. That is extremely wide, so wide that one wonders who there is left to come under paragraph (d). I hope that the Home Secretary will be very specific as to what type of person he envisages. Presumably there are non-Poles, because all the Poles are covered in paragraph (a). In any event, I hope the Home Secretary will say how many people will be involved in this provision.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

There is one further point on this Clause. There are a certain number of Poles who were formerly in the Polish forces, and who now have found civilian employment for themselves without having passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps. For good or bad reasons, they object to joining the Polish Resettlement Corps. In some cases it is because it would involve a long journey to a distant part of the country, losing a certain amount of time, and other reasons. As I understand it, these people, being included in the category (2, b), will become entitled to benefits from the Assistance Board if at some future date they fall out of employment, even without passing through the Polish Resettlement Corps. In view of this apprehension which exists in the country, I do hope that the Minister will be able to give a specific reply.

Mr. Ede

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), these persons are either former members or members of the forces who have been relegated from service with the forces, and they come within the benefits of this Clause. With regard to points put by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies), the conditions are to be found in the Schedule, and, having regard to the difficult circumstances of bringing these people on to an equality with British subjects, they will receive the same treatment as British subjects and will be subject to the same requirements as are demanded of British subjects. If they want the benefit of the Assistance Board, they will be required to register for employment, just as a British subject is required to do.

Mr. H. Hynd

And to accept suitable work?

Mr. Ede

I would refer the hon. Member to the Schedule. The hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) asked me about his reading of the Bill and the kind of persons who, he alleged, were to be described as "followers" and dependants on the Polish Forces. They are not. They come under the earlier categories mentioned in the same Subsection. They are, for instance, the Poles who came in with the Polish Second Corps, and who were not registered as aliens on landing. They were brought in under military control, and they are being "screened," and when they pass out into civil life they will be registered as aliens. The people he has in mind have been registered as aliens and they come within the first of the categories mentioned in that Subsection.

The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked me about this phrase which links up "followers" and dependants. I must say it was very difficult to find words which would accurately describe the people we wanted to bring in. At one time we wanted to say "followers accompanying." Some of the men have been brought over. Their wives and children are following them. They would not be "followers" accompanying these people, and, therefore, we had to find some phrase which would definitely link the persons together so that their connection with the Second Corps might be established. These are the best words which we have been able to find. I admit that it does appear a little awkward to make them appear to be dependant on the Forces when they may have been dependant on only one member of those Forces, and it is because of the somewhat awkward phrase that the right hon. Member is worried.

I will promise to undertake to have this point looked at between now and the Report stage in order to make it quite clear that these persons are to be limited to those dependent on a member of the Polish forces or who come legitimately within the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), which is the more general understanding of the word "followers." It is not our intention in this matter, within the limitations I have mentioned, to try to exclude people who, on grounds of compassion and recognition of their services, we think should be brought within the Clauses. I hope we shall be able to find a form of words, if these do not do it, to carry out that intention.

Mr. S. O. Davies

Will my right hon. Firend look at the title of the First Schedule? We are told that modifications will be made in unemployment insurance to meet the requirements of some of the cases we have been considering tonight. My right hon. Friend has not answered my question.

Mr. Ede

I had hoped that I had answered it. These people cannot be put into the same category as those who have lived for many years in this country. We desire to assimilate them to the British way of life. We want to make conditions for them similar to those for persons who are about the same age, and who go to the same kind of employment. To do that, it will be necessary to have certain modifications of the wording of the regulations, or it will not be possible to bring them within their ambit. So far as is humanly possible, the same conditions will be available for these people as for British subjects. If we manage to do something that is rather more liberal for them than my hon. Friend and others may think we do for British subjects, I have no doubt that we shall find them quoted as reliable precedents when the Minister of Labour has to bring forward modifications before the House.

I regret that I did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead.) What is to happen to the high ranking officers to whom he and others alluded, is now under consideration, and I ask him not to press me tonight. I ask him to accept the general spirit in which I have endeavoured to deal with the question of how, in particular circumstances, these people are to be dealt with, as an indication of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Nicholson

The Subsection says that the Unemployment Assistance Board may do certain things, and specifies the categories of people for whom they may do them. I suggest that the categories ought to be put into a separate Clause. They are referred to in Clauses 3, 4, 6, and 7, by reference back to those persons for whom the Board have power to do certain things.

Mr. Ede

I will look into that point.

Cause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision by the Assistance Board of accommodation in camps.)

10.45 P.m.

The Chairman

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed together the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert, "British."; the two Amendments—also in the name of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends—to make the same insertion in Clauses 4 and 6; and that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and his hon. Friend, in Clause 3, page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."

Mrs. Manning

May I ask your advice, Major Milner, because the other Amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends are Amendments to Clauses 4 and 6? Are you ruling that since the Clauses hang together we may discuss the three Amendments now?

Mr. Piratin

I accept your Ruling, of course, Major Milner, but I would point out that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend and myself has an entirely different significance from those standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends. If you rule that the three may be discussed together, may I take it that you will put our Amendment separately?

The Chairman

I think it would be permissible to discuss them together.

Mrs. Manning

I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert "British."

I am grateful for your Ruling, Major Milner, that we may discuss at the same time the Amendments to make the same change in Clauses 4 and 6 because all three Clauses follow the same pattern. The intention of the Clauses concerned is to enable the Assistance Board to make arrangements with any Government Department for certain purposes, the Departments in question being the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. That is something we accept because we realise that the Assistance Board must be able to make these arrangements with Government Departments to have the work carried out. The point about which we feel some anxiety is that which arises from the provision which occurs in each of these Clauses and which says that the Board may make arrangements with any Government Department or other authority or person. We are a little anxious as to who the other authorities or persons may be. Are they, for example, persons connected with General Anders' army, or are they persons connected with the old Polish Government? If so, I feel—and I hope hon. Members opposite will feel—that in making my submission to the Committee I am doing so as much out of regard for the Poles concerned as for any other reason. I feel very strongly that the other persons or other authorities should be British persons and authorities, and it is for that reason that I am seeking to introduce this word "British." My main reason in bringing forward this Amendment is that we have a very strong feeling that if the Poles who remain in this country are really to be absorbed into the general life of the country, and if they are really to learn something about the British way of life, then the sooner they come under British in- fluences the better, and the shorter the period in which they remain under the influences of the émigré Government or their followers or employees—

Professor Savory

I would implore the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) not to use the word "émigré." If she knew its significance or understood its connotations she would not. In French it is equivalent to the word "deserter."

Mrs. Manning

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must know very well that I am not using the word in any offensive sense whatever; indeed, I wanted to use it in order really to explain my point. I have had a great deal to do with people who have lived in this country and who are, shall I say "refugees"

Professor Savory

Yes, or use the word "emigrant" if you like.

Mrs. Manning

I have a great deal of respect at times for the hon. Member for the Queen's University (Professor Savory), if not on the question of Poland, at least on other subjects—but I prefer to make my own speech and must insist on my right to do so. What I really want to say is that anyone who had anything to do during the war years with the refugees or the people who are living out of their own country knows that there is such a thing as an émigré mentally which is very difficult to combat. These are people who live partly on their memories of the past and partly on their hopes for the future, and who find it very difficult to get a stable existence in the present. We do not want the Poles who are in this country under this scheme to be in that situation. We want those who are going to stay behind to be absorbed into the life and stream of the country, and to absorb the British way of life and become one of us. If they are to stay, we want them to become in the end English people.

For that reason, the sooner they come under English influences the better. I wish to exemplify what I have to say by reference to Clause 6 and the question of education. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter. I once had the pleasure—it was rather an onerous pleasure—of bringing 4,000 Basque children to this country. I had a great deal to do with deciding about their education, and I found that the children who went to the village schools and technical colleges of the country, and later to the universities, became practically English in thought and outlook, and spoke excellent English.

We are doing a very bad thing for these Polish children, whatever may be the position with regard to the young men and the adults, in giving them schools of their own. I should like to see the school for officers' children at Pitlochry liquidated and the girls sent into our secondary schools, just as so many of the Jewish immigrants and Basque children went. Those children learnt English very quickly. The language difficulty does not exist for a child. Every child is bilingual. If very young children were taught French with French children, they would learn it much quicker than they do in the secondary schools.

