Sitting of 8 December 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  BELGIUM (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will give the latest information available as to the conditions of malnutrition prevailing among the civil population of Belgium under German occupation; whether there has been any communication with any of the Allied Governments as to this position and as to the proposal that dried milk and vitamins should be permitted to be sent to Belgium for distribution to children, nursing mothers and invalids under the control of the International Red Cross?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I have no evidence to show that conditions of public health in Belgium have greatly changed since the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 21st July. In recent months, however, there has been an increase in the meat and potato rations, due mainly to improved distribution. As regards the, second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government are frequently in communication with Allied Governments regarding the condition of their respective countries under enemy occupation; but the House will not expect me to reveal the nature of such communications.
  Mr. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Government are considering the appeal which has been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster with regard to the feeding of children in Belgium?
  Mr. Foot: There has been no change in the blockade policy of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Harvey: That is not an answer to my question. My question was about the appeal on this subject by the Archbishop
  1412
  of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.
  Mr. Foot: All appeals received from those or other responsible quarters do receive the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I must repeat that there has been no change in our blockade policy towards occupied countries.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (SINGAPORE)
  Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to publish the names he has received of the prisoners in Japanese hands at Singapore?
  The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The names are in course of publication.
  Dr. Thomas: May I ask my right hon. Friend why there has been such delay, because there is a tense anxiety among the relatives of these unfortunate men whose fate is so uncertain?
  Sir J. Grigg: I do not think there has been any avoidable delay.
  Dr. Thomas: That is the impression.
  Sir J. Grigg: I think it is a wrong impression, if I may say so. There has been no avoidable delay in the publication of the lists once they have been received. There was enormous delay before we received lists, and even now they are extremely partial; in fact, "partial" is an exaggeration.
  Sir Hugh O'Neill: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the names are to be published, can he say what proportion they are of the total number of prisoners?
  Sir J. Grigg: I could not say that without notice, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend and tell him. It is a small proportion.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Civil Debts (Deductions from Pay)
    Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in a case recently submitted to his Department by the hon. Member for Whitechapel, over two-thirds of a man's weekly pay was deducted in respect of a

    1413
    civil debt, leaving him with only 4s. 1d. per week; and will he reconsider this policy with the object of making a smaller weekly deduction in such cases?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have looked into this case and do not consider that a change would be justified in the normal rule whereby a soldier repays his debts as soon as possible, so long as he is left with at least 4s. 1d. a week.
    Mr. Edwards: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a man with just 4s. 1d. a week has hardly anything at all with which to be able to meet his expenses, and could he at least make the figure a litle bit higher?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have looked into this particular case, and I do not think it is a very meritorious one.

    Royal Army Service Corps (Record Office)
    Mr. William Brownasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the proposed transfer of the Record Office of the Royal Army Service Corps to its new location, he is aware that a number of married women now serving in the office will not be willing to move, resulting in a loss of efficiency; that there is a considerable housing shortage in the new area so married staff will be unable to move their homes and will be entitled to a number of free and partly-free travel passes, placing additional burdens on the railways; and whether, in view of the long distance proposed in this transfer, he will ascertain if suitable accommodation can be found nearer to the town where the office is at present situated?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the objections advanced by the hon. Member to the move of this office. These objections were taken into account before the move was finally decided on, but it proved impossible to find any suitable accommodation nearer to the town where the office now is.

    Women's Home Defence
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the nature of the official recognition of the 250 units of Women's Home Defence, most of which are working with the Home Guard; and will he make a comprehensive statement thereon?
    Sir J. Grigg: This question is still under consideration.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the reply which he gave to me some time in October, and in view of the fact that already two months have passed, cannot he hurry his decision?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am quite aware of the fact that this decision has been about a long time, but the question has been caught up in a much larger question which is now under review.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the admirable service which these women are giving to the Home Guard, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of making a statement shortly?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will do my best, but I am not entirely free in this matter.

    Personnel Abroad (Leave)
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on how leave is given to men serving overseas as there is concern on this matter?
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for War whether relatives of men serving abroad may apply direct to the War Office for the return of men on compassionate grounds; and whether he will make a statement as to the general conditions on which such leave may be given?
    Sir J. Grigg: I regret that owing to shipping limitations and operational needs no leave can in general be granted to personnel serving abroad to visit this country. Very occasionally it is possible to transfer individuals serving abroad to the Home establishment. Each case is dealt with on its merits. Such a transfer can only be considered in cases of ill-health, if the officer or soldier has served abroad continuously for at least seven years, or on extreme compassionate grounds when the physical presence at home of the officer or soldier is essential. Applications for such transfers should be made to the War Office. A recommendation for the individual's transfer may then be made to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command in which he is serving, but the final decision rests with the General Officer

    1415
    Commanding-in-Chief and depends on the military situation and on the availability of shipping. Personnel serving abroad are given up to 28 days a year of local recuperative leave. They are given free travel to the nearest health resort. As such facilities are limited, particularly in the Middle East, rest camps are sometimes provided by the Army where officers and men can have a rest and a change.

    Broadcast Messages
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War, upon what basis is the selection made of men and women to broadcast messages to their parents and friends; is he aware that recently in a broadcast not one private spoke; and will he take steps to see that all ranks are dealt with in proportion to their numbers?
    Sir J. Grigg: The number of privates selected is, generally speaking, in proportion to the number of privates in the Command. I am not sure which particular broadcast my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will send me particulars I will look into it.

    Court Orders (Deductions from Pay)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the position of men under compulsory stop pages from their pay in connection with court orders?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have had this question under consideration, and I have decided to make certain concessions in the amount payable by soldiers in these circumstances. The subject is too intricate for a short answer, and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    (a) Soldier with a single liability to a separated or divorced wife with court order.
    The court order will be met first by a compulsory stoppage from the soldier's pay up to the amount of the qualifying allotment he would have made if family allowance had been admissible. If necessary this compulsory stoppage will then be supplemented by a grant from Army Funds at a rate not exceeding such amount of family allowance plus a con-
    1416
    tribution to allotment from Army Funds as would have been admissible had the parties not been separated. (This grant plus the compulsory stoppage from the soldier's pay will not exceed the amount of the court order.) If the court order is still not completely met, then the soldier will provide the balance by an additional compulsory stoppage up to three-fourths (or two-thirds according to rank) of his pay, with a limit in respect of this liability, leaving him 1s. a day.
    (b) Soldier with a dual liability to a separated or divorced wife with court order and to an unmarried dependant living as a wife.
    The legal wife's claim has priority and will be met by compulsory stoppage, up to the limit indicated above, if this is necessary to meet the amount of the court order. If such stoppage still falls short of the amount of the court order, it will be supplemented by a grant from Army Funds of such an amount as will enable the wife to receive such total sum, not exceeding the amount of family allowance, plus qualifying allotment, plus the contribution from Army Funds to allotment, as would have been payable if there had been no separation or divorce. (This grant plus the compulsory stoppage from the soldier's pay will not exceed the amount of the court order.) The soldier's normal qualifying allotment required for the issue of special dependants' allowance to the unmarried dependant living as a wife will be met from any balance of pay left in excess of 1s. a day to the soldier. Any further sum required to make up the full normal qualifying allotment will be paid from Army Funds, in addition to the contribution from Army Funds to allotment and special dependants' allowance.
    (c) Affiliation orders.
    The soldier will be liable to meet the orders by compulsory stoppage of pay within the limits shown above.
    Similar arrangements will be made in, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

    Pay Corps (Administration)
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute an expert inquiry into the modernisation of the methods used in the Army Pay Department?
    Sir J. Grigg: The Royal Army Pay Corps has handled a very difficult problem with conspicuous success. The system governing the work of the Corps was the subject of an expert inquiry two years ago which reported to the Standing Committee on Army Administration that it is as expeditious and fool-proof as is possible in war time conditions. The system has since continued to be the object of constant study, and improvements in the way of modernisation of processes, including the utilisation of mechanical side, are introduced whenever their value is proved. I do not think there is any need for such an inquiry as is proposed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all the most modern business machines and appliances are available to the Corps, on whom I make no reflection?
    Sir J. Grigg: "All" is rather a great deal to ask, but I am satisfied that a great many modern aids are adopted, and adopted with reasonable promptitude.

    Italian Prisoners of War (Treatment)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of Mussolini's recent broadcast, he proposes to make any statement on the treatment of Italian prisoners by our troops?
    Sir J. Grigg: All complaints made by prisoners of war or by the Italian Government through the Protecting Power are fully investigated whenever sufficient details are given in the complaint to enable this to be done, and a full answer is invariably sent. As no details were given, it has been impossible to inquire into the allegations made in Mussolini's recent broadcast. No such complaints have been received from the Italian Government, and I should be very surprised if there were anything in the allegations made except propaganda. Our treatment of prisoners of war is based on the scrupulous observance of the Geneva Convention, and I do not consider any statement on the subject is necessary.
    Mr. Hannah: Has Mussolini a high reputation for truthfulness?

    Palestinian Doctors (Duty, India)
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for War, what objection there is to enlisting doctors from Palestine in the British Army for service in India; and
    1418
    whether he is aware that such applications have been made to Army Headquarters in Jerusalem and the services declined?
    Sir J. Grigg: Hitherto Palestinian doctors commissioned in the British Army have been retained in the Middle East, where their services are required. Should there be at any time a surplus there of suitable candidates, there would be no objection to appointing them in the Middle East and sending them to India for duty. I am not aware of the facts referred to in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, but inquiries are being made into this.

    Cable and Wireless, Ltd. (Employees, Hong-Kong)
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances in which an arrangement was made between his Department and Cable and Wireless, Limited, in accordance with which 17 employees of that firm were engaged for censorship duties in Hong Kong; and whether he will call for a full report in respect of the treatment of those men, with a view to those who have returned to England receiving forthwith full allowances due to them and also with a view to provision for reimbursement, when they are released, to those who are at present prisoners of war?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The matter is being investigated.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Army Personnel (Observer's "Wings")
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been drawn to the grievance that whereas Army officers who had previously been qualified pilots in the Royal Air Force are permitted to wear pilot's wings on Army uniforms those qualified as observers in the Royal Air Force are not permitted to wear the observer's "wings" on Army uniforms; and will he reconsider the question of observer's "wings"?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I have

    1419
    been asked to reply. R.A.F. flying badges are not personal insignia. They are a part of Royal Air Force uniform, and the right to wear them with other types of uniform cannot be admitted. Army officers who were qualified pilots were allowed to wear "wings" while seconded to the R.A.F. or while liable to be called up for service with the R.A.F. on mobilisation. This arrangement was later extended to permit all Army personnel qualified as pilots to wear "wings" on Army uniform. No Army personnel qualified as observers have ever had mobilisation liability to the R.A.F., and I do not consider that in the circumstances any alteration in the present regulations is called for.
    Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that there is a sense of grievance that one lot of people should be qualified in one way and are permitted to wear this badge and others are not? There is a sense of injustice.
    Captain Balfour: It is the policy of my Department to resist claims by non-Royal Air Force personnel to wear flying badges. Applications from the Royal Observer Corps and A.R.P. organisations to certain permission have been consistently refused. The only concession is as regards the pilot's badge for Army personnel who have had a mobilisation liability, and which was later extended to other Army qualified personnel.

    Compassionate Release
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the discretion to accept or reject application for compassionate release rests with commanding officers or the Air Ministry?
    Captain Balfour: Authority to grant compassionate release rests solely with the Air Council, but a commanding officer may reject an application if he considers that the grounds do not warrant a recommendation to higher authority. If an airman feels himself aggrieved by the action of his commanding officer in rejecting his application, he has the right of appeal to the Air Officer Commanding under Section 43 of the Air Force Act.
    Mr. Granville: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now traced the application to which I referred his Department a few weeks ago?
    Captain Balfour: If the hon. Member means the case which he raised recently by Question and on the Adjournment, I have found that at no time has this airman applied for his release from service in the R.A.F. At no time has application been made for permanent release. If he makes one, it will be considered fairly and reasonably.
    Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that I have a copy of the Department's acknowledgment of this application, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  SCOTLAND

    Supplementary Medical Service
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has extended the area of the experiment in diagnosis and treatment of workers initiated in the Clyde Valley; and whether he will give the areas which the scheme now covers?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Yes, Sir. The supplementary medical service which has operated in the Clyde Valley since January last has now, I am glad to say, been extended to cover workers of all ages in the industrial areas of Scotland.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to ask two Supplementary Questions on that answer. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has the concurrence of the medical profession in this matter? Secondly, what is the approximate number of workers affected by it?
    Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first Supplementary Question is "Yes, Sir." I have the entire concurrence of the medical practitioners. I cannot, in reply to the second Supplementary Question, give the precise number of workers who are covered by the extended operations of this Act, but the first experiment covered 44 per cent. of the insured workers.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does this extension also include dependants?
    Mr. Johnston: It deals only with workers.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is a housewife a worker?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, she is.
    Dr. Summerskill: It includes her?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, if she is a war worker.
    Mr. McNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient beds to meet all kinds of cases referred for hospital treatment under this scheme?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, absolutely.

    Youth Advisory Committee
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the members of the reconstituted Scottish Youth Advisory Council; their qualifications as members; and the terms of reference given to the Council?
    Mr. Johnston: In selecting the members of the committee, I have had regard to their personal knowledge of and interest in the problems of adolescence and to their experience of youth service activities in one form or another. The terms of reference to the committee are to advise the Secretary of State on all questions affecting the welfare of Scottish youth. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the list of members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lindsay: Do I understand that the Scottish Home Department Committee, under Mr. Troup, has now been amalgamated with the education department through this committee?
    Mr. Johnston: I do not appreciate the point of the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Lindsay: I understood there was a committee dealing with the Home Department side of this work in Scotland hitherto, and that members of this committee have been absorbed in this committee. Is that so?
    Mr. Johnston: There were two committees before, and they were both scrapped, and there is now this committee.
    Mr. Lindsay: As a result of that, who is to be responsible for something like 8,000 or 9,000 delinquents in Scotland under the age of 14?
    Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Following is the list referred to:
    Chairman:

    The hon. Lord Keith.

    Vice-Chairman:

    W. Quin, Esq., J.P.

    Members:

    Harry Bell, Esq., M.A.

    Michael G. Black, Esq.

    William Boyd, Esq., M.A., D.Phil.

    Rev. W. E. Brown, D.D.

    Lieut.-Colonel T. E. Calvert.

    John Dick, Esq.

    Miss W. A. Donaldson, M.A.

    W. A. F. Hepburn, Esq., M.C., O.B.E., LL.D.

    Andrew Hood, Esq., J.P.

    W. B. Inglis, Esq., Ed.B., Ph.D.

    Miss Margaret F. Jobson.

    Samuel Macdonald, Esq., C.M.G., D.S.O.

    W. McKinlay, Esq.

    Miss May J. McKinlay.

    H. Stewart Mackintosh, Esq., M.A., Ph.D.

    Miss B. Martin Stewart.

    Mrs. W. N. Monteith.

    Stanley Nairne, Esq., M.A.

    W. Peat, Esq.

    Miss E. Porter.

    Colonel W. D. Scott, D.S.O., M.C., T.D., D.L., J.P.

    Rev. Denis E. Taylor.

    Miss B. W. Walker, M.B.E.

    Sir Ernest M. Wedderburn, D.K.S.

    Rev. W. M. Wightman, D.D.

    Provost George H. Wilson.

    John Wishart, Esq., M.A.