If we are to do the best for these young people—I say nothing of the older ones—as far as education is concerned, they should attend British institutions and come under the influence of the British tradition. The Minister of Education is here, and I am certain he will say that our schools are already overcrowded and short of teachers. But these children have to be put somewhere. If we have to supply huts and country houses for them, why should they not mix with our children? It is as broad as it is long. The quicker we can get rid of that emigré mentality, the better will be the lives they will lead here.

Hon. Members know that I do not want too many of these Poles to stay here, although I believe it would be to our advantage to have their labour, for I believe it means a great enrichment to the life of the country to have foreigners here, and we want as many additions as possible to our manpower. I have recently been in Poland, where I realised that Poland wants her sons back, too, as she has a great deal of reconstruction to do. If we follow the course I have advocated, these Poles will go back to Poland enriched, taking back something of the knowledge of the British way of life. I am sure that hon. Members opposite would be very glad of that. Whether these people go or stay, this is the best way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel prepared to accept my Amendment.

Wing-Commander Millington

I want to tackle this question from a slightly differ- ent point of view from that of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). When we put this Amendment down we had in the back of our minds what back benchers of the Labour Party always have in mind —to help the Government in every way possible. The only question I want to ask is whether the adjective "British" has not been inadvertently left out in drafting this Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not going to accept the Amendment, then we want to know what other authorities he has in mind other than British authorities. We can think of no other authorities who can work with the Assistance Board, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health in administering the normal services to the Poles. I feel that we would strongly resist other authorities being brought into consultation if those authorities were the Polish authorities in this country. In particular, we would very much like to know whether those other authorities am the officers of the Polish Army in this country, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has in mind having assistance from the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) in administering this Clause.

Mr. Ede

He is British.

Mr. H. Hynd

During the Second Reading discussion what seemed to me to be a fundamental construction all the way through the speech of the Home Secretary, which was full of admirable sentiments, was the necessity for assimilating the Poles, who decided to remain in this country, into the British way of life. Yet side by side with that we were told all the way through about the special Polish classes, the special Polish hospitals and the special Polish camps that are to be set up. It seems to me that that is just not the way to assimilate the Poles into the British way of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said, the sooner they develop British ideas if they are going to stay here, the better for them. I would suggest, for example, that if we are to have separate Polish schools set up that is not to the advantage of the Poles. If they graduate through a Polish college and get a certificate to that effect, I suggest that that certificate would not be so useful to them as a certificate from a British university would be.

11.0 p.m.

Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will tell us that, although he may find it necessary to engage certain Polish instructors in some of the educational institutions, or some Polish doctors in some of the medical institutions, we shall not segregate the Poles into separate institutions, separate communities, and keep them together in an organised body of any kind. Frankly, I am suspicious of it. I might as well be quite frank about it. I believe that efforts are being made to keep those Poles together as far as possible and as long as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not want to enter into that; I might be out of Order if I did; but I want to support the Home Secretary's idea of assimilating them as quickly as possible into the British way of life. For that reason I suggest it is essential that these educational institutions, hospitals and camps, must be under British control.

Mr. Paget

I do not want to disagree with what seemed to me to be the entirely admirable speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), but there is one case which I have in mind that I do not think would quite fit in with this Amendment. There is in this country at the moment a very distinguished Polish artist. He has an art school in this country. The Polish Government in Warsaw have made arrangements to send over some Polish Jews to study painting in England with the idea that they should mix and meet with Poles in England also studying at that school and begin something in the nature of a cultural link. If that is a first symptom, a beginning of a new age, it seems to me to be an altogether admirable one, and I do not think we should exclude that school from the educational organisations which we have in mind in Clause 6. It is perhaps rather a small case, but one often has to be very careful what words are introduced as Amendments into Statutes, as they may exclude just the very sort of things one does not want to exclude.

Mr. Ede

I intend to deal with all three Amendments together, and most of the observations I shall have to offer can he applied to each of them. The phrases in these Clauses are common form when a Government Department proposes to delegate some of its authority to some subordinate authority or to some person. For instance, in the circumstances of this Bill, we shall want to delegate some of the powers that we give the Minister to local authorities. Unless we do that, if we leave these people to the general law of the land, we might find, for instance, that the Polish children in a particular camp who were being sent to the local school would be chargeable to the ratepayers of that district. Now we are taking steps whereby dealing with these people will be a national and not a local charge. Therefore, unless we are to establish the kind of schools that the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has asked us not to establish, we must take powers whereby the Minister shall be the person who will have to provide the funds and not the local authorities.

The same thing applies, of course, to the other Government Departments, and I am sure that none of us would wish to have the difficulty that would arise if we were to make these persons chargeable to the district in which, for the bad luck of the district for this particular purpose, they happen to be situated. When it comes to the question of persons, we may want to employ medical practitioners direct; we may want to give them some of the powers that the Minister takes, and the same with regard to the corporations. We hope, for instance, to use the National Hostels Corporation to house a number of these people.

It is true that I have said throughout the discussions on this Bill that I am exceedingly anxious to get these people assimilated to the British way of life, and to do it as speedily as possible, but let us recognise that we cannot at the moment break these people up and send them as individuals throughout the country. It must be a continuing process—I hope a rapidly continuing process—whereby, starting off with large blocks of them at the moment, we shall endeavour to pass them through the Resettlement Corps out into industry or, as far as the children are concerned, to get them steadily spread about in the country in exactly the circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has alluded. I want as soon as possible to see all these children in English or Scottish schools, taking part in the ordinary life of the schools, in the same way as she described her Basque children had done when she was responsible for their oversight. That is what we are aiming at, but at the moment we have to deal with these people in masses; and at that stage we may have to employ, under British authority, certain individual Poles who will be necessary for the appropriate running of these institutions.

Mr. Warbey

The common form of the wording is that the board, or whatever it may be, may make arrangements with any … authority or person. If one employs somebody, one does not make arrangements with him. One employs him.

Mr. Ede

When I was employed, I always hoped that a satisfactory arrangement had been made about my salary.

Mr. Warbey

One enters into a contract of service.

Mr. Ede

A contract of service is an arrangement. There may be some people with whom we do not want to enter into a contract of service and whom we do not want to employ as salaried servants, who may be persons of means who are willing to make arrangements with us to carry out what we want done without accepting any payment. I should have thought the words "make arrangements" would cover both the voluntary and the salaried worker. If we were to limit ourselves to the word "British" we should unnecessarily circumscribe ourselves. With the assurance that all these services are to be undertaken under British authority, with the determined effort—as I said with regard to the technical college which we propose to establish—to bring these people into an institution which will have, from the first, a British emphasis and in which that British emphasis will increase from time to time, I hope the Committee will feel that that is the appropriate way in which we should deal with this matter.

When it comes to the question of students, at the moment there are in the Polish educational centres in London 1,350 students. Everyone connected with the education service of the country knows that we have at the moment passing through our universities and technological colleges a very large number of ex-Servicemen whom it is desirable to pass through as quickly as possible. If we are to put these 1,350 people into a British institution straightaway, we can only do so by denying opportunities to British subjects, in the main ex-Service men and women, who are urgently in need of this education so that they can start up in life. We have therefore decided to appoint—in fact a person has been appointed—a British principal. In the first note supplied to me on this Clause, the word "English" was inserted. I inquired what was the gentleman's name. It began with "Mac." Therefore hon. Members may rest assured that the description properly is British. There will have to be, at first, in all these institutions, a number of persons who are fluent speakers of Polish. It is true, as the hon. Lady said with regard to children in nursery schools, that they are bilingual. No one who saw the evacuation of London children to Wales need have any doubt about that. They were generally the most proficient Welsh scholars in the schools there. Although children are bilingual, adults find some difficulty it understanding a language with which they have no previous acquaintance. Those are the people with whom we are exceedingly anxious to deal quickly.

I do not think that the insertion of these words would do other than hamper the Government in their efforts to get these people quickly assimilated into the British way of life. I want to repeat what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, that is, that we are determined that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw. We are determined that those people who desire to remain in this country must do so on the understanding that they are to be assimilated into the British way of life as soon as possible; and in the case of the three Services with which we are dealing in this amendment, we can do that most effectively if our hands are not tied in the way the Amendments would tie them.

Professor Savory

I should like strongly to support the arguments of the Home Secretary, because they are broadminded and liberal. We must remember that here in England we have had, at Oxford, a distinguished legal faculty, and a distinguished medical faculty in Scotland. These have rendered great service, in view of the great difficulty of the language. We must always recollect that in Poland the second language taught in the schools was not English, but French. To those distinguished Poles whom I meet in this country I never speak English, but always French, because I want to be polite and courteous, and to make myself understood. It would be a very narrow view to insist that in the schools all the teaching should be in English, which the pupils would not be able to understand. I would like to warn hon. Members with regard to this question, because I was in German Poland after Bismarck had introduced those terrible regulations under which Polish children were to be taught by German teachers. Even the priest was forbidden to go into the parish school and give religious instruction in Polish. Everything was in German. What happened in those schools? The children were learning absolutely nothing.

Let us take a broad and liberal view of this question, and let us recollect that Polish culture is something which we ought also to preserve. Let us remember that the Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world—

Mr. Gallacher

Then preserve it in Poland.

Professor Savory

Let us remember that Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world, and that it will be a sorry thing if the Poles in this country forget their own beautiful literature. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady just now, but I would implore hon. Members not to use the offensive word "émigré." I am sure that no one would intentionally wound the feelings of our Polish Allies. I accept the word "refugees." The Huguenots, in the Seventeenth century, were refugees. But the word "émigré " has a very definite connotation. It means the French aristocrats who abandoned their king to his fate, who were deserters, and in no sense can one apply that word to any Pole in this country. I do beg hon. Members not to employ this Communistic jargon.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I am very conscious of the fact that the patience of all right hon. and hon. Members is running out, but I think that a word ought to be said with regard to the remarks by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). He is a very nice, but a very naughty man to listen to the remarks which have been pumped into his ears perhaps by people all too willing to take advantage of his generosity and willingness. But I will not go into that—I am very much concerned with something else. These Poles who wish to remain in Britain should recognise that the British way of life, of which we have heard so much in tile Debates on this Bill, is, in so far as it is a democratic way of life, the first thing they should try to learn. Yet I cannot see how they will be able to learn that if they are to be directed in these camps and hostels by some of their erstwhile officers, the heel-clicking type of officer who is unconscious of true democracy.

Let us call a spade a spade. What I have just said is quite true, and these people have, largely been responsible for preventing many Polish soldiers from going back to Poland. I accept the Home Secretary's words. There should be supervision for any crimes committed in these hostels, and I hope that those hon. Members who have put down an Amendment on this Clause will accept it in that sense. But we will watch developments so that these Polish officers do not take advantage of the position. The concluding words of the Home Secretary a few minutes ago were that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw, and I hope that these words will be borne in mind by every Member.

Major Braman

I am sorry to take up further time, but I took notes of the assurance given by the Home Secretary that he had no intention that these people should be used as a spearhead in any march against Warsaw. What my hon. Friends associated with this Amendment are afraid of is that, by not putting in the word we propose should be put in, we are putting into the hands of people certain things, and those people may not have intentions as honourable as we would wish. The Home Secretary did not show why this word should not go in, and with all respect to hon. Members who have touched on this point, the word has nothing to do with the language in which Polish children—or adults—are to be taught. I suggest that that is absolutely beside the issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the nationality of the teachers in Polish schools or universities. I am certain that these words were not put into the Bill with the idea that the persons with whom Government Departments would make arrangements would be on the level of teachers in schools and professors in universities. The words of the Home Secretary did not give any colour to that suggestion. He spoke of local education authorities, national hostels corporations, and bodies of that type. When he spoke of persons I think he meant the chief officials, the clerks, of local education authorities, and so forth. Surely, we are not dealing with individual employees when we talk about a Government Department making arrangements.

All the people my right hon. Friend mentioned would be covered by British authorities and persons. Frankly, I am afraid that authority will be delegated to some of the people who are, at the moment, a section of the Interim Treasury Committee. The Home Secretary, on the Second Reading, pointed out that the chief representative of that Committee is Count Racynski, a former Polish Ambassador in London. This Committee is divided into various sections, which cover various types of activity. I fear that unless we put in the word British,"authority will be delegated to a body which consists of members, or partly members, of the Interim Committee. I hope the Home Secretary will reassure us about this matter.

Mr. Ede

The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) makes it clear that I cannot give the pledge which has been asked for. My hon. Friend suggested that it would be desirable, in the management of a Polish technical college, that the governing body should consist partly of British people and partly of Poles. I should have thought that in the circumstances that was an eminently reasonable suggestion.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I hope that the Poles who are selected for this governing body will be selected by my right hon. Friend, on his own responsibility.

Mr. Ede

No, I am not taking that on. They will be selected by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—

Mrs. Manning

The same thing.

Mr. Ede

I am not the same person as the Minister of Education. It is not our intention to have, on this governing body, people who are proved to be acting in the spirit that has been suggested. It is not our intention to keep alive the idea that we are keeping the anti-Warsaw Government Poles in existence and in good heart in this country. If we discovered that any person who had been appointed, or given a position of authority or influence in the organisation that we set up, was using that authority or influence in that direction we should remove from him the opportunity for using that authority or influence.

We could not, I repeat, run the Corps or make the arrangements for the servicing of the Poles in this country efficiently if we were to he limited by the insertion of this word. What we do intend to do is to make quite certain that the ultimate responsibility in every case will be that of a Minister answerable to this House, and one of the pledges I am authorised to give by all the right hon. Gentlemen concerned is that they intend to use these services, where any influence is available at all, to ensure that the existence of a group of these Polish people—as a group—shall be broken up at the earliest possible moment. When it comes to doctors, nurses and similar people, we may desire to employ, for instance, a Sort of district nurse in some area where there are a number of Poles, and it may be desirable that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should make that arrangement direct with the particular person. It may very well be that a suitable Polish woman should be the person so employed, and to insert this word in the Bill would prevent us from taking that very reasonable step.

I do ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and my other hon. Friends who are associated with this Amendment, suspicious as they may be of certain Poles, not to extend their suspicions to my right hon. Friends the Ministers who will be engaged in carrying out the three Clauses under discussion. I do not ask them to place any trust in me because I. am not concerned with carrying out those provisions, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education, the Minister of National Insurance and the Minister of Health, would, I should have thought— even though they do happen to be associated with me in the Government—be above suspicion on personal qualifications.

Mr. Warbey

In view of the assurances which the Minister has given, I do not want to keep the Committee very long, but I think we ought to bear in mind that, as we are dealing with a body of Polish citizens, the way we deal with them must inevitably affect not only ourselves but also our relations with the people and the Government of Poland. Therefore we ought to be careful to see that, as far as possible in what we do, and in the wording of this Bill, we help to foster those good relations. That Government are well aware of the fact that there is in this country at the moment a body of Poles claiming to be a pseudo Government, actually running a Cabinet swearing allegiance to the ex-President, having Cabinet reshuffles, discussing business, and so on. The fear in the minds of the Polish Government and of our friends in Poland is, I am sure, that under cover of this Clause that pseudo Government may continue their existence. It is not merely a question, as the Home Secretary said, of building up for the march on Warsaw, but a question of a cover under which a pseudo Government retain their existence in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that it is our intention to break up this pseudo Government at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Ede

But I do not do that under any of the three Clauses which have been discussed. The pseudo Government, as my hon. Friend calls it, are not recognised by this Government. We recognise the Warsaw Government and no other as being the legitimate Government of Poland. The three Clauses in question cannot be used in any way, as far as I know, to help any other Government that may claim to be a Polish Government and that is resident in this country.

Mrs. Manning

In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Austin (Stretford)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after "establishments", to insert: excluding private homes under which any billeting arrangements may be made. Before I come to the Amendment may I say, in answer to the self-deprecating remarks of the Home Secretary on the last Amendment, that he commends our respect and confidence as much as anyone he referred to. It is in that spirit that I put forward this Amendment. Had I been fortunate on the Second Reading in catching Mr. Speaker's eye I would have attempted to put forward my ideas on the word "establishments" because it seems ambiguous. As I was unsuccessful during the Second Reading I have had recourse to the dictionary, and I have been able to fortify myself as to the word "establishments." If "establishments" means some organisation under an authority in line with camps or hostels there would be no question of this Amendment. On reference to Chambers Dictionary, however, I find that "establishments" can mean one's residence and style of living, while in Murray's Dictionary it can also mean a householder or family residence.