    School Meals (Remote Areas)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many schools and schoolchildren there are in the. Outer Islands of Inverness-shire; how many of these schools are providing substantial hot meals for the children; what percentage of the children are not being so served; and is he prepared to meet any special difficulties in this area;
    (2) in how many schools in the Island of Lewis are hot full meals provided daily for the children; in how many schools is milk provided daily for the children; what is the total number of children; and how many do not have these benefits?
    Mr. Johnston: The records of these services in the Scottish Education Department are available only for counties as a

    1423
    whole. I have, however, asked the education authorities of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty for the required details, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are received. The lack of suitable accommodation and labour makes it difficult to arrange a scheme for the supply of hot meals in remote areas, but I will be glad to do anything in my power to overcome any special difficulties in the Outer Islands.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Oil from Peat
    Sir Robert Rankinasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to experiments being conducted in Norway with the object of extracting oil from peat, which tend to show that after refinement the oil is particularly suitable for lubrication; and whether any experimental plants are similarly contemplated in this country?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): As Norway is enemy-occupied territory, my information about these experiments is naturally meagre. I understand that the yield of lubricating oil from this process is likely to be small. In view of this, and of the labour required for the winning of peat, it is not proposed to erect experimental plants of this type at the present time.

    Petroleum Board
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the basis of profits paid by the Petroleum Board to the oil industry; and whether he will name the figure arrived at for the value of capital employed in the industry?
    Major Lloyd George: In authorising prices to be charged by the Petroleum Board I have decided on the amount to be included in these prices to represent the remuneration of the Petroleum Board which they will distribute among their member companies. This remuneration will be at the rate of 7½ per cent. on the adjusted value of the physical capital of the Board and on the working capital ascertained as employed before the war by the companies which came together to form the Petroleum Board. In view of the advent of Lease-Lend, deductions will be made from that working capital as from
    1424
    July, 1941, to make allowance for the fact that some petroleum products are supplied to the Board by H.M. Government. Arrangements are now being made for the accounts of the Board to be drawn up retrospectively on this basis, except that, to allow for the transition from peacetime to war-time working, the provisional arrangements hitherto authorised will be allowed to stand for the period September, 1939, to June, 1940. The adjusted value of the physical assets of the Petroleum Board is approximately £23,000,000, and the peace-time working capital has been assessed at £28,000,000.

    Colliery By-Product Workers
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction existing amongst the workers engaged in the by-product plants owned by the coalowners and situated on colliery premises, arising out of the refusal to apply the Greene Award to these workers; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?
    Major Lloyd George: I understand that in some areas additions have been made, following the Greene award, to the wages to workers in coke ovens, but in South Wales, which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, the question was referred to an independent arbitrator appointed by the parties, who decided, after hearing all the facts of the case, that there should not be any additional payment.
    Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that the workers in South Wales are the only group in the by-product industry who do not get this increase, and that there is grave dissatisfaction which may burst out any day, despite the formal legal findings of the arbitrator? Will he take steps to see that the men are satisfied?
    Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to do anything I can, but, as my hon. Friend realises, both parties agreed to arbitration, and the decision was made on that point. I am aware that other districts are receiving this award. I have been asked to receive a deputation, and this I am prepared to do.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that it is extremely difficult to keep these men working on very important work, and will he expedite the talks which are now going on?

    Opencast Coal Working
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to replace the surface removed to get outcrop coal as this process causes disfigurement to the locality?
    Major Lloyd George: The existing contracts for opencast coal working cover the back filling of the excavations, levelling and restoration of the top soil. Subject to the local circumstances, all sites are restored, as far as possible, to their original conditions.
    Mr. Tinker: I can understand the difficulty at the present time, but I would like to see the right hon. and gallant Gentleman keep his eye on this matter, because in the locality where it is happening it is very unsightly to see huge heaps being left. I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to pay attention to this matter.
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir, and I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend has in mind. There are six sites already restored as near to their original condition as possible, and personally I will do everything I can to see that it is done everywhere.

    Industrial Undertakings (Economy Measures)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now satisfied that in response to his appeal for economy the various measures adopted by the larger industries engaged in munitions production are effecting substantial savings in the direct use of coal as well as in gas and electricity?
    Major Lloyd GeorgeI am never satisfied, but the reports which I am receiving show a growing response by industrial undertakings, including those engaged in the production of munitions, to my appeal for economy in the use of all fuels. As the work of the fuel efficiency committees, which I have appointed, is extended, I expect that even greater savings will be made.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is any form of propaganda being carried on by the Ministry in these large works on the subject of the consumption of gas and electricity?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Not only are we in constant touch with the
    1426
    industries of the country through the local fuel efficiency committees, but courses are also given to engineers so that they shall get the latest information upon fuel efficiency.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (EDUCATION)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what progress has been made towards free and universal education in Newfound land?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I am glad to say that, with the co-operation of the Churches and after much preparatory work, the Commission of Government have this year been able to reach one of their main objectives in the educational field. An Act providing for the free and compulsory education of all children between the ages of 7 and 14 was passed in August and came into force on 1st September. It is estimated that, as a result of this Measure, which has caused general gratification in Newfoundland, some 4,000 additional children have been brought within the framework of the educational system.

  MANDATED TERRITORIES (UNITED KINGDOM VISAS)
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether persons naturalised in the man dated territories of Western Samoa and South-West Africa who administratively are, in general, not treated as aliens in the United Kingdom, need in normal times a visa to enter the United Kingdom; and whether they may reside here without limit as to time?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, a condition as to length of residence would not normally be imposed on such persons if a visa had been obtained.

  BOARD OF TRADE (SIR GEORGE MAHON)
  Mr. W. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade why Sir George

  1427
  Mahon has been engaged by his Department as a temporary principal in the Commercial Relations and Treaties Department; and what special qualifications he possesses to make him preferable, at the age of 31, to older and experienced civil servants?
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Sir George Mahon is employed by my Department as a temporary administrative officer. He was selected for the post he now holds in view of his business experience.
  Mr. Brown: May I ask by whom he was selected, whether the machinery of the Ministry of Labour Central Register was used, and if not, how does it come about that Sir George Mahon was appointed at the age of 31?
  Mr. Dalton: This particular officer has been in the public service since January, 1941, and appointments within the Board of Trade, as in other public Departments, are made after consideration of the qualifications of all the available candidates.
  Mr. Brown: I asked whether the machinery of the Central Register was used before this appointment was made.
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, it was not used before the appointment was made, because the officer was already in the public service; he was already in the Board of Trade.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is this not one of the most competent officers in the Department?
  Mr. Dalton: I have so many efficient officers in the Board of Trade that that is rather an embarrassing question.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Without knowing anything about the qualifications of this man, ought we not to welcome the appointment of young men?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Diverted Cargoes (Committee)
    Sir R. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the names of those appointed to the committee which he has set up to deal with diverted cargoes originally intended for the Far East; and will he state the bodies which they represent?
    Mr. Dalton: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the information asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Alan Stewart Gilbert (Chairman) (Board of Trade).
    Henry William Hollyer (Ministry of War Transport).
    Frederick Skone-James (India Office).
    Thomas Eatough (Export Credits Guarantee Department).
    Walter Robert Over (Department of Overseas Trace).
    Alfred Sidney Todd (Messrs. Gordon, Woodroffe and Company, Limited). (Representing the Diverted Cargoes Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce.)
    Stanley Plowden Roberts (Messrs. Cox and Kings (Agents), Limited). (Representing the Diverted Cargoes Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce.)
    Frank Simcox Winterbottom (Messrs. Leonard Plews Stockdale and. Company, Limited). (Representing the Diverted Cargoes Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce.)
    Of these, Mr. Winterbottom, who is the representative of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the Diverted Cargoes Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, represents Manchester interests on the official committee.

    Small Traders
    Mr. Granvilleasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to compensate the owners of shops and small businesses when their livelihood has been lost owing to the fact that they have volunteered for the Fighting Forces and the assistants left in charge have been called up?
    Mr. Dalton: The policy of His Majesty's Government is that no compensation can be paid from public funds, except in respect of loss or damage directly due to enemy action or to counter-action. As regards the calling-up of assistants left in charge of small businesses, this raises the question of hardship procedure under the National Service Acts, on which I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that there were many cases of extreme hardship after the last war, and will he confer with the Service Departments to see whether something can be done in specific cases to prevent that happening after this war?
    Mr. Hannah: Have the Government taken any responsibility for getting them back in their jobs after this war?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a question of post-war policy which, I think, might be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster-General.

    Cycle Lamp Batteries
    Mr. W. Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is in the Rugby district a shortage of batteries suitable for lamps for bicycles, which is causing difficulties in this district which depends largely upon bicycles for transport; whether this shortage is general; and whether he will take steps to remedy it?
    Mr. Dalton: Steps have been taken which should lead to a substantial and early increase in the total output of batteries, and particularly of cycle lamp batteries, but the requirements of the Services for batteries must continue to have first call on the available production. I have arranged an inquiry into supplies in the Rugby district.
    Mr. Boothby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any chance of increased production of No. 8 batteries?
    Mr. Dalton: There is an increased production of No. 8 batteries; I answered that the other day, but the limiting factor in the civilian supply must be, of course, Service requirements.

  FACTORY MACHINERY (SAFETY MEASURES)
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the Chief Inspector of Factories in his Report for 1941 indicates that a serious feature is still the number of accidents occurring on unguarded machines and that it is a short-sighted policy not to expend the materials and labour required for guards in war-time; and whether such protection for machines against accident is now freely available?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I have been asked to reply. The Chief Inspector of Factories called attention to this matter in his last annual Report. It is the policy of the Ministry of Labour and
  1430
  National Service to press for the provision of these installations to the utmost extent to which war-time circumstances permit.
  Mr. Adams: Is there now abundant provision of these safeguarding instruments?
  Mr. Tomlinson: I would not like to say that there is abundant provision, but I think I can say there is provision.
  Sir H. Williams: Is any contact kept with the manufacturers of machinery, as it is so much better to design these safeguards when the machine is made rather than improvise them subsequently?
  Mr. Tomlinson: That is another question.
  Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. I addressed this Question to the Minister of Supply. The Ministry of Labour can tell the House what they are doing, but the Ministry of Supply are silent.
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister who knows about it answered the Question.

  CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether the Dominion of Canada was consulted before the decision was taken to manacle prisoners?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): On account of urgency it was not possible to consult any of the Dominion Governments upon the counter-measures to the German shacklings which were deemed necessary in October by His Majesty's Government. I may add that I hope before we rise for Christmas to be able to make a statement to the House on the whole subject. In the meanwhile no interest would be served by discussion.
  Mr. Stokes: Is it a fact that the Minister of Defence took this step without consulting the War Cabinet?
  Mr. Granville: Have Dominion Governments been consulted since the decision on this question?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, the Cabinet were fully consulted beforehand. Full representations were tendered to the Dominions by His Majesty's Government and were accepted in that fullest spirit of loyalty that marks all our relations.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can the Prime Minister say on what date he will make that statement?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot be absolutely certain, but it will be one day during the next series of Sittings.
  Miss Ward: Will there be an opportunity of talking about the statement when it is made, because I think that is frightfully important?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot say whether there will be any opportunity of talking about it or whether any opportunity will be generally desired by the House, but the Adjournment for the Recess comes very shortly after the statement, and that, no doubt, will give an opportunity of ventilating any matters which have hitherto been suppressed.
  Miss Ward: If the House does desire to debate it, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange it?

  UNITED NATIONS (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a supreme council of the United Nations to obtain the closest unity in the offensive phase of the war and for the purpose of creating the machinery for consultations between the United Nations on questions affecting future political and economic security?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the previous answers given on this and similar Questions.
  Mr. Granville: Is the Prime Minister still satisfied with the machinery for regular consultation between China and Russia and His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that everything possible is being done to make that consultation as intimate and as constant as possible.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not a fact that if this supreme council had existed and consultations had taken place upon all the aspects of offensive war, some unfortunate incidents in North Africa might have been avoided?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think there is the slightest truth in that—not the slightest.
  Mr. Granville: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that international machinery exists to carry out the ideas contained in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech on Sunday?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am not bearing in my mind at this moment those passages in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech which referred to this topic.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Foreign Bonds
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the altered financial conditions arising from the war, whether any steps are being taken to prevent the settlement of foreign debt owing to this country on a basis likely to react unfavourably upon such other foreign assets as are still held by this country?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to debts due to private individuals, including bondholders, in this country. I fully recognise the importance to this country of safeguarding its invisible receipts from foreign investments, and it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to give all proper support to British holders of foreign bonds.

    University Grants
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all universities in Great Britain are receiving grants from the University Grants Committee at the present time?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mander: Does this include the great and famous University of Sulgrave?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I would hardly include that under the title of "university."
    Mr. Mander: Because it is not a university at all?
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend must be the best judge of that.
    Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman not do something to warn the country about this bogus and discreditable university?

    Civil Service Pensioners' Widows
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware of the hardship of widows of superannuated persons whose death terminates payments; and whether he is prepared to facilitate some arrangement for superannuation payments being modified and payable to widows;
    (2) whether he is aware of the hardship to widows of persons whose superannuation payments cease with their deaths; and whether, in any readjustment of the pensions schemes, consideration will be given to such persons?
    Sir K. Wood: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the widows of Civil Service pensioners. Provision already exists for the payment of Pensions to such widows. Under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1935, a retiring civil servant may, subject to proof of good health, surrender part of his pension in order to secure a pension for his widow or other dependant.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Chancellor keep in mind all these superannuated persons, because great hardship exists when suddenly superannuation payment ceases and the widow is, perhaps, left destitute? When the proposals come forward for a reconsideration of the general pensions scheme, will these widows be kept in mind?
    Sir K. Wood: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will remind the House on suitable occasions.

    Service Personnel (Broadcasting Fees)
    Mr. Astorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Treasury received last year from their half-share in the fees paid to serving officers and men for broadcasting?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that the figures for which my hon. Friend asks are not available.
    Mr. Astor: If I put down a Question in the next series of Sittings, will my right hon. Friend find the figures?
    Sir K. Wood: I think it hardly worth while asking the officials for these figures. It is not a matter of money; it is a matter of equity.
    Mr. Astor: If the figures are so insignificant that the right hon. Gentleman does not know them, is it worth while taking these sums from serving officers and men?
    Sir K. Wood: I said just now that it was not a question of money, but one of equity?
    Mr. Astor: Equity towards whom?
    Sir K. Wood: All parties concerned.