In Clause 1 (3) we find there is tremendous scope regarding the persons referred to. That scope is illustrated in Clause 2 (2) and it refers, in fact, to almost every type of Pole who has been in this country since 1939 and who is over r6. It is my contention, therefore, that whether the Government wish it or not, ultimately some of these people, in the process of resettlement or in the process of transition from the Resettlement Corps to civilian life, will find themselves billeted or accommodated in private houses. That seems to be fortified by the statement contained in Clause 3 (2) which reads, referring to the Assistance Board, that it may make such provision in such manner as appears to them most convenient whether by themselves providing goods or services, by making payments to others for the provision thereof …. I am wondering whether "other persons" in fact means householders and individuals in private residence; and it seems to be borne out further by Subsection (3) where The Board may make arrangements with any Government department or other authority or person.… The difficulty is that when one looks at the conjunction of doubt in regard to establishments and their relationship to the word "person" one must ask what is meant by "person." Again, it may mean the householder. If I may say so, if I am wrong in my submission, and if it is the intention of the Government to accommodate Poles in camps, hostels and other orthodox establishments, it may be a wrong policy on the part of the Government, because, as has been evidenced by the disquiet of my hon. Friends in the previous Amendments, it would be better from every conceivable viewpoint if there were not to be a segregation of Poles rather than have them in these self-contained units in Polish administrative camps, which mean regimentation of a military type. It would be serving a useful purpose when they were ready for assimilation to have billeting arrangements with private householders, and it is in that spirit that I wish the Home Secretary to look at this Amendment.

If I may give an illustration, looking at the point of view of my own constituency, I would say that it contains various industries. Let us assume that certain Poles, who are electrical engineers, are detailed for work at Trafford Park. It is my contention that the Minister in charge of the scheme is not going to make himself responsible for setting up a hostel in Trafford Park for the few Poles going to work there. Obviously billeting may be desirable. If that desirable end comes about, and certain Poles are being sent into the coalmines, perhaps some of them will be sent to Astley in my division to work in the mines there, and again billeting may apply. The same condition in regard to a hostel applies apparently to them. It is my contention that there should be some differentiation if that is likely to transpire, between the rules and regulations and the penalties which I see are in the nature of a fine not exceeding £25 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. I say that that should not apply to private householders because it would restrict the freedom of the householder, and also be a restriction on the freedom of the individual which I am sure is not intended by the Government. I hope, therefore, with these remarks that the Amendment may either be approved or the Home Secretary may give us a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. Ede

The Assistance Board do not intend in any circumstances to billet Polish civilians in private houses, and of course there could not be in any case any question of making rules for the well ordering of establishments other than those which the Board themselves or their agents are managing. I know some people think that the Government are very daring, but I cannot think that anyone would suspect that we intend to make regulations imposing upon the British housewife the well ordering of their houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Piratin

I beg to move, in page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."

I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not a lawyer, or perhaps I should use the word "jurist." Therefore, I am trying to see what is the penalty that is befitting in such cases as these. The Subsection to which this Amendment refers imposes certain penalties in the case of misdemeanour on the part of Poles My proposition is that we ought to keep in mind what appear to be the present circumstances. As the Home Secretary is aware, for I have written to him on the subject, there are quite a large number of aliens, a number of whom are Poles, in Brixton and other prisons. These people have had only short sentences imposed, such as six months' imprisonment but after that they have been detained because they are subject to deportation. I am not going into the details or circumstances in which they received that imprisonment, and no doubt it was justified. What I am raising is that those who may be given a penalty of, say, three months may also be cases for deportation. I want to deal with that for a moment.

It may be that the Polish Government will not recognise such citizens, but that is a matter for the Polish Government and for us to base our decision accordingly It has been known in the past that sometimes a decision has been taken by a magistrate for deportation but, on the advice of the Secretary of State, it has been changed. There was a case some years ago, with which I had some connection, where a person was recommended to be deported to Germany but, if he had been deported to Germany, the sentence there would have been not three or six months but something much worse. Hence the Secretary of State saw fit to override the decision of the magistrate, this man had to serve a sentence in this country, and then he was let free here. So that if the Polish Government did not desire a certain ex-Pole to be returned to Poland, of course he should have his sentence changed. All I am asking here, without claiming to be a lawyer, is that the same procedure shall obtain under this Bill for these Poles as obtains at present for Poles or other aliens in this country. If the Home Secretary can give a satisfactory explanation of the position as to why there is this difference, I am prepared to make an adjustment.

Mr. Ede

I must resist this Amendment because it really would arm me with more tremendous powers than my weak spirit is capable of bearing. These are penalties that may be inflicted on any person, and therefore, if a British subject—my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for instance—went into one of these camps and did something that was regarded as an offence and was convicted, I could then deport him if this Amendment were carried.

Mr. Piratin

Where?

Mr. Ede

I could get him outside the three mile limit and after that the trouble would be his. May I say that I do not need these powers as far as aliens are concerned. I can deport anybody I should have to give a reason to this House for doing so, but no restriction in the Statute is placed on my discretion. It is the exercise of Ministerial discretion, and I am answerable to this House only for the way in which I administer it. Therefore, the proposed words would greatly increase my powers in a very undesirable direction, but would not add to my powers in those directions where it is desirable that I should exercise them, and I am not, therefore, willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Piratin

In the light of the statement made by the Home Secretary, and in view of the fact that I have added something to my legal knowledge, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Temporary registration of medical practitioners and of pharmacists.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards)

I beg to move in page 6, line 47, after "subject," to insert: "to such conditions, and." The words that we seek to insert here are precisely the same words that appeared in Defence Regulations 32C, on which Clause 5 is based. It is necessary to repeat them here because the bye-laws to be made by the Pharmaceutical Society under the Bill will contain certain points of substance. I am told, for example, that Polish methods of dispensing are different from English methods, and when the byelaws come to be drafted they will provide, among other things, that the pharmacist shall have some practical experience of British methods of dispensing.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Linstead

I only intervene for one moment, first to welcome, if I may, the new Parliamentary Secretary in making his debut, and, second, to say that with regard to both this and the next Amendment, I am sure that we are improving the Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the methods in Poland are different from those in this country. I suspect that English doctors do not write with the same clarity as Polish doctors, and it is desirable that English methods should be studied. We have been paying a lot of compliments to the Poles tonight, but in regard to this matter we have had a practical example of good will to the Poles from the Brighton technical college. Immediately the need for classes for these Polish pharmacists was known, the Brighton education committee made arrangements to run special classes for them. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War can get them out of the armed forces, the classes are waiting in Brighton for them to take. Indeed, we hope to start a class there before Easter, and I would like to pay a tribute to the education committee of Brighton and the principal of the Brighton technical college for showing good will to these Polish pharmacists.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Edwards

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after the second "to," to insert: "and his skill in dispensing."

This Amendment is very much like the one we have just dealt with. It remedies an omission. As the Clause is drafted, it is limited to theoretical knowledge and says nothing about practical skill in dispensing. It is felt desirable to put it into the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Law

I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4).