  MINISTERS' REPLIES TO QUESTIONS (DATING)
  Sir F. Sandersonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the confirmatory replies to Questions handed to Members of Parliament are undated; and, in view of the necessity of frequently making reference thereto, will he consider causing instructions to be issued for them to be dated in future?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): According to my information, most Departments date the confirmatory replies sent to Members of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know the Departments which issue undated confirmatory replies, I will draw their attention to his request.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (PUBLIC LIBRARIES)
  Commander King-Hallasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what percentage of public libraries avail themselves of the facility of obtaining Hansard at half cost?
  Captain Crookshank: Thirty per cent.
  Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider extending these facilities for members of the Armed Forces, who are very much interested and concerned in Parliamentary proceedings and who get very short reports in the public Press?
  Captain Crookshank: That is another Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
  Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister spare the Army?
  Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise the urgency of having as many Hansards as possible circulated, in view of the fact that the Press does not record a large number of events that take place in Parliament?
  Captain Crookshank: They are quite easy to buy.
  Mr. De la Bère: Not so easy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Might I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. No Amendments have been tabled to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and we hope that the Committee stage may not occupy very long. We ought to be able to begin the Debate on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill, in which Members in all parts of the House are interested, at an early hour. We also hope to-day to obtain the Second Reading of the Workmen's Compensation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. This is a desirable Bill, and we hope that it will be possible for it to be passed into law before the Adjournment. I reminded the House last week that under the new arrangements we are sitting an hour longer each day, in order to meet the general wishes of hon. Members, and we consider it undesirable to extend the sitting at this period of the year. I venture to suggest to the House that we might try and finish the National Service Bill by such an hour as to leave time for the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.
As to the Business for the Third Sitting Day, in Secret Session, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will himself make the opening statement.
Mr. Stephen: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving an assurance that the National Service Bill will be finished at the time he mentioned? We are specially interested.
Mr. Eden: I have not given an assurance; I have expressed a hope, which I trust will be fulfilled.
Miss Rathbone: When the Prime Minister makes his opening statement, will he
1436
clear up the point as to whether President Roosevelt's plea for the refugees will be carried out?
Mr. Bellenger: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask whether you propose to call either of the two Amendments on the National Service Bill, as the first will give wider scope to raise matters which are really not dealt with in the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the first of the two Amendments, in order to allow Members to have a wider scope than that given by the Bill.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Sir Waldron Smithers: With your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, I desire to make a short statement. On 25th November I asked a Supplementary Question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I said:
"Will the Minister take steps to dissipate the idea, which is widely held, that Mr. Calder and Mr. Short are a law unto themselves and control the ham and bacon business of the country for the benefit of the big ham and bacon factories?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1942; col. 72, Vol. 385.]
That supplementary was designed to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity, in the national interest, of dissipating the idea and removing doubts, thus maintaining and encouraging an immense pig production in the country. The Parliamentary Secretary has told me that this Supplementary Question was cast in such a form that the two gentlemen concerned felt that some doubt had been cast on their integrity. He has told me that Mr. Short left the Ministry of Food in November, 1941, and that Dr. Calder, after being employed on agricultural research, was an officer of the Pig Marketing Board from 1933 to 1940, when he was seconded to the Ministry of Food, and that he has no commercial interests in any bacon factory. My question is thus answered, and I hope it will have the desired effect; but I wish to express my sincere regret that any words of mine in a Supplementary Question should have created a wrong impression.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (SECOND ROUND)
Mr. Speaker: I have taken some pains to find out the feeling of the House at

1437
the present time about having a second round of Questions, and I find that it is considered undesirable in these times—that is, in war-time—for Ministers to have to wait about on the chance of having Questions put to them on the second round. If it is the wish of the House, I will not put Questions a second time.
Mr. Mander: Will you make it quite clear, Sir, that this is purely a war-time measure, and that the usual practice will be resumed after the war?
Mr. Speaker: I said that it was to be a war-time measure.
Mr. Woodburn: In the event of a Member wishing to have a Question asked and being unable to be present himself, will he be allowed to have another Member ask his Question?
Mr. Speaker: That would be altering the whole system.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Ordered,
"That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Earl De La Warr to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Special Inquiries appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir Herbert Williams.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they give leave to the Earl De La Warr to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Special Inquiries appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-three, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-four, being expenses which, under any of the four last mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restriction Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December, and the said thirty-first day of March, respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."

  Resolution agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is largely an administrative Bill in order to facilitate the calling-up of young men at 18 years of age instead of having to wait for a later period. It gives effect to the statement of policy which I made to the House in response to a Question a few weeks ago. It is not the intention of the Government to lower the age of liability to military service below that of 18, which was carried in the original National Service Act, 1939. When that Act was passed the minimum age was fixed at 18 years, and as far as the man-

  1445
  power situation would allow we have endeavoured to keep off the day of coming right down to the minimum age to the last possible moment. But the man-power situation is such now that we feel it incumbent upon us to take steps in this Bill to make it possible actually to enrol the young men at 18 years of age. Under the present arrangements it is from 18 years and four months or 18 years and six months before a person liable at 18 can be enlisted.
  The reduction of the age to 18 has its compensating advantages. We originally fixed the age for lads to go overseas at 20. Following the last National Service Act we reduced it to 19. It has an advantage, and we do not propose to reduce the age of going overseas below 19. That age stands, but no one who is conversant with modern war and the essential training through which these young men have to go could deny that a long period of training is to the advantage of the young man himself. The old idea of the infantry is dead. It is a very strenuous training. I think I can say that there is no longer any chance of winning this war with a mass-produced Army. Individual action on the part of the soldier and in training is absolutely essential in his own interests, even in carrying the campaign to a successful conclusion in this great war of movement. Therefore there is an advantage in giving the longest possible period of training to the young men who are called up, and I suggest to anyone with knowledge of modern warfare that 11 or 12 months' training in this country is not too long to mature them and make them fit for the strenuous battles that have to be faced.
  There is one thing that the Government have been reluctant to do. Indeed, I feel personally very strongly, owing to what happened in the last war, that it is wrong to leave this thing so late until the casualties begin to mount and then suddenly to get a demand to fill the ranks and send untrained young men overseas in panic. In order to fill the gaps it is better to face the position now and to provide for the call-up, to give them proper training and to know that when they reach 19, they are fit to go through the strenuous campaign. Therefore, while we have been reluctant to reduce the age to 18, yet I suggest that it has its compensatory advantage. At present it is
  1446
  necessary to have a Proclamation and registration and medical examination after reaching 18 years of age. The Bill provides that we may take all these preliminary steps at 17 years and 8 months, so that during the remaining four months we carry out our administrative machinery which we have hitherto been doing after the age of 18.
  In Clause 1 (3) of the Bill there is an important provision. At present a person cannot exercise his right of either conscientious objection or hardship until the time of liability for call-up. We propose to make provision that all the rights under the National Service Act can be operated at the time of registration, and that is an advantage to the young person and to us, because if these rights are operated at the time of registration—17 years and 8 months—we know more precisely the numbers that will be available, because the hardship courts will go through their lists and the tribunals for conscientious objections will go through their business, and we shall know the residue that is left.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is in substitution for the present method or in addition? There might be cases of hardship which would only arise after registration, and it is important that that opportunity should still remain as under the existing law.
  Mr. Bevin: He can appeal at any time after registration. At present he could not appeal at all until he was liable for call-up. This I thought to be rather a hardship. We also provide in Clause 2 that a Proclamation should be made to cover men and women who reach the calling-up age at a subsequent date and thus avoid the necessity for a series of Proclamations to cover those who reach calling-up age after the date of the Proclamation. We think it desirable, at this stage of the war, that there should be one further Proclamation to deal with all of the ages covered by the National Service Act. It will simplify matters and prevent confusion, and it will mean that all those who register will be covered by one Proclamation.
  I would like at this stage to say that there has been a good deal of argument about the merits of calling up these young men or of obtaining others from industry

  1447
  at later ages. As a result of examination of the man-power problem—I cannot go into details in public, because I understand that the question will be debated in secret later, when the total figures will be given to the House—I ought to make it clear that the situation is such that we have to use every possible resource at our disposal if we are to have the men we need for munition factories, the Services and to maintain the civil life of the community on a balanced basis. We cannot afford to denude vital industries, and we feel that the step we are taking will assist to a very marked degree in giving the Forces, particularly the Navy and the Royal Air Force and certain branches of the Army, the type of young men they need for their special requirements. There has been a good deal of argument, too, about the upper age limit. It may well be necessary as the war progresses and casualties occur to go up into the higher age limits, but we desire to avoid that as much as possible. We are taking two steps in that direction. Where we take people of the upper age limit and use them in sedentary occupations in the Services to relieve men for the front line, that, in our view, is not a hardship. It is a wise procedure. But, on the other hand, experience shows that it takes about four age classes at the upper end of the scale to give the same number as one class at the lower end. That is largely due to reasons of health, the necessity for deferments because of skill, and a variety of other reasons, but mainly it is largely due to the physical capacity of the people you are calling up.
  Those, I think, are, very shortly, the main reasons for making the administrative changes we are introducing in this Bill. We are, however, making certain other adjustments on this occasion which we believe to be just and proper. We are taking power to deal with persons from the Dominions and Colonies who are at present exempt under British law but who may be resident in this country. At present the law lays it down that people from the Dominions and Colonies who are temporarily resident in this country do not come under our Act. Therefore, they may be in this country for the whole period of the war but may still be regarded as temporary. We think it very desirable, in view of the Military Service Acts which have been carried out in different forms in the Dominions and applied to other parts
  1448
  of the Commonwealth, that our National Service Acts should apply to them.
  Squadron Leader Peter Macdonald: Will they be allowed to join their own Forces?
  Mr. Bevin: I was just coming to that point. This power will have to be applied by a Defence Regulation which may differ in respect of the different Dominions, because it will have to be based on agreement with them before it can be actually operated. Therefore, I cannot say whether they will be given the opportunity of joining their own Forces, because treatment cannot be uniform. It will depend upon what the Dominions—India, Burma and the others—have to say. But we are taking power in the Bill in order that they may be able to render service.
  Mr. Bellenger: Does this apply only to Dominion subjects resident in this country, or will it also apply to British subjects resident in the Dominions?
  Mr. Bevin: It applies to Dominions subjects resident in this country, but I have no doubt that just as in the case of the United States there will be a good deal of reciprocity in the arrangements. This is all the power, however, that we can take at this moment in this Bill.
  Mr. Granville: Can the Minister say whether there is a similar call-up arrangement in the Dominions?
  Mr. Bevin: They differ. There is compulsory service in some parts and selective service in others.
  Mr. Granville: But can a citizen of this country, temporarily resident in a Dominion, be called up in the same way that the Minister proposes to call up Dominion persons resident in this country?
  Mr. Bevin: They have taken powers to call him up in their service according to their laws. When discussion comes to take place in connection with the framing of the Defence Regulation, we shall have to have regard to the different position in each Dominion.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister propose to call up a citizen of a Dominion which itself has no compulsory service?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, provided the Dominion agrees. The Dominion will have to be consulted, and its decision will be embodied in the agreement. If the Dominion agree that it should be done, we shall call up, but it is not automatic, if that is what the hon. Member means.
  Mr. Stephen: I take it that it will not apply to Eire?
  Mr. Bevin: If the Eire Government agree, it will apply to Eire.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Do those powers in the Dominions apply equally to women as to men?
  Mr. Bevin: The laws are all different. I am afraid I cannot answer questions about the laws in every Dominion. The laws in the Dominions are in a constant state of flux. For instance, at the present time the whole man-power situation in Canada is undergoing alterations, and in Australia discussions are going on concerning the man-power situation. When this provision comes to be embodied in a Defence Regulation, there may be in the Dominions a situation entirely different from that which exists at the present time. Therefore, it would be unwise for me to give answers as though the laws in the Dominions are static; they are not; they have to be adjusted from time to time.
  Clause 3, Sub-section (2), deals with an important matter, namely, bringing officers of the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps into line with the Home Guard. This matter is dealt with at the present time in rather a roundabout way, which I do not very much like. They are regarded as being in the Services, and if we want to call them up, they have to resign and then be called up; but in the process it is very doubtful whether they have all the hardship rights which they would have if they were called up in the same way as officers from the Home Guard. I think this matter should be completely straightened out so that everybody may know where he is. Therefore, this Measure makes them liable to be called up, notwithstanding the old provisions concerning the Cadet Corps and the A.T.C. There are, however, a good many people holding these commissions who have businesses, and so on, and this Measure will allow them to come under
  1450
  the operation of the hardship provisions. The question of conscientious objection will not arise in view of their having been doing this training work, but the question of hardship is a real problem. I feel it is better to make the liability for service quite clear, together with all the rights that exist under the National Service Acts.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am not quite clear how this Clause is to work. Is it just a routine matter to put these men on the same basis as the Home Guard, or does it bring them into line with the people who are covered by the administrative memorandum of the Board of Education of 12th March, 1942, according to which anyone who is doing substantial part-time services in recognised youth work for 40 hours a month is liable to be deferred? Many of these people are undistinguishable; it may be they are running scout organisations or cadet organisations. Does this Clause put the people to whom it refers on all fours with them?
  Mr. Bevin: Any Department will be allowed to apply for a deferment, or the man himself will be able to apply on hardship grounds. It puts all these people on exactly the same basis as the others we call up, and it allows each case to be dealt with on its merits.
  Mr. Lindsay: Under this Clause, would they be on the whole more liable to be called up, or does it rather tend to safeguard them?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot give any guarantees. Legal liability is being imposed but the question of actual call up depends on the progress of the war. People ask me whether I can give undertakings in this or that direction. What we have tried to do has been to keep all these organisations and institutions as long as we could, but I must give a warning that if we are to have what so many people rightly want, a final showdown with the Nazi regime, it will involve us in casualties, whether we like it or not, and in those conditions guarantees of any kind are bound to go by the board. I want to be quite frank about it. What we are trying to achieve in the administration of these things is that whoever is called will have equal treatment meted out to him before the law in the light of the circumstances. In the administration of this very difficult problem, I suggest

  1451
  that one thing which has helped us to carry out these things with the minimum of trouble—and there has been a minimum of trouble in the administration of these complicated and very difficult things—has been the fact that we have been able to satisfy the public that we are trying to be scrupulously fair in our administration. However ruthless we may have to be in finding men in the interests of the country, if people are satisfied that we are fair, they will see us through successfully. It is in that sense that we propose these alterations. They are in the interests of the citizens themselves and in the interests of better administration. As regards the first part of the Measure, I believe we have now come to the stage where it is absolutely necessary to take this step, which we have refrained from taking until the last moment. I hope the Measure will receive the support of the House.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The people for whom I speak have consistently supported this war in defence of the achievements of mankind. This war has now become in many respects a national war of liberation, but our interpretation of that is that it means also economic liberation. I have been instructed to say that we shall support this Bill, although at the same time I wish to ask a few questions and to make some observations. No one is competent to deal adequately with man-power questions unless he has access to the whole of the facts, and only the Ministry have those facts. I understand that the Ministry desire this Bill in order to complete the man-power organisation of the country. May I remind the Minister that the Bill is an indication that Parliament has now provided the machinery for the complete mobilisation of the man-power of the country? Some time ago, I understood the Minister to say that we have already mobilised our men and women to a greater extent than we had done at the end of the last war, and I would go further and say that on this occasion it has been done more efficiently. It has been a Herculean task. The United Nations and the free peoples of the world owe a great debt to the Minister, to the Ministry's officials and to the British people for their good will and co-operation in making Britain a mighty fighting force. As I understand it, the main purpose of the Bill is to take the
  1452
  necessary legislative action to implement the announcement that was made by the Minister last October. May I remind the House that not one word of opposition has been raised to that announcement since that time? The other purpose of the Bill seems to be to bring about administrative simplification.
  Mr. Maxton: To which announcement was the hon. Member referring when he said that no objection has been taken?
  Mr. Smith: I am referring to an announcement that was made by the Minister one Thursday after the announcement of the Business; the only person in the House who commented upon the announcement was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Since that time, as far as the people for whom I am speaking are concerned, no other objection has been raised. Another object of this Bill is to make certain improvements which have been indicated by the Minister to-day. I understand that no man will be posted to the Services—and this needs to be emphasised—under 18 years of age and that the Minister has reiterated the assurance given to my hon. Friends and to other hon. Members since the beginning of the war that no man under 19 years of age will be forced to go overseas.
  Mr. Bevin: I ought to make it clear that that referred to the Army. They go overseas in the Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Air Force?"]
  Mr. Smith: I think that is understood throughout the country, and, as regards many men under 19, I imagine the difficulty is to hold them back. But the assurance to which I refer has been given to the country by the Government, and I would emphasise that that assurance stands. I wish now to refer to a matter which I think ought to receive consideration. It was put to me by a foreman in one of the largest tool-making departments in this country. He said that young men engaged in this work were called up and registered and in many cases medically examined at the same time. In some cases they returned to work for quite long periods after this examination, and my informant told me that these young men—whose employment is making a big contribution to the war effort—when they returned to work in those circumstances became unsettled. They could not give

  1453
  their minds to their work, and this affected not only their own output but the output of others. They were looking forward all the time to joining the Forces. I consider that in cases of that kind it would be better that young men whose work is of importance in the war effort should not be called upon to register or to be medically examined until the time arrives for taking them into the Forces. I know that it is a question, largely, of administration and machinery, but I hope the Minister will see whether this could not be done. I understand that the reservation and deferment machinery will still function for those who are affected by this Bill. In view of the large-scale dilution which has been carried out with the co-operation of the trade union movement and the need for key men, will the Minister also consider whether young men who are making a contribution to the war effort and at the same time are receiving the training necessary to enable them to become key men could not be allowed to continue that training as long as possible?
  The people of our country have for three years made a great effort, but let me remind the House and the country that the engineers in many parts of the country have been making the same effort for four and five years. It should never be forgotten that the engineers of this country agreed to dilution even long before the war broke out, so concerned were they at the worsening of the international situation. Our country stood alone for 12 months fighting the world battle for freedom. No nation toiled harder or longer than ours after the losses of equipment which we suffered at Dunkirk. At the same time we withstood terrible night air attacks, and those of us who live among and belong to the people of the industrial centres will never forget those experiences. They have made us proud of our race. Our fellow countrymen have strained themselves to an extent which is little understood in many parts of this country and in many parts of the world. Credit is now being given to our people by all objective visitors to this country. I quote from the "Manchester Guardian" of 5th December the following reference to a Russian Youth Delegation which visited this country:
  "They have visited 15 cities and this is the report they are going back with, according to the statement that they made at a meeting
  1454
  at the Ministry of Information. They take back with them memories of the stern and somewhat tired faces of the working men and women who told them that they were willing to increase their output still further; of the offensive spirit of the Forces, and of the bomb damage which surprised them by its areas of complete destruction."
  With all that in our minds, we are entitled, on the occasion of the introduction of this Bill, to ask a few questions. Is the man-power of other countries being mobilised to the same extent as the manpower of this country? Do the people of other countries realise the efforts that our people have made and the strain placed upon them since the beginning of this war? Are they coming to support us as quickly as they might? Are we doing all we can to create a Stalingrad spirit throughout Europe? We are only 45,000,000 people, but we have built a mighty Navy and a powerful Air Force, and we have now a large and efficient Army. Our output per person employed is the greatest in the world. The publication "Front Line" is a fine piece of work, and thousands of copies of it should be sent to the United States, the South American Republics and other parts of the world where they do not fully realise what our people have gone through. I would ask the Minister to consider the publication of the great story which he and his Ministry could tell of the work done in our industrial centres to enable this country to play the part it has played and is playing in the world battle for the maintenance of freedom.
  A number of proposals are contained in an Amendment which I understand is to be moved at a later stage. In regard to the suggestion about men over 37, I think the reservation and deferment machinery deal with that matter. If it does not deal with it, it certainly should do so. The suggestion is also made that the age of calling-up for men should be reduced to 17. I hope that proposal will not be pressed to a Division. In our view the age of 18 is young enough. The Minister has made an announcement that a Secret Session is to be arranged to enable us to discuss the man-power position of this country. Therefore, there should be no need to press this Amendment too far. It would be better to leave the matter until that Secret Session has been held, so that we can discuss it.
  Mr. Maxton: I have not heard about this Secret Session, but do not the hon.

  1455
  Gentleman and his hon. Friends for whom he speaks think it would have been much better to have had such a Debate before this Bill was introduced?
  Mr. Smith: I had not heard anything about a Secret Session, nor had my hon. Friends until this morning.
  Mr. Maxton: But would it not have been preferable to have had it before rather than after the introduction of the Bill?
  Mr. Smith: I am only making the point that there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter. I do not press it further. The people for whom I speak have a consistent record in regard to the war since September, 1939, and we are not prepared to relax until Hitlerite Germany has been completely defeated. The people of this country will not falter. We are now confident of victory, but we believe that a military victory is not enough. We are concerned about our economic future. We do not want to lose the peace by economic aggression, as we did for 20 years of the best part of my life. Twenty-four years ago, in France and in Germany, I lay on my bed for hours and hours thinking of the future. "Shall I get my job back? Shall I be able to hold my own at work?" The men who are affected by this Bill will think as I did. Millions of people are thinking as I did during that period. They have looked with glee on the publication of the Beveridge Report. They want to grasp it with both hands. We do not want any more tinkering. At last the war has taught us that democracy must be dynamic and must move in a big way. There has been no quibbling by us on this side at any action required for the prosecution of the war, and that is our attitude on this Bill. But we shall expect no quibbling on the full carrying out of the Beveridge Report and on the rebuilding of Britain after the war.
  Mr. Molson: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Service Bill until steps have been taken to discontinue the calling-up of men over 37 years of age who are rendering important service in their civil avocations and until provision has been made for calling to the Colours men between the ages of 17 and 18½ who could be withdrawn from civil life with less social and economic disturbance and
  1456
  would be available immediately for home defence and adaptable for training to modern war; and until provision is made for an unified scheme of pre-entry training common to all three Services."
  The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself in moving this Amendment is to put forward constructive suggestions as to how the most effective use can be made of our man-power, and also to give the Government an opportunity of explaining their policy in the calling-up of our men and women. We have been told that a secret Debate is to be held in order that the Government may take the House into their confidence. I very much welcome that proposal, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that it would have been far better had that secret Debate taken place before this Bill was introduced.
  I am sure the country is willing to make any sacrifice that is necessary for winning the war, but it asks to be satisfied that the sacrifices are necessary, and, before further classes are to be called up, it wishes to have some assurance that the Armed Forces of the Crown are making economical use of those who are already called up. It was certainly the case until April, when I returned to the House, that there were many cases where both men and women were not being used as efficiently and as economically as they might have been. The Beveridge Report upon the use of skilled men in the Forces showed that at one time at any rate there were many men in the Army whose skill was not being used to the greatest advantage. My own personal experience tended to confirm the findings of the Beveridge Report. The Ministry of Aircraft Production recently told us that the use of manpower was being most carefully scrutinised. I asked whether that scrutiny was extended to the Armed Forces. The Minister gave the assurance that I asked for, but I think we might be told what steps are being taken to make certain that all those who have been called up are being used as efficiently as possible.
  Coming to a rather broader issue, I should like an assurance that the general policy of the ceiling of our man-power has been adjusted to the changed conditions that exist at present. While the country has made great efforts, and is willing to make the utmost efforts in the future, it is obvious that we have in our Ally across the Atlantic a vast reserve of man-power, and

  1457
  it may well prove to be the case that we can make a more effective contribution to the war by keeping a larger number of men in industry here, in what might be called the advanced ordnance base from which the offensive against Germany will be carried out. I should like an assurance that the Government have taken into account the changed conditions in which we are fighting at present. We have a very great Navy, a very great Mercantile Marine and a very great Air Force, and the production of munitions is upon a gigantic scale. It is not possible, while carrying all this immense burden, to maintain at the same time a very large Army. In each year since 1903, the number of men born has been steadily declining, and it would not be possible for us, as we progress further into the 40's of this century, to maintain the same man-power under arms as would have been possible had the war broken out a few years earlier than it did.
  I think there is a good deal of evidence that we are trying to maintain a larger Army than we can adequately man. There are a very great number of units in the British Army, and, almost without exception, while in this country they are far below the war establishment. It follows, therefore, that on each occasion that a unit is sent overseas it has to be brought up to full strength, which is done by drafting officers and men at almost the last moment from some other unit which is remaining behind. This has a most unfortunate effect both upon the unit that goes overseas and upon the unit that remains at home. It means that the unit going overseas has to incorporate in itself at the last moment a number of officers and men who are, practically speaking, strangers to the unit. It has the most unfortunate effect upon the training of the unit left behind, which periodically has withdrawn from it a number of the officers and men who have been going through the training. It has an unfortunate effect on the esprit de corps of units and extends even to brigades and divisions. I would like to urge strongly upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office that it would be a far wiser policy if at an early stage in training each unit were brought up to full war establishment with a certain margin for wastage, so that it would be possible for the unit to carry out the whole of its training and ultimately to go overseas as
  1458
  a unit. Every officer and man would know the rest of the unit and it would be trained as a single fighting force.
  There is in the Army an acute shortage of young men of first-class mental and physical qualities who are required for armoured divisions. Down to the present time the Navy and Royal Air Force have enjoyed a high degree of priority, but there are many units in the Army where the same qualities are required. The qualities of an air crew are required for a tank crew. In one Guards squadron no fewer than 25 per cent. of the men were agricultural labourers before they were called up. Agricultural labourers may be intelligent and are no doubt extremely gallant, but if men are to be trained in a short time in highly technical matters like wireless, signalling and maintaining a tank, it would be better to choose the raw material from those who had had some mechanical experience before they joined the Army. There are very few reserves for tank crews in the Army, and if there were five weeks of heavy campaigning on a European scale with the casualties that must be expected, the position would be one of great difficulty.
  In order to deal with these problems the Government are in a large degree calling up middle-aged men. There is a constituent of mine in his 43rd year who is practically blind in one eye and ruptured, and he is about to be called up for the Army. I have had some experience of cases of this kind, both in the Army and as a Member of Parliament, and I will venture to give a forecast of that man's career. He will go to the Army, and in the course of the first week the officers responsible for his training will come to the conclusion that he is not likely to be a very effective soldier. It will then take them some weeks to arrange for a medical board, and the board will invalid him out of the Army. By that time it is possible that his disability will be worse. Then I shall write to the Minister of Pensions, and he will explain to me that because this man was ruptured before he joined the Army his disability was neither due to his military service nor aggravated by it. I approached the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour about this case and argued it on the strength of the man's medical disability, but I should not consider that he is a suitable man to

  1459
  call up for the Army even if he were fit. He is 43, he is postmaster of an isolated village, he has a small shop and he has children to support. It would be far better to leave a man of that kind carrying on his civil avocation, because the social and economic dislocation which would be caused in his village would be far greater than any comparable advantage that would be gained by his joining the Army. He has appealed to the hardship tribunal and has been turned down. It was useless for me, therefore, to press the case on hardship grounds, and I argued it on the grounds of the man's disability.
  Mr. Maxton: Did the civil doctor pass the man?
  Mr. Molson: The civil doctor certified that he was ruptured, but he was medically examined again, and the view of the Ministry of Labour was that the rupture was not sufficiently bad to make him unfit for service.
  Since this Amendment was put on the Paper we have heard from the United States of America that the War Department has decided not to call up men of 38. The explanation given is that the experience gained in the last three years indicated that men of 38 and over were generally physically less able to withstand the rigours of present-day military activities. I have been trying to emphasise the shortage of suitable man-power in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and my friends and I are of the opinion that the right way to deal with this situation is to call to the colours boys at the age of 17, not for the purpose of sending them overseas, but in order to begin their physical and mental training and then to use them for home defence.
  Mr. Lindsay: If they are in full-time education?
  Mr. Molson: I would say that in cases where a boy is engaged in full-time education, particularly where he is training to become a fitter, it would be better to continue his training, because he would be of greater value as a trained fitter at 18½ than he would be at 17. I am talking about the general policy of calling up boys of an earlier age. When conscription was introduced I regretted that the age of calling up was 20. When I was in the Army early in the war it was remarkable
  1460
  to see how boys developed physically and grew as a result of physical training, open air and good food. I believe that from the physical point of view 17 is a better age at which to begin that physical training than 18 or 20. At this stage in the war there are so many mothers who are now engaged on war production that they are not available for cooking meals for their sons, and so many fathers who are away that they are no longer able to exercise any discipline over them.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: While the hon. Member is picking out working-class mothers who are busily engaged, does he not realise that there are many mothers who have never known how to cook a meal and who are doing nothing at all?
  Mr. Molson: I hope that that will be rectified before the war goes on much longer, but that is not the point I am dealing with. I am trying to deal with this question on broad lines, and it is not reasonable of the hon. Gentleman to raise a class point of that kind, which is quite remote from my mind. If the boys were called up at 17 and for three or four months were engaged on primary training, there would be ample scope for their services in the defence of this country. At the present time Anti-Aircraft Command are sending a large number of A.1 men to join the field force, and are confronted with an acute shortage of able-bodied young men to man the antiaircraft defences, and provided the boys were given an assurance that when they reached the age of 19 they would be allowed to have overseas service or service of greater activity, I am certain they would be perfectly willing to spend the intervening time increasing their skill as soldiers, thus replacing those older A.1 men who are at present being drafted in very large numbers from Anti-Aircraft Command to the field force.
  In moving this Amendment we are anxious to give the opportunity to the Government to explain what their manpower policy is. We want an assurance that that man-power policy has been brought up to date. We want an assurance that the Army is not too big and that it is being adjusted to the resources of our man-power. We suggest that it would be wiser to call up the younger material, which may not yet be mature but which is likely to go on improving, rather than

  1461
  to call up the older men who are likely to be going off. We suggest that it is rather by looking to the younger categories instead of to the older ones that the Government are likely to produce for the years of victory a highly trained and mobile and efficient Army, and one which we shall still be able to keep in being after the war for the purpose of garrisoning Europe in the days of pacification.
  Group-Captain Wright: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Listening to the speech of the Minister when he moved the Second Reading, I felt he was making an excellent speech in support of this Amendment. In fact, every argument he used could be used in support of the Amendment. Particularly interesting was the information which he gave that by calling up one year at the younger end of the scale we could release four years at the other end. I do not intend to spend much time on this particular point. The first two points in the Amendment deal with the lower age limits, and the third point deals with pre-entry training, and it is on that that I wish especially to speak. Seeing that the Minister has these very wide powers over the man-power of this country, I would ask him to use all his great influence to compel the various Ministers concerned to co-operate in producing a unified scheme to deal with the whole subject of pre-entry training. Those of us who have had the heartening experience of being able to study it at close quarters have been infected by the enthusiasm and keenness of these young men. We realise that pre-entry training is one of the better products of this war, and we hope and believe that it has come to stay. It is, therefore, all the more regrettable that the present condition of it is so chaotic, because there exist rivalry and competition where there should be complete co-operation. The sooner we all come to regard the three Services as part of one great national Fighting Force with many different departments, and regard service in each-and all as equally meritorious, the better it will be for this country. Healthy rivalry between the Departments is both good and desirable, but unhealthy competition is only a drag on the national effort.
  1462
  In order that the House may understand just why we brought into the Amendment this subject of pre-entry training, it is necessary for me to give a short history of the conditions which have produced the present state of affairs. One of the tragedies of this war has been that thousands of young men have, owing to the failure of our present system of education, been refused entry into training in the Royal Air Force. They were magnificent fighting material, burning with desire to serve their country in the air, and at a time when their country needed them so badly, but they could not be accepted because they were unable to pass the comparatively simple combined physical and educational tests, tests which would accurately reveal whether they had a chance of absorbing that excellent though intensive system of training through which the Air Ministry quite rightly insists that every young man shall pass satisfactorily before he is allowed to take his place in the line of battle. It took about twelve months of this war before the manning department of the Air Ministry discovered that our present system of education was just not producing a sufficient number of young men who could pass these tests, and that something must be done if the vast expansion of the Royal Air Force was to be completed satisfactorily.
  There were two alternatives. One was to lower the standard of training, but since there can be no doubt that the greatest single factor in this amazing superiority of our young men over their individual opponents in the enemy air forces springs from the confidence which comes from the knowledge that one can do one's job, it would have been something in the nature of a national disaster to obtain quantity at the sacrifice of quality. The other alternative was to take hold of these young men while there was still time, between the ages of 16 and 18, and give them an opportunity of bringing themselves up to the required standard of both education and physical fitness. The Air Council very wisely decided to do this. It was a great experiment in education, and it was a very bold step for a Service Ministry to take. The nucleus of an organisation was to hand. In 1938 Air Commodore Chamier, who deserves in my opinion to rank with Lord Baden-Powell in envisaging the needs of young men had started,