This Clause, as it stands, is very remarkable, and I hope this Amendment will make perhaps less remarkable but more useful. It seems to me to be a remarkable thing that we should have a Clause of this length and then come to a Subsection which limits the operation of the Clause only until 31st December of this year. We are already in February, and it seems to us to be a little odd that the Clause should be limited in time until the end of the present year. Of course, we have had the argument for that limitation. I think the Home Secretary gave it on Second Reading. He said that the defence regulation dealing with this matter expires next December and that is why this Clause also should expire next December. It does not seem to me that that is a very valid argument, because the Defence Regulation deals. I understand with foreign practitioners as a whole. This Bill deals with Polish resettlement, and the fact that we are having this Bill is an indication that we regard the Poles as being in a special position in which we do not regard other foreigners in this country at present. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible to allow, subject to the safeguards in the rest of the Clause, the Poles to practice indefinitely without in any way prejudicing any steps which the Home Secretary may wish to take regarding other foreigners on the expiration of the present Defence Regulations. For these reasons, I hope that the Government may find it possible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Edwards

The purpose of the Amendment is obviously to obviate the termination of the registration at the end of 1947. This registration is deliberately temporary. It is designed to place the individuals concerned in precisely the same position as the other doctors and pharmacists registered under the temporary wartime registration arrangements Under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, the temporary registration comes to an end on 31st December, 1947. At present, the Home Secretary is in consultation with the medical profession on the future of temporarily registered doctors. There are similar consultations with the Pharmaceutical Society. It is not possible, yet, to make any statement on those discussions, but as temporary registrations are to cease for every other temporarily registered doctor and pharmacist at the end of the year it is, in our view, undesirable to continue it lot the Poles alone. The discussions now taking place may be prejudged by a decision taken on this point. When the matter is receiving comprehensive review it would not really be sensible for us to settle this matter for one section alone hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Linstead

Having some knowledge of the discussions which are going on, I think that any apprehensions arising from the termination of the temporary registration at the end of this year will be found to have little foundation, as the results of these conversations become known. I think ways will be found to continue that registration, perhaps, on a permanent basis. I am anxious—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a little attention to this point—in regard to the pharmacists, about the shortness of time. It had been assumed that a year would provide time for the necessary training courses and examinations, so that we could be quite certain that all these Polish pharmacists had a chance of getting on to the temporary register by the end of the year. But I have a little doubt, now, whether that will be the position. We find, now, that some of them, possibly doctors as well as pharmacists, are in Italy waiting to be brought back to this country. It may be quite late this year before they are back here, and are therefore in a position to take advantage of this Clause. There is also the fact that, although the training courses are being provided at the Brighton Technical College at the earliest possible moment, we find from the War Office that there may be difficulties in releasing these pharmacists so that they can take the courses. I am a little apprehensive whether we will not find ourselves caught up, at the end of this year, with a number of these people who, for reasons outside their own control, are unable to get on to the temporary register. I would ask the Ministers concerned to look at this to see if it is not worth while to extend the period, or to seek power to extend it. I think it will be agreed that the last thing which we want is to have all these men with the door closed on them, and with a grouse—a justified grouse—for the rest of their lives.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott (Pudsey and Otley)

I think that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee consider this Bill as a valiant attempt to do justice to the Poles who, because of misfortune, are going to spend the majority of their days in this country. This Clause appears to say that the General Medical Council may—it does not say "must"—register these practitioners as foreign practitioners. It puts these Poles on the same basis as foreign practitioners who have come to this country, but I think that the Poles in this case differ. Some of them have taken their degrees in this country, and so they possess a qualifying degree which, if held by a British subject, would make it possible for them to be on the register. Are they "foreign" practitioners because they are foreigners, or because their degree is foreign? If they have a British degree, can they go on registering indefinitely, or it is to be only temporary? If they hold a British degree and in course of time they become naturalised, can they go straight back on the register if the General Medical Council is prepared to register them? It is an important question because a considerable number of them hold British degrees. This Clause says nothing about dentists. Are there no Polish dentists in this country?

The Chairman

I am not sure if the hon. and gallant Member is in Order Clause 4 does not refer to dentists.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott

I would revert to my previous remarks. This also concerns those who hold foreign degrees in this country and who are practising. If they become naturalised, or take a British degree, can they be registered? I would like to support this Amendment because I think that the Clause is out of keeping with the helpfulness and generosity of the other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak)

The Parliamentary Secretary has given certain reasons which are conclusive in favour of this Clause coming to an end at the end of this year. But, under the existing Defence Regulations, these people enjoy the privileges to be given under this Bill. What is the object of substituting this for the existing Defence Regulations ending at the end of this year? It makes no difference to the present position. There is a Defence Regulation at present, and all that happens is that from the time that this Bill receives the Royal Assent, they will get their rights under this instead of the Defence Regulation

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that Poles should not, under this Bill, be put into a better position than any other alien doctors in this country. I should have thought that if there was anything we could do to help them to become established it would be to give them some security in the future. This is only an enabling Clause. It does not compel the General Medical Council to register anybody; it merely enables them to do so in cases where they are satisfied with the qualification. In view of the fact that the Bill is intended to give facilities for the settlement of Poles in this country, the best thing we could do would be to live them some security in the future.

12 m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)

I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted, because it would put Polish doctors in a very much better position than many other alien doctors who fought in the British Army for several years. This matter was carefully considered by the Central Medical War Committee, which put forward a scheme to the British Medical Association which has been accepted by them. It is being put to other medical bodies in the country and will, no doubt, be submitted to the Government. It would be a pity if we gave to Polish doctors a better opportunity than we gave to alien doctors who served this country just as well.

Mr. J. Edwards

In reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), I do not think that it is practicable to consider modifying the Bill to take account of the difficulty to which he referred. The position of people who do not get on to the temporary register in time will be considered with the general question of aliens, after discussions with the professions have been concluded. I do not anticipate any difficulty in dealing with the problem he raised at the same time as we deal with the comprehensive problem. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) was rather involved. In so far as Polish medical students acquire British medical degrees, there is no difficulty; they can practice. But if they are Polish students with Polish degrees, they can be considered with other alien doctors, even if they do not become members of the Resettlement Corps. There is no difficulty about dentists. There is no provision of the Bill to cover dentists, because there is no difficulty about which we need bother our heads. In reply to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) the register was closed on 24th February, 1946, and it was essential to provide, in the Bill, for the same kind of arrangements. The Defence Regulation arrangements come to an end on 31st December, 1947, and we provide the same thing here, which is the reason for not accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Linstead

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not close his mind entirely to the possibility of changing this date. If he does so after the end of the year it may be possible to bring in Poles. We are not giving the Poles the general preferential treatment which this Bill contemplates for them, and it may very well be that they have to come in eventually by some door which is not yet in existence, let alone open.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Linstead

There are certain classes of Poles to whom this Clause applies, but there is one class—of whom there are possibly very few—who are not provided for here. I refer to those Poles who have been serving in the British Forces. I have in mind only one specific case—a pilot who has served in the R.A.F. and thus does not come into any of the categories of the Polish Forces mentioned in this Clause. I am wondering whether some consideration could be given to that particular type of case, small though the number may be, because I am quite certain that such a man is included within the spirit of this Bill. It would be a pity if a man who had chosen to do his bit fighting in our Forces should be deprived by a technicality of the benefits of this Measure.

Mr. Ede

I have no hesitation in undertaking to give sympathetic consideration to the type of case described by the hon. Member.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provision by the Minister of Education of educational services.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Piratin

On a point of Order, Major Milner, is it not your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name, in Clause 6, page 8, line 22, at the end, to insert: Provided that all higher education arrangements made under this subsection are to be provided, taking into consideration the needs and facilities of British ex-service students.

The Chairman

The hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Piratin

Then, if I may, I should like to raise the point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We were given figures this afternoon by the Minister of Education which showed that 18,000 British ex-Servicemen had been granted further educational training grants. On another occasion we were told some 4,000 Poles have already been given further education, and that some 2,900 were still being educated. The latest figure we had last week was that 2,000 were receiving higher education. Even at this late hour, any hon. Member of the Committee can make a rapid calculation and discover for himself that 4,000 out of 100,000 compares very favourably indeed with 18,000 out of 5 million. We all know that many British ex-Servicemen feel aggrieved that they have not been given an opportunity for further education—some with justice and some, in view of their particular limitations—with injustice. The fact remains that we have been told time and time again that there is not sufficient accommodation or staff avail- able. It may be said that so far as the Poles are concerned they have enough capable professors and so on to provide their own staffing. That may be so, but it does not account for the accommodation, and we have been told that there is insufficient accommodation at the universities to allow for the further education of all those British ex-Servicemen who desire it. In view of this, I ask the Minister for an assurance that no Pole who receives education shall do so at the expense of any British ex-Servicemen, and that such accommodation and facilities as exist shall be allotted in a reasonable proportion to the British and the Poles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to bear in mind the figures that have been quoted—and which are based on information given by the Minister—showing that whereas only 18,000 British ex-Servicemen have been granted further education out of a total of some 5 million who served, about 4,000 Poles are to be given such education out of a total of roo,000. I think that these are figures which will be received with great interest and perhaps with some concern by British ex-Servicemen when they learn of this contrast. Therefore, the least that the Minister can do is to give us such an assurance and I hope he will do so.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I think the Committee would like to know what are the intentions with regard to the setting up of this Polish University College. As I understand it that proposal is justified on the grounds that at the present time the British universities are full, and, therefore, it is necessary to have some special university college in which to accommodate the Polish students now wishing to undergo technical education. I hope, however, that this is merely a temporary feature of our education, and that the Polish children, who are now in secondary and primary schools, will in the course of time be accommodated in the national universities. I think we would like the Minister to give us some assurance that this Polish college will be of a strictly limited duration.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson)

In reply to that point, I would say that the time factor is one on which I cannot at this moment say anything definite. However, I look upon this as something of a temporary character, and the sooner the students who pass through can be integrated into the normal life the better. I would point out how difficult it would be to meet the request made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that no Pole should be taken into our institutions until all the requirements of our ex-Servicemen have been met. While the figures which the hon. Member has given as contrasted with numbers of our ex-servicemen, would seem impressive, I must not only point out that the figures are wrong but object to the way he has put them, because as presented, they throw a reflection upon what we are here attempting to do. It seems to me that all this Clause as it stands does is to place the Ministry of Education in a position to carry out on behalf of the Minister what hitherto would have been carried out by the local education authority. Because of that fact it has set up a special machine for the purpose. It is my intention, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to appoint a committee to work out all the points brought to notice by hon. Members, but in carrying out our duty, we do not intend to imperil the opportunities which are being offered to our own ex-Servicemen.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Law

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The hour is getting late It is after midnight and well past our normal hour of Adjournment. We are using a lot of electric light and I understand that that is a scarce and valuable commodity at the present time. I think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will agree that we have made progress with the Committee stage of the Bill. The progress made may not be as rapid as he would like, but I think he will acquit both this side of the Committee and his own followers of any disposition to slow up the passage of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister should now allow us to go home. It would be to the convenience of every Member of the Committee, and I do not think that it would effectively delay the passage of this Bill at all, because I think that from the way the Committee stage has been conducted to-night it is clear that the Committee are as anxious as the Minister to secure its passage. That indicates that if we take the remainder of the Committee stage on another occasion we should be able to dispose of it rapidly. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that, at this advanced hour we can now go home.

Mr. Ede

I am thankful to the Committee for the way in which the discussion on the Bill has been conducted, but I must ask hon. Members to conclude the Committee stage to-night. I hope that an announcement which I hope to be able to make later on what might otherwise prove a contentious part of the Bill, will help us to conclude our work. Until we get to the new Clause in my name there is not any matter of substance left. I hope that the answer I shall be able to make when we reach that new Clause will enable the Committee to report Progress at a not very distant hour.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to service in the forces.)

Mr. Warbey

I beg to move, in page 9. line 7, after "forces," to insert: during a period not exceeding two year, from the passing of this Act. The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the application of the first part of the Clause to a period not exceeding two years from the passing of the Bill. Hon. Members will be aware of the fact that a Section of the Army Act does restrict to one in 5o the number of aliens who can be employed in the British forces at any one time. I fear that the Polish Resettlement Corps and its ancillary bodies are in excess of that number, being, in fact, too per cent. Polish, and, therefore, if the Polish Resettlement Corps and other bodies under the general heading of the Polish Resettlement Force are to remain in being as a legal force, it is necessary to waive that Section of the Army and the Air Force Act, in respect to the Polish Resettlement Force. It has, however, been quite definitely stated by the Home Secretary and, I think, by other responsible Ministers, that this Polish Resettlement Corps, although technically a military unit within the British Armed Forces, in its character is not essentially military; that its character is substantially civilian in that it is a preparation of these Poles for civilian life; that, to the greatest possible extent, it is a demilitarised unit; and that, in fact, the only purpose for which it is retained within the British Armed Forces and under the control of the War Office and Air Force at all is in order to ensure. that its members shall be subject to British military discipline. That, I understand, is the sole purpose aimed at, and there is no intention whatsoever that this Corps shall constitute anything like a foreign legion.

If that is so, then surely it is highly desirable that this Corps shall be terminated as soon as its functions have been completed, and that there is no possibility in the form of this Bill, when it is finally passed into law, that the Corps can continue as a distinct Corps within the British Army. We have been told that it is generally understood that the Polish Resettlement Corps shall complete its functions within a period of two years, and that within that time it is hoped the Poles will have been trained for, and translated into, civilian life and absorbed into our community. If, at the end of two years, there are a few individuals still remaining for whom a place has not been found, then it will not be necessary to retain military discipline for them, because they can be dealt with in other ways. The Corps will, in fact, be substantially liquidated within that period. Therefore, I hope that we shall he told by whoever replies that it is possible to accept this Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman)

I have no wish to treat the Committee with discourtesy, but I think it might be for the general convenience if I said straight away that we are not willing to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, and to explain why. His argument was that this Corps is a civilian Corps in character, for all practical purposes, that it ought to be wound up as quickly as possible, that two years seems to be a reasonable time to expect it to last, and that if anybody were left at the end of two years, they would not matter very much,

It is our hope that within two years we shall have completed the business of this Polish Resettlement Corps and that it will have finished its natural function and passed out of existence. It is obviously possible that that may not be so, and that there may be a certain number of people still left in it at the end of two years. I want to make it perfectly plain to the Committee that there is no conspiracy or hidden hand in this at all, but these matters are affected by a good many imponderables; for instance, the absorption into civilian life and civilian industry of a large body of men of this kind would probably be affected by such a crisis as we have been passing through in the last two or three weeks, and for a great variety of reasons it is quite unacceptable to be tied down in statutory form to a fixed period after which it would not be legitimate to continue the existence of this Corps.

I will give an assurance to the Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government that there is every intention of winding this up as quickly as it can be done, but we cannot be tied in statutory form like this, and it is an invalid argument to say that if there are only a few people left, it does not matter what happens to them, because it may well be that the last members of this Resettlement Corps to be disbanded will be the cadre staff who have been administering the Corps, and who have complicated financial and legal provisions to tidy up before they can go, and who would have to remain in military conditions and subject to the same laws and regulations under which they have been serving all along to carry out that task. Therefore, with those arguments and with the assurance which I readily give, I trust the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Warbey

I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider the possibility, at least, of inserting some time limit. I felt his argument was not very convincing because a good many of us had taken the view that this matter could have been dealt with in another way, and that there would have been a possibility of placing this Corps under civilian control long ago, for example, under the control of the Ministry of Labour. I am not at all sure that the kind of control that these men have been under in the past, under some of their own officers, has maintained a very high standard of discipline. From reports that I have seen from the Italian Government, of their behaviour in Italy, for example, they had not a very high record of discipline.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

That is not true.

Mr. Warbey

My hon. Friend is, no doubt, fully acquainted with these things—

Mr. Stokes

I am.

Mr. Warbey

—but I may say that I have seen a record prepared by the Italian Government and submitted to the Italian Control Commission, giving a very long list of offences of ill-discipline committed by members of these Forces.

Mr. Stokes

Submitted by whom?

Mr. Warbey

I do not wish to transgress the rules of Order, but, since I have been challenged on this point, I would say that I can show my hon. Friend a copy of this document. To come back to the point which we are discussing, some of us take the view that it is not necessary to deal with the matter in this way. If it is necessary to deal with a large body of men—with 80,000 or 90,000 men—in this way, surely, at the end of two years it could have been possible so to adapt these men to the British way of life that it is not necessary, for the sake of an odd few thousand who may remain, to retain them under military discipline in this country. Therefore, I submit that this time limit would not impose any undue restriction but, on the other hand, it would remove any possible misunderstanding there may be, and that under this Clause, particularly in the first part of it, we are seeking to establish what is, in effect, a, kind of foreign legion within the British Forces.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. Freeman

I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 15, and to insert: Polish resettlement forces. Before this Bill was presented to the House, a number of hon. Members were good enough to discuss with us what might be the effect of these provisions, and we felt at that time that Clause 8 was not drafted as well as it might be in one respect.