  1463
  with such voluntary help as he could enlist, the Air Defence Cadet Corps. Other Members and myself had pressed upon the then Secretary of State for Air that he should give official backing to this movement, but without avail. What a difference it would have made to our preasent position. How many millions of pounds would have been saved had this been done.
  Nevertheless, early in 1941, the Air Ministry decided to take over the Air Defence Cadet Corps and to convert it into the Air Training Corps. From the very first it was a phenomenal success. It proved a lesson, which some still find so hard to learn, that no youth organisation will ever be successful which does not provide an incentive. Clubs for drama, darts and dancing are all right as an addition, but British youth, thank God, want first of all an objective to strive for. This, the Air Training Corps provides. Just as the motor car has held the intense interest, of young men in this country during the last 25 years, so—and it does not require much imagination to realise this—the aeroplane or the soaring glider will rapidly take its place in the future. Pre-entry training in the Air Training Corps is good for the young man because the basic principle of the training is to develop keen, alert minds in fit alert bodies. We aim to train the cadet to be able to think and act for himself. I was very pleased to notice that the Minister stressed that point in his speech on the Second Reading. It is popular with the Cadet, because no subject is taught the cadet unless he thoroughly understands the object and the necessity for each step in the instruction, and as to discipline it is given as a necessity to obtain the objective, and never is discipline insisted on for discipline's sake.
  Another fallacy which still exists is that youth dislikes proper discipline. So great was the success of the Air Training Corps, under the enthusiastic direction first of all of Mr. Wolfenden, headmaster of Uppingham School, and more latterly of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), that it led to the formation of the Sea Cadets and the Army Cadet Force. The Admiralty have always co-operated with the Air Ministry in this matter. The Air Training Corps has trained and is training many suitable young men for the Royal Navy. When the War Office woke up to the fact that the Air Training Corps was
  1464
  enrolling the cream of the young men of this country they took fright and decided that something must be done. What did they do? Did they say, "Here is an organisation which is successfully training exactly the type of young man that we need to fight our tanks and to man our armoured units; let us help to develop it and co-operate with it"? Not a bit. That, of course, would have meant an unusual thing, co-operation between two Ministries. They set about to see how they could pull a fast one over this younger Ministry which had been so cheeky as to steal a march on them.
  It seems that it did not occur to them that all the Forces of the Crown require the same type of young man, and that in any given age group there is a fairly consistent percentage of boys or men whom I would describe as Service minded, and that there is a far larger percentage who, for a dozen reasons which I cannot develop to-day, will never act unless they are compelled to. That is what is happening to-day in pre-entry training. The three Ministries are fighting over and competing for the smaller percentage of boys. The best idea that the War Office could produce was to enrol boys of 14, apparently in the hope that they would thus get them by being first in the field. In fact, that is what will happen to a considerable extent.
  Mr. Lindsay: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question? Surely this is not at all the true picture. The Sea Cadets were not formed because of the Air Training Corps. They were formed years before. Secondly, is it not a fact that the age for the cadet was 14 long before and has nothing to do with the Air Training Corps?
  Group-Captain Wright: I was aware that the age of the cadet was 14, but the cadets were chiefly in schools and were not in local units, such as have been introduced since the War Office formed the Army Cadet Force. I am not arguing as between one Ministry and another. The House will realise presently that I am arguing for a unified scheme. I want to do away with this competition, because it does not do the country any good. In my opinion you do not produce the magnificent fighting material which is needed successfully to prosecute a war to-day by putting boys of 14 into uniform

  1465
  and giving them little else. What matters most at that age are education and physical training, and I do not so much refer to the education of the school classroom as to objective and practical education such as is given in the Air Training Corps, not the soul destroying exercise of route marches, but physical training, games and sports designed to develop mind and body simultaneously. So we find the Service Ministers competing with one another not only for our youths but for officers to command them, instructors to teach them, buildings to house them, equipment, and, most absurd of all, we find that while the War Office, in this fourth year of the war, is issuing uniforms to boys of 14 in the Army Cadet Force, the Air Ministry is being told by the Board of Trade that there is no material to supply greatcoats for young men of from 16 to 19 years of age in the Air Training Corps.
  Not only are the Services competing, but all sorts of voluntary organisations and clubs, some of which I regret to say openly describe the Service organisations as "Hitler Youth." While this country is fighting a critical battle for its very existence, some organisations are telling our youth that equal service is performed by joining a purely social club, and stress is actually being laid on the fact that these clubs do not take the boys back to school as the Air Training Corps does. I hope that I have said enough to show how lamentable is the present condition of affairs when viewed as a whole. I realise that my criticism up to the moment has been purely destructive. What can be done to correct this picture, on the one hand, of only a small percentage of our youth getting the undisputed advantage of training in the Air Training Corps—that the training of the Air Training Corps is a tremendous advantage to a young man will not be seriously denied anywhere—and, on the other hand, the great majority still drifting and getting neither mental nor physical training, with many young men still learning no trade and certain, unless something is done for them, to build up again in the future a vast army of adults unskilled, and therefore difficult to employ such as we had before the war?
  I ask the Minister that he will take strong steps to compel the Ministers of
  1466
  all the Departments concerned—the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Health, for they are equally concerned with the three Service Ministries—to agree jointly to the formation of a National Training Corps. This Corps might be administered quite well by a revitalised Board of Education from which have been moved those who persist in thinking that British youth only desires unearned recreation. Just as to-day the Board of Education control a given number of hours per week of the lives of all boys between the ages of five and 14, so they should, in my opinion, control so many hours per week of the lives of the same boys until they are 17 or 18, or whatever age is finally accepted for call-up to national service.
  Mr. Stephen: Why start at five? Why not start at the cradle?
  Group-Captain Wright: The hours which they control should be strictly regulated and allotted between industry, education and physical training, with sufficient discipline to obtain the objective. It should be the responsibility of the Board to see that the boy in industry is, in fact, learning a trade, and not merely being exploited as cheap labour. Outside those hours these young people could still have free choice to join any voluntary organisation if they so desired. All boys who leave school before the calling-up age should be compelled to join the National Training Corps. Such an organisation would be the first step to the further extension of the school-leaving age. At 16 in the National Training Corps they could then opt for special training for the Service of their choice, and it might perhaps be possible to develop organisations on parallel lines to cover agriculture and engineering.
  When one thinks of what is being done to-day in the Air Training Corps, taking at 15½ youths who leave school at 14 and have had nothing to fill that awful gap during which so many forget anything they may have ever learned, what a different type of youth they would get at 15½ under such a scheme as I have suggested. Think what they could do with such a type? They could do with fewer instructors, who would then become available for the increased scope of the National Training Corps. They would certainly get through the present syllabus by the

  1467
  time the cadet reached 17. Above all, the appalling waste which goes on to-day of willing youths who, owing to the terrible effect of that ghastly gap from 14 to 15½, have slipped beyond reclamation, to the standard required. I appeal to the Minister to use the power he has and the great influence he has among his colleagues. I assure him that this is a vital matter which merits Cabinet attention.
  The present situation is a glaring example of that lack of co-operation between Ministers which Members of Parliament come up against almost daily. The whole problem must be approached from an entirely fresh angle. It is useless tinkering about and patching up. We have seen, in the recently issued Beveridge Report on social insurance, what can be done when a problem is tackled by someone who refuses to be bound by precedent. That Report has brought hope to millions that we do mean something when we talk about building up a better Britain. If the Minister will take the steps I am asking him to take to-day, he will, within a very short time, produce a race of young men, fit in mind and body, who will be ready to fill not only the Fighting Forces with magnificent material but will also be ready to take their full share in that great reconstruction we have got to face when final victory has been won.
  Mr. Cecil Wilson: I think that the emphasis which the last speaker has laid upon the question of education is something with regard to which we have been painfully lacking in the past, and while we might differ as to the means to which that education must be directed, we are certainly in the position to-day of suffering a very serious lack of education because there has been such a complete lack in the past. The Mover of the Amendment, and the other hon. Gentlemen who are associated with him in moving it, have been in the Services at one time or another and are speaking very largely from what they feel to be the result of those experiences. In that respect there is considerable commendation to be given to them for putting their point of view, although I have not very much sympathy with it. In the course of his opening remarks, the Minister again and again told as he was not going to give any guarantee, no guarantee that he
  1468
  would stop at 18, or at 17, or at 16, or at 15, or at any lower age.
  Mr. Bevin: I have never said that. That was not the question that was put to me. I gave a specific pledge regarding the ages of 19 and 18. I made no reference to ages lower than those stated in the Bill.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not understand why we are continually referring to manpower. We are dealing to-day with boy-power, and we might as well realise it. You are going to let these boys appear before tribunals, before men who do not know what conscience is and who ridicule the idea of these boys having consciences. No guarantee is given that such men are going to behave better in future than they have done in the past. I notice that those associated with the Amendment are not only in the Services but are of a considerably lower average age than we on these benches unfortunately possess. That is perhaps the reason why we on this side have not so many Members in the Armed Forces. It gives us greater freedom to deal with these boys, to say that the proper place for them is in the Army, although we have never been there. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that we have to ascertain the man-power of other countries, and the man-power of other countries has been much lower than that of this country for some considerable time. That seems to me to be advocating that our man-power should go as low as that of other countries—and in some countries it is very low indeed—which only seems to confirm the idea that no guarantee ought to be given.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I am sure my hon. Friend misunderstood what I said, and that it is a genuine misunderstanding. What I was pointing out was the great strain that the people of this country are feeling, and I asked whether other countries realised the strain we have been under.
  Mr. Wilson: The position to-day, more particularly in regard to the present Front Bench and the frequent changes that have been made upon it, is very largely due to the last war. A very large number of the good and promising men were killed in the last war, and we have to make use of the best we have got. That certainly does not provide a particularly

  1469
  edifying spectacle in this House. It seems that we are to have a repetition of that sort of thing—to kill off all the promising boys and young people—and then these people and others like them will be left in control. I do not think that that is safe for the country. I hope the Minister will have the courage to see that if manpower and boy-power mean anything, there is going to be some point below which he will not go.
  Wing-Commander James: The Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that his primary concern was the maximum war effort. It is solely in relation to that need that I want to make a few remarks. I am worried at what appears to me to be a tendency to overstrain the home front at present. I represent a primarily industrial constituency, but I live in a rural constituency in the same county. Owing to the fact that the sitting Member for that constituency is Mr. Speaker, a great many of his constituents, owing to his position, unfortunately for me, come upon me, almost as though I were the sitting Member. Therefore, I get something of the purview of a rural Member, as well as that of an industrial Member. I am somewhat apprehensive lest the policy of calling-up the older age groups, as it is at present carried out, will result in undue strain upon the ordinary necessary machinery of life among the civil population. I am not going to refer to the hardships, because that is a matter for hardship tribunals, which, in my opinion, work well and fairly, but there is a strong feeling in the country that older men are being called up when younger men are available. That impression is, in the main, unjustified. I must, in fairness to the Minister, say that in my constituency, although I have had many complaints about the calling-up of older men, I have not had a case substantiated of an older man being called up and a younger man being left in the same job. That does not alter the fact that, in my view, we are getting to a stage in the calling-up of older men where the ordinary necessaries of life, in the way of repair and maintenance—not only such matters as building, plumbing, and cycle repairs, but all sorts of necessary repairs, particularly in the countryside, where you have not the resources of the town—are being unduly strained.
  1470
  It seems to me that the War Cabinet should very carefully review the policy of call-up for the Services and decide whether the time has not come to set a definite limit to what can be expected from this small and highly strained island, and whether there is not waste after the present call-up. I am not making general charges of waste in industry, such as are commonly but usually mistakenly made. I have something much smaller than that in mind, but something very important. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no real waste, particularly in the case of young women called up in Government Departments? I will give one instance which came to my notice recently. In my own small country town the National Fire Service, having made no effort whatever to find voluntary part-time workers, sent down six young women as full-time telephone operators. I was told that it was necessary, and I was given reasons, but when I fought the case and pointed out the effect on local opinion of these young ladies being seen, with not very much to do, sitting around, the number was reduced by half. If that can happen in one case, in one small town, I am sure it is happening in many others. There is a tendency for the machine, when it gets a person, to keep him, even if he is not being used to the best advantage. The Minister has to deal with high strategic policy; I am dealing with the relatively small local tactical effects of that high policy. I urge the Minister to consider carefully a revision and limitation of the demands that, for the successful prosecution of the war—which is all we care about—he is making on the people of this country.
  Mr. Stephen: I desire to intervene in this Debate to say that my hon. Friends of the Independent Labour Party take the same line of opposition to this extension of conscription that they have taken to all the other conscription Measures. We opposed each National Service Bill, and we see no reason for changing our decision with regard to this most recent number. When I first looked at the Bill I missed three words. In reading Sub-section (1) of Clause I, I did not notice the "seventeen years and", and I thought that if it was to be read as "not being less than eight months" the Minister was proceeding now to introduce a conscription Bill to take those over eight months into the Services.

  1471
  But perhaps experience will show that those who are only eight months old will be called up in some subsequent Measure, because the demand for man-power is growing and, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Wilson) has said, is becoming more acute.
  I have not the least sympathy with the hon. Members who have put the Amendment on the Paper. I do not agree with them that we should take all the young people, and that to take the older people would be upsetting things. Let the House realise that the boys they are proposing to take for the slaughter-machine had no responsibility for the policies. The war might have been fought much better if the Government had started taking, first, the 70's, then the 60's, and had worked down to the young people. After all, the older people have been responsible for the policies which have landed the world into this mess, and they themselves should be called upon to pay for it, and not the innocents. It would be far better that Abraham himself should be laid upon the altar instead of Isaac. I notice that the Chief Justice of Australia has visualised this war being a 50 years' war. He evidently does not see much chance of defeating the Japanese under 50 years, and there will probably be another Minister of Labour and National Service before we get to the end of the 50 years in connection with this trouble. There is certainly a limit to what this country is able to do with regard to production and calling up men to fight. Possibly, as the hon. Member suggested, the Government are not appreciating sufficiently the fact that there is such a limit. It is as well that at this stage protest should be made. It is regrettable indeed that the Government have introduced and are passing this Measure and putting it on to the Statute Book before this survey of man-power has been made and the House has had an opportunity of indicating to the Government their views of the general position of the nation in connection with man-power.
  The Minister said that, after all, this Measure is in the interests of the young people; they will have a longer period of service. They will not go overseas at an earlier date, and therefore it will be an advantage to them to have this period of training. I am not the least bit convinced about it. The year from 17 to 18 is one in which, in suitable home circumstances, a great deal more good may come to the
  1472
  young person than if he is taken into the Army, sent to a camp and put under this military training. When the first conscription Measure of this war was before the House we were told how wonderful it would be for the young people to get training under the Military Service Act. As it turned out, it was not so very wonderful after all. There was no adequate provision made for them, and a whole lot of them get into bad health as a result of their training.
  There is one other point I want to make in connection with the boys and girls that we to-day are deciding are to go into the Services. A large proportion of these boys and girls are the sons and daughters of men and women who were unemployed in the period between the last war and this war. They are the boys and girls who have grown up and for whom decent treatment was refused in the pre-war years. We could not get maintenance for them when their parents were unemployed. When I first came into this House there was only 1s. a day provided for their maintenance, and we had to fight year in and year out to try and get the maintenance allowance raised. We starved them during those years, and we are now going to take them into the Army at 17 years and 8 months, take them into the slaughter-machine at this early age. It is a shameful thing that young people should be taken for the Services in this way. The burden of fighting the war should be laid upon the people who were responsible for the policies in the years which led up to the war. We certainly protest against the passing of this Measure, and I hope that the Minister will take steps to see that the hardship committees in the districts are given instructions to deal with the particular circumstances of the young people in a far more reasonable and humane manner than has been the case in so many instances in the past.
  Every one of us has had numerous instances. The hon. Member opposite mentioned the case of a man of 43, and I interrupted him. I do not know whether he thought I was not in sympathy with him and the statement of his particular case, but I can assure him my experience has been the same. So many members of these hardship committees seem to be destitute of common sense, although I will say for the Minister that when I have brought a case to his notice