Professor Savory

Hear, hear.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Freeman

I trust the hon. Member will remain in agreement as we proceed. We are anxious to make it perfectly plain that the object of this Resettlement Corps is to fit people for civilian life, and that in no circumstances are we seeking to recruit a foreign legion. It has occurred to us that, as originally drafted, it might appear that people can be taken from the "rump," the Poles who have not yet decided to go into the Resettlement Corps, and recruited into the British Army. If that were so, a suggestion might be 1evelled at us that we were not very serious about accepting these Poles in the British Army on equal terms with Englishmen. In order to remove any misunderstanding of that kind we are by this Amendment, in effect, giving an undertaking by which we shall be bound that we will not accept Polish recruits into the British Army, until they have passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major BRAMALL:

In page 9, line 15, leave out "be disregarded," and insert: apply as though 'for the word 'fifty,' there were substituted the word 'five,' provided always that the total number of Poles so serving in corps or units of the Army and Royal Air Force other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces shall not exceed five thousand.

Major Bramall

In view of the assurance given by the Financial Secretary, that there is no intention to form a foreign legion, and that that point will be borne in mind in all transactions with regard to the Poles, I do not wish to press my Amendment.

The Chairman.

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Major Bramall

I do not wish to move it.

Mr. Warbey

I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "officer," to insert: other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the possibility of giving the rank of commissioned officer to a Pole serving in the Polish Resettlement Forces. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already used in relation to the previous Amendment, but merely to emphasise again that this Corps is essentially a preparation for civilian life, and particularly for absorption into the British way of life. Therefore, in these conditions it is clearly desirable that there should be the least amount of militarisation among the Poles themselves, and particularly that the Polish soldiers in this Resettlement Corps should not be subjected to the kind of control which they have experienced in the past from a number of senior Polish officers who, although it may not suit the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), were of a reactionary character and were definitely, and are still, entirely hostile to the Polish Government in Warsaw, and to good relations between this country and that Government. I do not wish to weary the Committee with quotations from some of the utterances which have been made by these people. I have a sheaf here of the kind of thoroughly reactionary anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist statements which have been made by these gentlemen.

Mr. Stokes

Anti-Communist.

Mr. Warbey

Anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist, I said. I am not concerned with whether they are anti-Communist.

Mr. Stokes

Moscow, please note.

Mr. Warbey

It does interest me that these statements are anti-Socialist and hostile to the Polish Government which we recognise. These people are not democrats in spirit, and are therefore not the right kind of people to exercise control over men who are being trained in the British democratic way of life. Therefore, I suggest that it will be for the benefit of the future conduct of this Corps if the officers in control are Polish non-commissioned officers, subject to the higher discipline of a small number of British commissioned officers. That is quite sufficient for the military discipline required for this Corps. There is no need, we have been told, for any great amount, but this would guarantee that these men are trained in a democratic way, which they have not been in the past year or so.

Mr. Gallacher

I did not intend to intervene at this stage, but since the hon. Member keeps repeating certain remarks, I think it is necessary to say something in reply. I know all about this. There are large numbers of Polish soldiers in Scotland, and for vile, vicious Fascism, one cannot beat the Polish officers in Scotland. Their whole attitude is just that. They are swaggering, and they are all-important—

Mr. Stokes

One gets that in Whitehall.

Mr. Gallacher

I am talking about the Polish officers, and as a matter of fact it is well known that these very people, before they came from Poland, would have imposed imprisonment on anybody who knocked against a Polish uniform. They have been known to shoot civilians, and here they are—

Professor Savory

The hon. Member is thinking of German officers.

Mr. Gallacher

I am talking of my own country. I know what happens there. We have them in Scotland, and they would never think of giving any encouragement at all to democracy. If this Polish Resettlement Corps is to be used for absorbing people into the industrial life of this country, it should not depend on Polish officers, but on democratic organisations within the Resettlement Corps. I want to tell the Committee that these Polish officers are very dangerous from the point of view of democracy.

Mr. J. Freeman

It is perfectly clear that any arguments which I might address to the Committee will have no effect in silencing my hon. Friend (Mr Stokes). There are a variety of reasons why I would ask the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) to withdraw this Amendment. The first is that it is not, I am told, acceptable from a legal point of view, and, furthermore, if we were anxious to do what he says he is anxious to do, I am assured that this would not be the way to do it. My hon. Friend is anxious to demilitarise this Corps, and he says that we should prevent any Polish commissioned officer from belonging to it. I cannot see how that is going to have the effect he wants Are these Polish officers to be accepted into the Corps and brought down to the rank of n.c.o. and private? If that is in his mind, does he think it is likely that they will want to volunteer to come into the Resettlement Corps? Or does he not want them to get into the Resettlement Corps?

The Chairman

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me hear what he is saying?

Mr. Freeman

I beg your pardon, Major Milner. I am flattered by your interest.

Mr. Warbey

The Financial Secretary says, "Do I want these officers brought in, and invited to accept the rank of sergeant or private?" I thought that the object of the Corps was to fit them for civil life. Is not that its purpose?

Mr. Freeman

Nevertheless, we are faced with the problem of very large numbers of Polish military personnel of all ranks, drawing the benefits of those ranks, and we are inviting them to volunteer for the Resettlement Corps. It will not be a very hopeful prospect if we start by saying that anybody who has earned high rank during his war service must start by coming down to the rank of lance corporal. That is one of the effects of the proposed Amendment. If my hon. Friend does not want these officers to come into the Corps then all that has been said about the democratisation of these people, and fitting them for civil life, falls to the ground. If these people are Fascists—which I do not accept for one moment—surely it is desirable that they should he brought into this Corps, and be susceptible to the control and direction which the Corps is designed to give.

Further, I suggest that we cannot reopen now the question of the military organisation of these people. There are two views about this, and the House has had many months in which to think over this problem. I have no doubt that the vast majority of. people have come to the conclusion that this method of using the Resettlement Corps as a military transit camp, in order to fit these Poles for civil life in this country, is the best method. I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he will not withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stokes

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) considers whether he will, or will not, withdraw his Amendment, I cannot resist the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I am amazed that he should protest on grounds of democracy, because he represents a philosophy which is a complete denial of democracy—

The Chairman

We cannot go into a discussion about the respective merits of different philosophies.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for me, Major Milner, to invite the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to discuss democracy with me in Ipswich, any time he likes?

Mr. Stokes

Any time the hon. Member likes to come to Ipswich I shall he delighted to meet him.

Mr. Gallacher

The hon. Member has never been there when I have been there.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Stokes

That is because the hon. Member has never done me the courtesy of telling me that he was corning. That, of course, is not the least surprising, given his performances in this House. With regard to these swanky journalists and the rest, surely the idea that we should take note of the example set from the East—

Mr. Gallaeher

The South-East.

Mr. Stokes

No, the East. As I was saying, the idea that we ought to pay more attention to the example set us by Marshal Zhukov, who considers a battledress as ridiculous and dresses himself up in a great panoply—

The Chairman

That is irrelevant to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Stokes

That was the argument used by my hon. Friend and I wanted to show what awful humbug it was. Having said that, I am prepared to sit down.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 21, leave out from "the," to "who," in line 23, and insert "Polish resettlement forces."—[Mr. J. Freeman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Professor Savory

I share the opinion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office—

Mr. Piratin

On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you intend to call the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend and myself, in page 9, line 4, to leave out Clause 8?

The Chairman

That is not an Amendment in the proper sense. It is unnecessary to move to leave out a whole Clause. If the hon. Member desires to do so he may raise his point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Professor Savory

I fully share the opinion of the Minister as to the obscurity of this whole Clause. I have read it many times and have received innumerable letters from my Polish friends asking me for an explanation of the meaning of certain passages in it. I have not been able to give them a satisfactory answer. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but there is one important point in this connection. A commander in the Polish Navy came to see me on Saturday as a deputation from his colleagues and put various questions to me which I asked should be put in writing. I find it very difficult to understand why the Navy is omitted from Subsection (1) and only the Army and the Royal Air Force mentioned, whereas in Subsection (2) the Navy is mentioned. Perhaps I may read the question to which the Polish officer desires an answer? He says: The Bill provides in Clause 8, Subsection (1) for the service of Poles in the British Army and the Royal Air Force, but nothing is said about the Royal Navy. Before the enrolment of the Polish resettlement corps started, an official pamphlet was circulated among members of the Polish Navy. Among other things it stated that it was not possible yet for Polish sailors to join the Royal Navy, which at present admits only British citizens and those of British origin. On the other hand, the same document explained that Polish sailors can, if they wish, join the British Army. This, in the first place, seems a waste of trained personnel, while from the psychological point of view it certainly is a mistake. No sailor will ever join an Army, however glorious may be its traditions. In view of the exceptional situation, it is suggested that an Amendment should be introduced to Clause 8 of the Bill which would enable Polish sailors to join the British Navy. I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me an answer to this question so that I may transmit it to my friends.

Mr. Gallacher

I should like to say to the Financial Secretary that I am not in favour of bringing them in as privates. I would put them on the retired list and bring them in as retired officers. After all, when an officer retires. he receives retired pay. They should come into this Resettlement Corps not as a force of the Polish Army. That is all very well in connection with the situation as it is now, but I would honestly ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. By all means get them into the force and get them prepared for our industrial and civilian life. As hon. Members in the Committee know, I would prefer to see them all go back to Poland, but if that is not to be the case, I would like to see them all brought in and trained, particularly the officers. I would like to see them being trained in industrial and domestic life. In no circumstances should the Minister retain that relationship between officer and men which existed in the Army. What we want is a new relationship between officers and men, for that is an essential part of training them to be absorbed into our industrial and civilian life.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger)

In answer to the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), I will look into that point. The real reason why the Navy is not mentioned in this Clause is because this Clause relates to the Army Act and the Air Force Act and the Polish Resettlement Corps is really a transit camp into civilian life, or if suitable, into the Armed Forces of this country but not as a unit, only as individuals. In regard to what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, I am glad to hear his remarks about not wishing to demote these men. After all, many of these officers did good service and as long as they continue to observe the forms of democracy which we understand in this country and which we are teaching them—[Interruption.] Yes, the Committee will be surprised to learn that we are teaching them not only elementary English but the democratic forms of life, which they must have before they can be assimilated here, or before they can emigrate overseas. I ask the Committee not to be suspicious of the good intentions of His Majesty's Government in setting up this Polish Resettlement Corps as a method of rehabilitating these Poles, either in getting them back to Poland, which is what we desire, or to prepare them for some useful form of occupation in civilian life.

Professor Savory

The point simply is this: Cannot a Polish naval officer join the British Navy in the same way as a Polish army officer can join the British Army? I should like the Secretary of State for War to have a copy of these questions and I will hand them to him now.

The Chairman

The hon. Member's action is very irregular.

Professor Savory

I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to have the questions.

Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)

I understand that the main point of the Polish Resettlement-Corps is to rehabilitate these Polish soldiers and get them into the civilian way of life. It seems to me rather peculiar that in order to do so, we should retain in this Resettlement Corps the military set-up that was in operation in the Polish military forces. I should have imagined in order to teach them the English way of life it would have been necessary for them in this force to live as closely to the English way of life as possible. I do not consider it demoting them by putting them into civilian life and I would think it would be better if this Resettlement Corps were brought into close contact with our experience of the way of life. I cannot accept fully the argument that has been put forward.

Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)

I ask the Government to reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). All the legal luminaries of the Government are on the Front Bench. Surely one of them could answer. The question was a simple one—what legal difficulty stands in the way of a member of the Polish naval detachment joining the British Navy? Could we not have an answer to that?

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

I am always glad to satisfy the thirst for information which hon. Members opposite exhibit from time to time. In the Army and Air Force Annual Act, aliens may be permitted to join the Army under Section 95, which is referred to in this Clause. Under the existing Regulations they may not join the Navy.

Mr. Eric Fletcher

Having regard to what the Attorney-General has just said, could we have the benefit of his advice in regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps? Under this Bill, the scheme is intended to apply for five years. If it is necessary to legalise the position in the future may we know what the present law is? Does it not follow that Section 95 of the Army and Air Force Act is invalidated at the present time? If so, is it proposed to take steps to make this Clause retrospective or is an indemnifying Bill going to be brought in?

The Attorney-General

His Majesty's present Law Officers have had regard to those difficulties, and have anticipated them by dealing with the matter under the Defence Regulations at present in operation.

Mr. Warbey

I think that it is entirely unnecessary to import into this Corps, which is intended to be a preparation for a civilian and democratic way of life, the entire military hierarchy which has been in operation in the Polish forces from the general commanding, right down to the second-lieutenant.

Mrs. Manning

Could the Attorney-General tell us whether this new Force will come under the Defence Regulations; and is it a fact that discipline can be enforced in those circumstances? If it is not a fact how can discipline be enforced, and what use can the present set-up be to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who wants it for that purpose?

The Attorney-General

I was dealing with another point. I was dealing with the question of the extent to which aliens might be admitted into the British Army, not the extent to which discipline can be exercised over a force which is not part of the British Army. The point my hon. Friend has in mind does not arise on this Clause.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Scotland.)

1.0 a.m.

The Joint Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert: (2) Subsections (8) and (9) of section three shall not apply. I should. like to discuss both this and the next Amendment to page 10, line 33, together. The Bill proposes that the Assistance Board should give certain benefits and recover charges from the persons liable, but in Scotland the position as regards the recovery of charges differs somewhat from the English position, and does so in two respects. First there is in Scotland no procedure for obtaining maintenance orders; the person liable has to be sued in court like an ordinary debtor. Secondly, the persons liable to reimburse the Assistance Board differ in the two countries. In this first Amendment we propose to delete a provision that we in- serted to cover the difficulty in Scotland, but we find that, in fact, it does not do more than is done in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Bill. We think, therefore, that the position can safely be left under paragraph 5. As regards the second Amendment, we consider that, that since a limited class of people is being dealt with in the Bill under these provisions, a very limited number of people will be called upon to reimburse the Assistance Board. There is no necessity, as we have provided, to provide for recovery under two different sets of provisions, so we propose in the second Amendment to apply the English law to the whole of Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 33, leave out paragraph (a), and insert: (a) paragraph 3 shall have effect as if the Poor Law Act, 1930, extended to Scotland."—[Mr. Thomas Fraser.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, at the end, to insert: Provided that, in the application of that Act by virtue of this subsection, there shall be substituted, for references in that Act to the appeal tribunal constituted thereunder, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, references to the appeal tribunal constituted under the Unemployment Assistance Act (Northern Ireland), 1934, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, respectively. This is to enable a Pole who happens to be in Northern Ireland and applies for, and is granted, assistance from the Assistance Board and wishes to appeal against the decision, to have the appeal heard in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that the Committee would desire to give him that facility.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page it, line 9, after "in," to insert "sections four to seven of."

This is a drafting Amendment to cure a verbal defect in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

Mr. Ede.

Mr. Bing

On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I ask for your Ruling as to whether or not the new Clause which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary—[Continuance of provisions as to discipline and internal administration of certain Polish forces]—is in Order. I do not wish to take long on the point, but if I am successful on it, it will perhaps result in our going home rather earlier than we would otherwise have done.

I think it is generally accepted, and it is my submission, that any Clause in a Bill must be within the general scope of the Bill, and that any Clause which is outside the purpose of the Bill cannot be introduced on the Committee stage. In 1907 in the case of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which had been before the House of Commons in one form or another since 1856, so that the provisions were by then fairly familiar, it was held that a Clause dealing with the re-marriage of a divorced wife's sister, was out of Order. In those circumstances, my submission is that if a new Clause goes at all outside the general scope of the Bill, it is not permissible to introduce it on the Committee stage. This new Clause deals with a subject which is entirely foreign—

Brigadier Low

What Clause? It has not been moved.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has raised a point of Order on it.

Brigadier Low

It is not before the Committee.

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me, but I called upon the Home Secretary to move the new Clause, and it seems to me that it is in Order to raise a point of Order at this stage.

Mr. Bing

The proposed new Clause standing on the Order Paper deals with a subject which is entirely different from the main object of the Bill. Hitherto the purpose of the Bill has been to deal with aliens who owe allegiance to the Crown and with aliens for whom some Minister has some responsibility. What is now proposed, as a kind of "side kick" at the last moment, as far as I can see, is to repeal, in part, at any rate, the Bill of Rights, and to propose a provision which is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Army Act. It is of course within the competence of Parliament to do such things, but if it is desired to raise such matters, they should, at least, be announced on the Second Reading of the Bill and not at this late stage. Perhaps I might ask for your ruling, Major Milner, whether you consider this new Clause in Order.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of Order—

The Chairman

The Home Secretary has not formally moved the new Clause, and it is not before the Committee, Perhaps he will formally move it, and I can deal with the point of Order.