  1473
  he has shown sympathy and common sense in dealing with it. He has shown courage in a very difficult post, and I pay tribute to him in that respect. I question whether the Government could have found any other person in the country who could have carried through the conscription of the working people in the way that he has done. After all, lives are being taken out of all proportion to the wealth that has been taken, and the working class are in the majority in the country. No steps have been taken to conscript wealth. The other day there was published in the newspapers a will which showed that a man had left over £2,500,000, a large part of which will pass to his heirs. Yet these boys and girls of 17 years and eight months are being conscripted into the Services in order to protect these large estates. The Independent Labour Party believes that there should be conscription of wealth before conscription of human life. The line we take is in complete opposition to the Government. We believe that in present circumstances, instead of seeking to increase the man-power of this country, a great deal more should be done to bring reason into the councils of the nations and to achieve an early peace.
  Mr. Linstead: I desire to go a very long way with my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in what he said to the House about the call-up of the older age groups, although I am afraid I shall have to join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wright) in some of the things he said in seconding the Amendment. I think it is obvious that it is a mistake to estimate the value of armies by counting heads. The point has already been made in the House that when you are getting in the neighbourhood of 40 and over it is very doubtful whether the ordinary man is able to stand up to the demands of modern warfare. Indeed, that has been recognised by the War Office themselves. As an illustration of that it so happens that I have with me a letter from a distinguished soldier who is in a position to judge the value, as fighting material, of older men. I would like to quote one or two sentences from that letter if I may. They are:
  1474
  "I can tell you quite definitely that I have had a great deal of trouble in this Command with a number of men over 40 who have not been able to stand up to the preliminary training, even when graded down for special training. As recommended by the Army Council in one of their instructions, a special medical category was instituted for men of 41 and over, because, presumably, it was found that so many were breaking down, as a result of strenuous military training consequent upon long periods of office routine in civil life. It would appear from this Army Council instruction and my experience in this Command that the matter is very common and must occur throughout the country or else the Army Council would not have taken the action they did."
  That does seem to indicate a realisation on the part of the Army authorities that there are distinct limitations to the usefulness of the older age groups of men in the Army. It so happens that I have a good deal to do with a deferment and calling-up scheme which affects some 30,000 civilian pharmacists and dispensers and we are finding that we have already reached rock bottom in the matter of civilian needs. We have had to go to the Minister of Health and tell him that if there is any more combing-out of that particular group, it will be very difficult for us to ensure that there may not be breakdowns in the civil services in the event of epidemic or serious illness. That is just one small section of the community. It would not be so serious if the experts were being used for their expert jobs in the Army, but I can say from my own experience that scores of these men for whom I have some responsibility are not, in fact, being used as specialists in the Army. As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak indicated, we have to think of the civilian organisation of this country. We are a sort of bridgehead for the United Nations, and the organisation of industry and transport is surely one of the big contributions that this country should be making rather than a contribution down to the last man who can possibly be combed out.
  That is all I need say, I think, on that particular part of the Amendment. I now want to say a few words on the subject of pre-entry training, which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington. He spoke in favour of unified pre-entry training, and I gather that he was favouring a scheme which would ensure that most boys, even

  1475
  when they are at school, should find their way to one or other of their preliminary Service training organisations. I want to put in a very strong plea for the continued recognition of some of the other pre-service training organisations. I have had the very good fortune to have had about 30 years' membership of the Boy Scouts, and I have had a good deal to do with the training of boys from the age of 12 upwards. There is immense value in the diversity of pre-entry training organisations. Every boy is different, and one does not want to have one common mould into which one tries to fit every type of boy in the country. Over the last score of years education has been struggling to get away from fixed curricula or fixed syllabuses so as to draw out, as far as possible, the natural characteristics of each boy. Surely, we should see to it that where organisations, such as the Boy Scouts organisation, are providing variety and freedom in training for the young, they should be encouraged. At a time when there is not static war, but a war of manœuvre, with individual aircraft and individual small ships, initiative and a sense of responsibility should be encouraged in individual serving men; and some of the voluntary organisations do emphasise this, to the very great advantage of the boys who pass through them.
  There is another thing that needs to be remembered. Let us hope that the war will not continue for ever. We have to see to it that after the war there is a spirit among the young people of the country that will enable them to take up post-war problems less prejudiced than the older generations inevitably will be. In one way or another they will have to find a way of living with other European countries. We of the older generations will be bound to go into post-war problems with our prejudices. Youth will not. I believe it is among many of these voluntary organisations that one gets the best opportunities of getting the youth of different countries to meet one another without the barrier of service uniforms and an official atmosphere. I warmly support the first part of the Amendment, but I hope it will not be pressed to a Division, because I believe that at the back of the mind of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment there is a conception of a state of affairs which would
  1476
  be detrimental rather than helpful to what we all have in mind.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I rise to support the Bill, but also to support the spirit of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson). I support the spirit of the Amendment because I think the hon. Member for the High Peak and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright) have presented an interesting case. If it had not been for their intervention in a Debate on man-power, I very much doubt whether the House would have had a chance of discussing pre-entry training. I do not know why it is, but it seems difficult to stir up any interest in the House on the only thing that matters about post-war times—and that is the condition of young people themselves. The people between 12 and 18 happen to be, in their persons, the post-war world, together with the rest who are at school. Since last January I have tried to get a Debate on the registration of youth, without any success. Therefore I am very grateful to the hon. Member for the High Peak for raising the issue.
  I do not know what is the position in the Army now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. John Dugdale), who has had some experience, will speak about it, and indeed, I would have liked to have heard him before making the few remarks I propose to make. I know that in the last war there was not this distinction at the age of 18. I can speak with some feeling, because I was then at school, like many of the boys now at the age of 17; and then I had an interrupted career in the sense of winning a scholarship and not taking it up. We were in France at the age of 18, and nobody thought it was odd. [Interruption.] I am saying that none of us thought it was odd; we were volunteers. There seems now to be a different approach to the whole of the man-power question, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for the High Peak, and others who have been in the Army, in their feelings on the subject of those over 37 years of age being called up and the calling-up of those between 17 and 18½ years. I think the hon. Members have made a point.
  But what precisely the organisation is to be is another and difficult question. I am

  1477
  not sure whether hon. Members realise what the Bill implies. In the first glace, it is the end of university life for ordinary students during the period of the war, except for specialists. We are fighting for our lives, and university life has to go by the board, but what is also very important is that the decision as to who should go to the universities depends not on the Board of Education but on the Services. Selection boards go round the schools and pick out prospective candidates for the specialised branches of the Army and for the Navy and Air Force, and those young men go to the university, possibly for a six months' course. Not only are there radiolocation students but cadet engineers between the ages of 16 and 19. These matters are settled by the Technical Personnel Committee, or some such body. Therefore, at the present time the question of who shall go to the university is being settled by the three Services and by bodies outside the Board of Education or the Universities. That is a new war dispensation which I think needs watching.
  What happens in the case of those below these ages? There are now 500,000 boys between the ages of 14 and 18 who are, as far as their leisure time is concerned, under Army, Navy or Air Force discipline. I am not quite sure that I am quite prepared to resign all that to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington, to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), to Lord Bridgeman, and to various high officials in the Services. I understand there is an Inter-Services Committee, and I hope that the Board of Education are properly and fully represented at all the meetings that matter of that Inter-Services Committee. I understand it was the policy of His Majesty's Government that up to the age of 18 the responsibility for the welfare of young people was to remain with the Board of Education. What was the criticism of that policy? We heard it from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington. It was, in effect, that the schools do not provide the right kind of mathematicians and that the A.T.C. can supply something that the schools know nothing about. I must by the way put in one defence for the Admiralty. Sea cadets were founded in 1887, and they have been going since that time. It is true, however, that—and I
  1478
  understood it was a Cabinet decision—the Air Ministry got in first and started a scheme which did not work through the local education authorities as such. They have a complete Regional Organisation. It is my estimate that at the moment the Air Ministry are spending more on the leisure time of the youth of this country than the Board of Education and all the local education authorities put together. That is a very significant matter. It means among other things that, once you take trouble about this problem and are prepared to spend money, you can do all kinds of things. I was glad that the hon. Member who spoke last put in a plea for a few voluntary societies, scouts and clubs which have existed for many years and which are also taking some part in youth training.
  My question to the Movers of the Amendment is a very simple one. I should like to know whether those in secondary schools at 17 are excluded or included. If you cut into that group, you are making the most serious interruption in the education system. It is bad enough at present. I would not advocate that, especially as most of them are in J.T.Cs. and A.T.Cs. at school. But what sort of organisation are you going to have between 16 and 18? I should like to see, on a completely voluntary basis, something like what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Erdington was outlining. This snatching for bodies between the three Services is the same sort of snatching that used to go on between the voluntary societies in the old days. I remember it very well years ago in East London, when a great noise was being made about doing something for youth, but 80 per cent. of the boys slipped through. At present the Air Ministry get in first. I always understood that that was definite Government policy. Now it is officially recognised by the Admiralty and the War Office that their Cadet Forces, which were previously under the Navy League and Territorial Associations, are part of the State, so that you have three vertical State organisations with 500,000 boys under their control. Fifty per cent. of the officers are teachers. That is why I asked the Minister of Labour about calling them up. If this Subsection 3 (2) simply means that those cadet officers in the three Services are

  1479
  put on the same level as the Home Guard and part-time youth organisers, there is nothing in it, except that it makes them all on the same basis. If it means that there is a chance that some of these will be called up, and the pre-Service organisations will be in an even more difficult position than at present.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I think the position is clear. The people mentioned are left out of the National Service Act, 1939, and are not registerable because they are in the Services. We wish to take them out of that and treat them as civilians.
  Mr. Lindsay: I am grateful, because that gives me a complete assurance that it is really a formal Clause. We have already had a registration of 16's and 17's. It has been going on since January, and if a White Paper were issued, it would probably give us the most complete analysis of what happens in those years—a social document of immense importance. It is beyond dispute that these boys are working far too long hours, and therefore their usefulness when they go into the Army is likely to be impaired. I should like to suggest that the time has come for having some form of organisation, which I think ought to be on a voluntary basis, between 16 and 18, or 17 and 18½, which gives all the things that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has rightly described. He said the fact that there is a clear objective and purpose in the A.T.C., the fact that the mathematics and trigonometry are related to something which every boy can understand, has made 210,000 boys—one in every five in the country between 16 and 18—join an organisation while hitherto it was impossible to get most of them to join anything. That is a minor revolution. The only question is whether it is temporary, whether it is the glamour of the uniform, whether it is this new element of conquest of the air, which is compelling a large number of these boys to attend evening institutes as part of their training.
  Now I am informed by the Admiralty that precisely the same thing is happening with regard to the sea, I have been told that some of the boys in the juvenile courts in London are there because they are stealing money to get to Liverpool to join the Merchant Navy, such is the great enthusiasm for the sea, not by
  1480
  any means only in coast towns but in quite inland places. There are perhaps 50,000 in the sea cadets. There could be 200,000 within six months if there were the uniforms and the officers. Some will not, perhaps, regret this but will think it retrograde. I assure them it is not. There is something exciting and much more interesting about the element of the sea and seamanship training than about normal evening classes. There is the same thing about the air and, what is even more remarkable, one boy in every ten is in the Army Cadets.
  If this is true, is it not time that some step was taken—I want it to be taken through the Board of Education—through a revitalised Board? Why cannot my hon. Friend, or the President, take the initiative? If they do, they will have far more backing from many people who are just a little suspicious of this training coming too much under the Services. I am aware that local authorities play a considerable part. I am aware that teachers are perhaps 50 per cent. of the officers. There is a feeling growing up that we are heading for a new administrative dual system as between the Board and the Services. I would like to ask what is supposed to be the relation between the numbers who are allowed to go into the pre-service units and the demands of the Forces. I am told by the Secretary of State for Air that there is a limit for the A.T.C., and he says they do not want too many boys. The Admiralty say that the number in the Sea Cadets is about the right number who could get into the Navy. The Army say that 200,000 is the ceiling. What precisely is the relation, and do they promise a boy that he will go into the Service for which he is training at the proper age? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities and others that boys should not be strutting round in khaki at 14. I could not go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington because it would be equivalent to a National Training Corps for those under 16, and smack too much of the Conservative Party Report, which was disastrous and put back the clock, because it introduced two alien elements. One was premature compulsion and the other was a Federation of all youth organisations.
  I would like to suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that in thinking

  1481
  out the best way of dealing with boys of 16 to 18, the Board of Education, the three Services, and the Ministry of Labour should get together and frame a coherent policy. There is a case now for using the war, certainly for action during the war, to get either some combined system, or, if necessary, some arrangement between the Services so that they do not steal each other's recruits. My hon. Friend may say that that has nothing to do with this Bill, but the Bill has provided an opportunity for discussing the relation between this younger call up and the older people over 37 and I am grateful to the hon. Member who has given the opportunity for doing this. We are in danger of thinking that this training can be run entirely by the Services. I understand that in the universities there is a great desire by the young men to have training in something which is loosely called citizenship. I am not talking about citizenship training for boys of 14–16, but for boys of 16–19. There must also be included in any pre-service training some general cultural training as well. The Minister of Labour in his opening remarks said that individual action was essential in the modern Army. Other hon. Members have stressed the great need of good physical and mental condition for those going into the Services. I warn the House that if they simply concentrate on pre-Service training of a rather limited kind there is a danger of neglecting the wider citizenship training.
  The Markham Report has only to be glanced at to see the conditions that were found in the women's Services. Many young men are for the first time embracing brand new courses which are given men in the Forces; they never had any chance between 14 and 18. If we pay a little more attention to the pre-service training and to what young people themselves are demanding the Army, the Navy and Air Force will be better served. There is even criticism now within the Air Force and that is why they are sending men to the Universities for six months, in order to give them something else besides purely technical training. If that is true generally of all the Forces a great opportunity is presented to put somebody in charge. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the Debate. I have the utmost respect for his work at the Ministry of Labour, but with
  1482
  the best will in the world he cannot know the ramifications of this problem in the three Service Departments and the Board of Education. A Ministry of Youth has been suggested, but nobody likes new Ministries. We want either a man or a Department who will regard this problem as a whole.
  Mr. John Dugdale: This Bill will, as the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has already said, do a great deal to show the people of the world what this country is doing in the war. It is the kind of Bill one would expect from the Minister of Labour, who has been perhaps the greatest protaganist in the development of our war effort and the mobilisation of our power which we have had. I support the Bill, but I want to make one or two observations on it. The first concerns the question of university students. I realise that we have to mobilise every man and woman in the country, that it is a 100 per cent. war, and that nothing should stop us from carrying it on to the full. I would ask, however, whether it is not possible for 10 per cent. of the best students in our universities to be able to complete their courses. At present students who are studying science and subjects which are thought to be useful for the war effort are allowed to continue in the universities until they have completed their courses, but students who are studying what are strangely named "arts" are not allowed to do so, because it is thought that what they learn at the universities will not contribute to the war effort. I would like the Minister to tell us what is being done in Russia. They have, I understand, mobilised their war effort every bit as much as we have, but there is exemption for students of high qualifications who are studying any subject which it is thought will be of use to the country, not only in war-time, but afterwards in the period of reconstruction. I would plead with the Minister, while giving the greatest possible help he can to the Army and all their requirements, to look seriously into the question of university students. It is not just a question of certain privileged classes; it is a question of those students who have proved by their ability that if they are allowed to complete their training, they will be able to contribute to the country's welfare in the future.

  1483
  I want to turn to another question raised by the Bill, namely, that of the medical inspection of the boys who are called up. I served for some months in a young soldier battalion, and have seen something of the quality of the men called to that battalion. I would say in parenthesis that they are not conscripts, but volunteers, They all had to undergo a medical inspection, and some of those medical inspections are nothing short of ludicrous. At least 10 per cent. of those boys who have come into young soldier battalions are totally unsuited to go into the Army at all. One extreme example in my own unit was the case of a boy passed by a board as medically fit to enter the Army and to go forward into battle who had a withered arm. I cannot think that inspections of this kind are the rule, but it shows that there is something definitely lacking in our system of medical inspection if 10 per cent. of those in many units have to go back into civil life, have to be reboarded, because they are found to be unsuitable for the Army.
  I turn now to the question of the training these young men. In the past—I hope it is not so now and think it is not so—young soldier battalions have been in many cases homes for tired colonels. Men who were not very successful in commanding in other units were sent to look after a young soldier battalion. To-day I think this has been altered; indeed, if I did not know that efforts were being made to alter it, I should not dare to say this in public, because it might have a very bad effect on the morale of those battalions. I think steps are being taken to appoint a very much better type of commanding officer to them. I experienced something of the change-over in the kind of commanding officers they had and also the kind of training they had. In the past these young soldiers, who had volunteered, who had come forward of their own free will, were sent to the most depressing of occupations, to guard aerodromes, where they had no kind of training at all. They had had, it may be, a few weeks at an infantry training centre before, but after that they were put to guard aerodromes day in and day out, and to guard them without any form of equipment which would have enabled them to resist successfully had those establishments been attacked. To-day those aerodromes are being guarded, as hon. Members know, I think, largely as the result of comments made in this
  1484
  House, by the R.A.F. Regiment, and the young soldier battalions are being withdrawn to do the real training they are supposed to be doing.
  That training, I submit, should be not only military training. At the same time as they are given military training they should be given some sort of general educational training. Who are these young men? They are a cross-section of the people of this country. Ten per cent. have received education in secondary schools and 10 per cent. education in night schools or some other part-time education, but the rest of them, 80 per cent., have had very little education of any kind since they left their elementary schools, where many of them did not learn very much. It depends largely on the commanding officers of these young soldier battalions what kind of education these young men are given. I happened to join a regiment at the moment when there was a new commanding officer. The old commanding officer had said that education was of no value, that it did not help the war effort, and that he was not concerned with it, and he did his best to see that every Army Council Instruction designed to encourage education should be disregarded. The new commanding officer was of an entirely different type. He said at once that he realised the value of education and that everything possible should be done to encourage it, and he helped to bring about whatever was asked for.
  What actually are the Army Council Instructions on this point? They are that boys in young soldier battalions shall have five hours educational training a week. I submit that in a very large number of cases this Instruction is totally disregarded. In some cases it is carried out, in other cases there may be two, three, or even four hours educational training, but very seldom is there the full five. When any other Army Council Instruction with regard to training is issued it is, in the great majority of cases, carried out to the letter by commanding officers, because they recognise it as a military instruction which concerns their military duty. Education, they say, is something outside their military duty, it has nothing to do with them and they often wink at it. I think that spirit is entirely wrong and I hope the Secretary of State will do his best to see that this Army Council In-

  1485
  struction requiring five hours education weekly is carried out in the letter and in the spirit.
  But it is not only a question of actual instruction; there is the question, which has already been referred to by other hon. Members, of the A.B.C.A. classes, classes in current affairs. These classes are common to all Army units, but they are of greater importance to young soldier battalions. Are the instructions as to those classes being carried out? I would submit that in probably 60, or possibly 70, per cent. of cases the instructions are carried out, but there are from 20 to 30 per cent. of the platoons in young soldier battalions which do not carry them out at all. Where the classes are held, who gives the instruction? It is given by a platoon commander. Some of these platoon commanders may be very intelligent men, they may know a great deal about current affairs, but many of them need educating themselves before they can hope to educate their men. They know nothing whatever about the subject. It is true that they are given booklets on which to base their lectures, but for all that they are themselves ignorant of the basis of the current affairs which they have to teach, and many of the men know it. If the men are to be given proper education every platoon commander in a young soldier battalion ought to be given, first, a course of instruction on current affairs and, secondly, on how to teach. Many do not know either. Among current affairs there is one subject which is frowned upon, which the Army Council does not like in this educational instruction. It is the most vital question of all to-day, the question of reconstruction. It is a question which the men are not supposed to discuss, not supposed to know about. It is too high and mighty, it would give them what the Japanese call "dangerous thoughts," and so it is kept from them.
  I submit that reconstruction should play an important part in all current affairs instruction, and that talks on reconstruction should increase in number. I see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are looking at me with a wary eye, but I would submit that such education—and here I would say in parenthesis I am following the hon. Member for Stoke—that such talks should include matters, I do not go further than just to mention the
  1486
  name, such as the Beveridge Report. Men should know about such reports, they should know what is proposed for the future, and should be able to discuss it. In that way many would become far better educated than they would be, if they had not entered the Army. There is very great hope in the educational work being done in the Army, and I would pay high tribute to the Army education sergeants, who, day in and day out, do a tremendous amount to stimulate the minds of these men and to make them think in a way they have never been able to think before. I have taken the trouble to find out what some of these young boys think, and I find they have an intense desire for a new world but very great scepticism about petting it. They have an intense interest in Soviet Russia, which, they feel, has already got what they want themselves. They need talks on reconstruction, and I hope they will get them. These boys need all the training that we can possibly give them. The Bill will add many thousands of soldiers to our ranks—so-called soldiers—but it is not enough simply to register people and call them soldiers, and to dismiss it at that. Registration alone will not make soldiers. These soldiers need rifles, tommy guns and bayonets, but, above all, they need mental equipment. Let us give it to them.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: The Movers of the Amendment have given the opportunity to the House to hear a number of very interesting speeches raising matters of great importance as regards education in the Army, which was spoken of with such knowledge and interest by the last speaker, and as regards pre-service training. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) that it is most important that training before entry into the Army should be as varied as possible, but I would add as voluntary as possible. The framers of the Amendment have worded it in such a way as shows hesitation to face the fact that they are imposing, by the terms of the Amendment, a man's duty on a boy's shoulders. The Amendment speaks of postponing further calling-up of men over 37 "until provision has been made for the calling to the colours of men between the ages of 17 and 18½. Those are not men; they are boys, and they ought to be treated as

  1487
  boys. We ought not to put upon the shoulders of boys burdens that are sometimes too heavy for the shoulders of men. We could see that the Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, underneath his solemn sense of obligation to bring this forward in view of the national necessity, felt hesitation, in that he realised what a burden he, and we, are putting upon the youth of the country.
  I want to ask one or two questions of the Minister who is to reply to the Debate. One of them has already been raised, and the others I wish to put now. Under the Bill, the opportunity to apply to a hardship committee or to a tribunal for conscientious objection will be given when the youth registers under the age of 18. At present, that opportunity would come for him at a later period, that is to say, not earlier than his 18th birthday. I want to ask the Minister whether, either by administrative provisions or otherwise, the opportunity to make such application will continue at least up to the 18th year? In both cases there are very good reasons. In the case of the hardship committee, if the earlier date is the only date, the particular circumstance which would justify an application in the interim, such as the death of a father, for instance, might come after the boy had been medically examined and before he was 18. It is important that that right should be preserved. In the case of the application on the ground of conscientious objection, it is also desirable that the existing date should be maintained as far as possible along with the earlier dates.
  The second point is perhaps a matter for the military authorities rather than for the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) called attention to the fact that there is a great deal of unrest during the period immediately before a man actually joins the Forces. It is very desirable that that period should be shortened, in his own interest. As a prison visitor, I have repeatedly seen, during the past two years, young fellows in prison who have got there in the interval before they were called up. They were expecting to be called up and were waiting, but for some reason, a military reason, I suppose, the actual call-up was deferred. During the interval the young men got into that trouble which brought them into prison. If the period were to be shortened, the men, who, in many cases, are anxious to
  1488
  join up, would be saved from offences which bring them into prison, mar their lives and do injury to the whole community.
  The third question was raised in a very impressive sentence by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). It is as to the effect of this Measure on university life. Can we have an assurance that, where a university student is in the academic year in which he will become 18, if his work is satisfactory and has a certificate from the proper authority that his work is being done satisfactorily, he will be able to complete that academic year? During the last year or two there has been a tendency among universities to get back to the way of life of the Middle Ages in the lowering of the age of entry of students. If students have to leave the universities during their 18th year, it affects not only that year and the whole course of the student's life, but it means a serious interference with the continuance of the Universities as working institutions. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give an assurance of that kind.
  However much many of us dislike the principle of the Bill, we all have confidence in the determination of the Minister to work it justly. I think he has the trust of all sections of the House and of the country that he will fulfil his difficult and arduous duties fairly, even if sometimes it seems that he has to be hard in doing so. I regret that, even under the stress of war, we should now have to have before us a Bill which places upon many young shoulders a burden heavy to be borne and which, for some, may prove too heavy.
  Mr. Granville: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I think the Amendment, which was moved in an interesting speech by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), has given the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss the somewhat wider aspects of the problem as to whether we should call up those aged 18 or those aged 37. If I had to choose, I would leave the boys in industry, but I realise the force of the arguments that have been put up for the opposite point of view. But I do not think that that is the Minister of Labour's headache. His problem is to supply the Forces with men and with equipment and to keep the war machine going in this country and abroad.

  1489
  Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that, looking at it from the general point of view of the progress of the war and the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour, the real criterion is not whether we call up the ages of 17 and 18 or 37 but how we can maintain output in the factories to supply equipment to the large forces already called up. As most of this Debate has not taken in this side of the problem I would like to utter a warning to the right hon. Gentleman, who probably knows it quite well, that we have to-day reached a danger point in calling up so many of these skilled workers, whatever their ages might be. To my knowledge, in one factory 47 per cent. of the skilled workers will fall within the 18 to 30 group, and therefore now we have got down to the bone, as it were, in this man-power problem there are other considerations, perhaps more weighty than those put forward by my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment, which have to be considered by the manpower officials and the managements of works in agreeing on the list of those who have to be called up in their age group in the immediate future.
  Some of the problems which will have to be taken into consideration by these Manpower Board officers when calling up in this group are—whether substitutes can be found to do the job, whether women are really available as substitutes, how much upgrading can be done, whether substitutes can be found to do the job, in particular in these younger categories, if the group leaders and the instructors of trainees are to be called up. Of course, the Ministry of Labour has to consider whether the personnel in the factory concerned is engaged on high priority work. I would suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that it is not quite as simple as he suggested in his speech as to whether the younger men or the older men are to be called up. For instance, if the supply of equipment, if war production, is an important criterion in the solution of this problem which has to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour, one has to consider whether a boy of 18 who has had, say, two years' training in production planning, is more important in a vital war industry, which is perhaps producing aircraft or something on the high priority list, than a man of 37 who is, say, driving a Lister truck. One is 18, the other is
  1490
  37; which one are you going to take? One also has to consider, for instance, whether it is more important that the manager of a plant, aged 37, who has a complete and practical knowledge of the whole of that plant should be called up than a boy of 18 working an ordinary machine in a machine shop for which a girl or some other trainee could be trained in perhaps two or three months.
  Mr. Molson: There is nothing in the Amendment which will interfere with the ordinary procedure of the working of deferment.
  Mr. Granville: I understand that. I am suggesting that the time has come, now that the Minister has cut down to the bone and is beginning to look around the plants and factories, to see on what basis he can get more people for calling up to the Forces. He has a local officer representing the Man-power Board when he discusses the list with the works management as to who are to be called up from previous deferments. Which would you call up, the 18's or the 37's? Would you call them on the age qualification or how they fit in to minimum requirements of industry? Would you consider the importance of the product being produced? I think perhaps that is the criterion the Minister of Labour has to consider. There is another aspect of this. It is not often I can congratulate the Minister of Labour, but I would like to congratulate him on the selection of some of his local officers of the Manpower Board. I think they are doing their job in discussing these difficult technical problems with works staffs with a good deal of common sense and a good deal of knowledge, and I am glad they are not only not taking an arbitrary line between the 18's and the 37's, but—this is extremely important—that they are not taking an arbitrary line between what is called productive and non-productive labour. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has upon his area man-power board individuals who are using the same discretion about this, with the same knowledge, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, whether he can tell us whether, on some of these area man-power boards in which is invested a great deal of responsibility, he has any industrial psychologists or vocational allocation officers who under-

  1491
  stand this properly. I hope he will be able to give us a reply on that point.
  I am convinced that before this war has been won we shall have to comb out our man-power on a more scientific and efficient basis. I believe they are trying to do this with regard to calling up in the United States of America. I have heard a whisper that they are attempting to begin this type of efficient allocation in the War Department and the Navy. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour whether he has now, on his Central Man-power Board and in the Ministry of Labour, any of these industrial psychologists or trained men who understand vocational allocation. More and more this will play a part in the scientific and efficient allocation and disposition of man-power. The mobilisation and the demobilisation of such large forces in this country in modern conditions is not only difficult but requires planning, now, and planning when we come to the demobilisation period. The hon. Member who preceded me referred in passing to Sir William Beveridge's suggestion for an economic general staff. I think that this problem of demobilising the classes to be absorbed back into industry after the war will be so difficult under modern conditions that what we want is not only a Beveridge Report but a Bevin Report, as it were, to deal with this transfer and allocation to post-war employment.
  During the right hon. Gentleman's speech in introducing this Bill he made some reference to the part of this Bill which deals with the calling-up of Dominion citizens who are resident in this country, and he said that there will be discussions with the Dominions-before the drafting of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I noticed that his Parliamentary Secretary made some notes when he was dealing with this point. I would like to ask him one or two short points on that, and ask him whether he would give us some answer in his reply. Will Dominion citizens who are called up in this country be given an opportunity to join the Dominion troops in this country? I ask that in relation to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be consultation with the Dominions before the Defence of the Realm Regulations are made. Also, alternatively, I would ask whether, if those Dominion citizens are called up into the
  1492
  Fighting Forces in this country, they will be given an opportunity to transfer to Dominion Forces when they are sent abroad? Finally, when they are demobilised, will they have an opportunity of being demobilised at the nearest point for them to return to their own countries? In the last war, in my own case, it was the other way about: I had to go back to the Dominions to be demobilised, although, as a citizen of this country, I would have preferred to be demobilised here. What I want to know is whether these people will be given an opportunity of going back to their own Dominions to be demobilised, instead of coming here first to be demobilised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us that information, and to tell us whether the Dominions themselves are making use of similar Regulations in regard to their call-ups. I realise that this is not the occasion to discuss the wider issues of man-power, which we are all anxious to discuss, as the Minister has said that there will be a debate on some future occasion. I am sure the House is anxious to hear a report from the Minister of Production about his recent visit to America as affecting man-power.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): That does not arise on this Bill.
  Mr. Granville: I was only mentioning the matter in passing, and I will not pursue it further. I hope that in regard to this call-up the Minister will take into consideration the fact that it was equipment which enabled us to achieve our victory in Egypt. I hope that he will bear in mind, now that he is using the fine tooth comb in getting men from our war factories, the fact that those factories are getting near to the danger point in the reduction of man-power, and that it is their production which will enable us to achieve final victory.
  Mrs. Hardie: I want to say how much I regret that the Minister of Labour and National Service should have felt himself called upon to reduce yet further the age at which boys will be taken into the Army. Still more must I dissociate myself from the Amendment, which seeks to shelter men of 37 and over behind boys of 17. The Minister says that he merely wants to register them a few months earlier, but that means they are going into the Services at an earlier

  1493
  age. As soon as they reach the age of 18 they are to be pushed into the Services, into the camps, with all their temptations and lack of home influence. You may think that because I am a woman I am not qualified to talk on military affairs, and I quite agree; but I claim to know more than most men about the conditions of development for boys of 18. To classify them at that age as men for purposes of National Service, when it is claimed that up to the age of 21 they are not qualified to take charge of property and, in England, are not qualified to marry without their parents' consent, is a scandalous thing for men of mature age to do. The Minister—in all sincerity, I agree—guarantees that the age at which boys are sent abroad will not go below 19. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent boys being sent abroad earlier if the Cabinet desire to send them. In the first Act, the age was fixed at 20, but when it suited the Cabinet the age was lowered to 19. I am rather suspicious of the present War Cabinet, dominated as it is by the Prime Minister. I well remember how in the last war, when he was at the Admiralty, young lads were sent over to Antwerp, with hardly any training, not because they could do much, but just as a gesture. That is how people come to look upon life in war.
  I read a good deal—I have perhaps more time than most Members—and I have read a number of books by men who came through the last war. I have also been told by men who came through the last war that the thing which unnerved them most was the boys who were lying wounded, and who were crying for their mothers—a natural thing for a boy to do. We are told that the young people are more suited to war. The military people are anxious to get the boys because they can be disciplined and moulded much more easily than older men. But modern war is much more horrible than ever war was before, and it is a scandal that just when life is opening up, glowing and bright, before them, these lads should be asked to make the supreme sacrifice in this terrible war. One feels that these boys are called up because what is wanted is an Army on the cheap. If you call up older men you have to provide for their dependants. Boys of 17 have no responsibilities. Even if the mother is a widow she will not get any-
  1494
  thing, because she will be told that the boy was not able to maintain her, although perhaps she was looking forward to getting some help from him in future. So there is a, great attraction about putting those boys into the Army.
  There is not much else that one can say, but if the War Cabinet put as much thought into seeing whether the war could be shortened as they do into pushing younger and younger boys into the Army, it would do more good. I do not suggest that it would be a good thing if we were defeated, but I think if the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence when broadcasting put forward his aims for the world after the war it would be better than engaging in a slanging match with Hitler and Mussolini. I think that if I were a German I would be behind Hitler myself, because I would feel that there was nothing for me but to prevent Germany being defeated. I notice that one or two Members who have criticised the Bill have stressed the need for exempting university boys. I have no objection to anybody trying to protect any section of boys.
  It is not a class business with me on this occasion. Boys are boys to me, and I do not care from what kind of family they come. But what is the position? You are going to exempt the most physically fit and mentally equipped boys. It means that practically all the working-class boys are going to be swept in. My little Glasgow undersized, underfed boys are to be pushed into all these horrors. I have a case pending with the Secretary of State for War of a little chap who was conscripted and put into the Army. He is so bandy-legged that he is a figure of fun and is ashamed to go out, because people laugh at him in his uniform. He is medically unfit in many other respects. This, the wealthiest nation in the world, could not better conditions that left that lad living under such shocking conditions that he is deformed for life. Nothing now can ever improve him, and he is pushed into the Army willy-nilly to go and fight for a nation that treated him so badly. The people round about, instead of being sorry for him, think that it is funny to see him in uniform. I suggest that 18 years of age is too young. The age should be increased so that these boys could have a little chance of develop-

  1495
  ment and to be strengthened, either through age or experience, before they were pushed into the terrible horrors of war. I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of many mothers; many of them who perhaps though not willing have allowed the older boys to go without protest will feel very sore indeed if a younger age is to be applied and these lads—only children in their eyes—are to be pushed into the horrors of war.
  Mr. Reakes: My intervention in this Debate will be for a few minutes only, because I am anxious to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary respond to the numerous speeches, to all of which I have listened. I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn, because it is a most extraordinary thing for any Member of this House to suggest that in order to win the war we should call up boys of 17. I am fully aware of the difficulties confronting the Minister of Labour, and I enjoyed his refreshing and frank speech, but to suggest to me that it is necessary to drag boys into this accursed war is asking me to believe too much. If there is a Division, we shall only have to vote for the Bill, but in doing so I hope that we shall do it in sackcloth and ashes, because this is the second major war in a lifetime which has been brought about by the folly of the old men. It is about time that we faced up to our responsibilities as public men and as Members of this House and made it clear to youth that this is the last time we are going to call upon innocent youth to be dragged into this horrible business under the age of 20.
  I want the Minister who is to reply to assure us that full use is being made of the man-power already within the grasp of the various Ministries and to give an assurance that some practical steps will be taken to bring back to this country those people who fled at the outbreak of the war. There are thousands of them, to my knowledge. They ran away and are escaping their responsibilities at a time when it is thought necessary to bring in a Bill to authorise the recruitment of boys of 18, with a possibility of still younger boys being called to the colours before this war is won. I lay special stress on these two points, that, before these boys are asked to bear the sacrifices of the war the causes of which they are innocent, we should make sure there are no shirkers abroad at this particular time who are
  1496
  escaping from their responsibilities. I put that point by way of a question, and it was answered up to a point. To-day we have reached the limit when it is necessary for us to give authority for the recruitment of boys in order to win this war.
  I have every sympathy with the Minister of Labour. He has a very difficult task, and the object of his speech to-day, I am sure, was to inspire an all-embracing effort to win this war in the shortest possible time. With those words I sincerely hope that, when once we have passed this Bill, the pledges given that no boy should be sent overseas before the age of 19 will be honoured. If it is necessary in the face of a national or an international crisis to send these boys overseas, from their native heath, I sincerely hope that the Minister will come to the House and get authority from the House instead of getting it from the War Cabinet.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): My right hon. Friend has no reason at all to complain of the reception of this Bill. Indeed, I think it has been rather a remarkable fact that, apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), the Bill has hardly been referred to by any speaker. We have had a most interesting discussion, ranging over many topics. Hon. Members have mentioned education in all its aspects and many other problems, but these topics refer to Ministries other than that presided over by my right hon. Friend, and therefore my reply, I am afraid, will be rather short and scrappy, because I have no first-hand knowledge of many of the problems that have been put up. I would assure hon. Members that their speeches will be studied with close interest in the Departments concerned. Moreover, my right hon. Friend announced that we propose to have a full man-power Debate shortly in Secret Session. I think, personally, it is quite time we had one. I have been at the Ministry of Labour for nearly a year now, and we have not had a man-power Debate since I have been there. I am very pleased that it is going to be arranged and that all the major manpower topics which have been mentioned by some speakers to-day will receive more adequate treatment then.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, who followed my right hon. Friend, welcomed the Bill, and we were very

  1497
  grateful for the remarks he made about it. He mentioned the Herculean task of my right hon. Friend and ventured to suggest that the calling-up and mobilisation of man- and woman-power had been efficiently done. I am grateful for those words, because the thousands of hard-working officials of the Ministry of Labour up and down the country who actually do the day-to-day work of call-up will appreciate that measure of praise and commendation from the spokesman of the Labour party. I also appreciated very much the remarks on the same subject of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), but I am afraid that I cannot agree with him that we should employ psychologists on our man-power boards. We have no psychologists on our man-power boards, but, in spite of that, I hope we have the maximum of common sense applied to what are largely common-sense problems. To go back for a moment to the speech of my hon. Friend, I would, as he asked me, emphasise that no man, under these proposals, can be called up for the Forces before the age of 18. Under the pledge of the Government no soldier will be sent abroad under the age of 19. Of course, the Army do take in volunteers of 17½, but no boy below 18 will be conscripted.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Volunteers are not sent abroad?
  Mr. McCorquodale: Volunteers to the Army are not sent abroad, either, under 19. I was asked a question about men returning to work for a long time after their registration and medical examination. If a man is reserved or deferred, he is not at present called for medical examination while so deferred or reserved. But sometimes a man is medically examined for a specially skilled vacancy in the Forces, which does not at once materialise. Efforts will be made in the Department to reduce such cases to an absolute minimum, because we appreciate the force of what has been said. A man must, of course, register before it can be settled whether he is reserved or deferred, because registration is the means of getting the necessary information about people. We will, however, endeavour as far as we possibly can to arrange that medical examination is delayed until it is almost time for the man to join the Forces.
  1498
  A point was raised about the admirable publication, "Front Line," by the Ministry of Home Security and it was asked whether my right hon. Friend had any similar proposals in mind with regard to the Ministry of Labour. The answer is that he has. The story of the mobilisation of Britain for war is being prepared by the Department at this moment, and its publication will be considered urgently as soon as it is ready.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Are the Department also considering producing the publication pictorially, so as to make it as inteersting as possible?
  Mr. McCorquodale: Yes, Sir. We shall endeavour to fall in with any suggestions that hon. Members make. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. John Dugdale) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) asked about students under the new 18-years-old call-up going to universities. I am afraid that it will not be possible to defer calling up beyond June, 1943, to enable boys to take a course of study in arts at the universities. In the present strenuous and serious position of the war I am afraid we cannot continue these courses. We are continuing to make arrangements for the reservation of boys accepted as medical and dental students. Boys born in 1925, who are still at school, and who are candidates for the higher school certificate or for a comparable examination will have their call-up deferred until July, 1943, to enable them to take such an examination. Boys born in 1925, taking certain technical subjects at a university or technical college, or beginning such a course not later than October, 1943, will have an opportunity of applying to the University Joint Recruitment Board for the deferment of call-up.
  Sir Percy Harris: Does that mean that apart from dental and medical students, universities will be closed?
  Mr. McCorquodale: They will be open for all technical and scientific students and various short courses which are being arranged by the different Services at the present time. What we shall have to close are the arts courses. We are at the moment sending full information on these subjects to the schools and universities.

  1499
  The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities also asked whether the rights of young men in regard to conscientious objection and postponement on hardship grounds will be maintained up to their 18th birthday. The answer is, "Yes, and beyond that, if necessary, right up to the time of the student's enlistment notice if the circumstances demand it." My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who moved the Amendment, spoke of the necessity for maintaining efficiency in man-power in the Forces. My hon. Friend of course agrees with the necessity of efficiency in every walk of life in this country. We cannot afford at the present time to waste one man or woman who can be used for the war effort. I am satisfied that it is well realised in all the Services that the best use of their manpower is at the core of their plans and their policies, and that all their energies are being applied to this fundamental problem.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) called attention to the same point and mentioned some cases of wastage in one of the Civil Defence services. I would be very much obliged if he would send details of these cases to us, so that we can take them up, because my right hon. Friend is keen on looking into all these cases of alleged wastage and rectifying them if they are proved.
  With regard to the part of the Amendment dealing with the reduction of the age to 17 instead of 18, I would consider, in view of the Government's pledge not to send boys in the Army abroad before the age of 19, calling them up at 17 and keeping them here for two years both wasteful and unnecessary. They would be much better employed in industry and in their pre-entry training. I am not persuaded that calling them up at the age of 17 would help; it would, I think, rather hinder the war effort. I am sure it would not be approved in the country, and I am also sure that it would not benefit the young men. Therefore, the Government cannot at this stage contemplate such a step.
  With regard to the portion of the Amendment asking that men of 37 and upwards should not be called up, I would like the House to look at the present position a little further. It is this: The requirements of the Forces and essential industry are so great that it has been necessary
  1500
  for us to register men up to the age of 50.
  Those born since July, 1900, are held available for the Forces, and those born before that date are held in general for essential industry. As the House knows, most elaborate machinery for the reservation and deferment has been set up to keep in civilian work those who must be retained in the national interest; but if a man is neither reserved nor granted deferment, then he is available for transfer. For the time being, a large number of those who had reached the age of 35 when they registered are being transferred into industrial vacancies instead of being called up to the Forces. They take jobs which at present are held by younger men so that the younger men can be released for the Forces. Quite apart from reservation and deferment, men liable for call-up have the opportunity of applying for postponement of their call-up for exceptional hardship, such as in the case of a one-man business.
  Mr. Maxton: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some figures?
  Mr. McCorquodale: I am sorry I have not them here now. The House will, therefore, see that my right hon. Friend has taken great care with older people in the call-up by using them for industry if it is in the national interest, but he could not possibly make a clean sweep and say that nobody over 37 should be available for the Forces. Indeed, we require great numbers of them. If I may give an instance, the Air Force is asking for volunteers up to the age of 50 to perform certain sedentary duties which will release younger men for active service. It would be folly at this stage of the war not to take advantage of these older men and fit them into positions where they can be of use in the Fighting Services if they are not definitely required in industry.
  The last part of the Amendment was dealt with in a most interesting speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group-Captain Wright), and by many other Members, and at one time the Debate developed into one on education and youth. There were very powerful speeches from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), and others. It is, of course, a

  1501
  fascinating subject and one which we would all like to discuss in a full day's Debate, but I am afraid I cannot be drawn into an argument about youth and pre-entry training, as such, now. I rather regretted the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend made some derogatory, and I thought quite untrue, remarks about the Army. He said that the Army had tried to pull a fast one over the A.T.C. I do not think that is at all true. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about what he called the lamentable position. I do not think there is anything lamentable about it. I regret that a distinguished member of one Service should have made this attack on another Service. I am in rather a difficulty about the whole matter because, although I understand my hon. and gallant Friend is one of the leaders in the Air Ministry hierarchy who look after the A.T.C. training, he does not seem to have been able to persuade his own Service. I think that before he comes to the House and propounds his theory to us, he should be able to persuade his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and others at the Air Ministry about his proposals.
  I do not propose to pursue that matter further at the moment than to say that the Services quite obviously do realise from the notes they send to me, that as far as possible it is desirable to standardise the training, especially of the younger boys coming into the Services; and they are taking active steps, in full consultation and collaboration—which might not have been inferred from my hon. and gallant Friend's speech—to that end. But it is important to remember that the cadet is proud of his uniform, proud of his association with the Service of his choice, proud of the fact that he is inspected by officers of that Service, proud of going to camp or to a naval base or an aerodrome. I know that in outlying districts of my own constituency, where possibly a cadet is the one member of a particular Service in the district, he is proud to be seen walking about the streets in khaki or Air Force blue, or whatever it may be. I think it would be a great pity to lose that esprit de corps.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eye asked some questions about Dominion citizens. He asked whether they would
  1502
  be given the chance to joint the Dominion Forces in this country. The answer, I think, would be, yes, certainly, if the Dominion Forces agreed; and if a man joins the Dominion troops he would not, of course, be called up by us. With regard to the hon. Member's question about demobilisation plans after the war, I cannot discuss them at the present time, but I assure him that the point he has made will be borne in mind when these questions are considered.
  I have endeavoured to deal with most of the major points that have been brought up in this Debate, and the speeches that have been made will be read with interest. In conclusion, may I say that the Bill is designed to enable us to get all the available boys at 18 years of age for the Forces. We shall be faced in 1943 with the maximum demand for man- and women-power both for service overseas, and service at home in the Forces and in industry and munitions. It is not for me in my position to discuss the higher strategy of the war, but I think it is apparent to everybody that the very successes we have lately had will necessarily make increased demands on our man-power. We have opened up new opportunities which we must grasp, and nothing must stand in the way of our being able to exploit those opportunities to the full. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will be bound to make severe and drastic demands on the man- and woman-power of this country in the coming year. I am sure the House and the country generally will continue to respond to the full, as they have done in the past, to his requests, and thus alone we will be able to make an absolutely all-out effort towards victory in the year that is coming. I ask the House to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: The boys will not be available next year.
  Mr. Molson: Although my hon. Friends and I cannot regard the reply of the Minister as entirely satisfactory, in view of the fact that there is shortly to be a Secret Debate upon the whole man-power problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 5.

  Division No. 3.

  AYES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Murray, J. D.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

  Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)

  Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Grimston, R. V.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Assheton, R.

  Groves, T. E.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Guy, W. H.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Barstow, P. C.

  Hambro, Capt. A. V.

  Peake, O.

  Bartlett. C. V. O.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Pearson, A.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.

  Petherick, Major M.

  Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Benson, G.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Peto, Major B. A. J.

  Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hewlett, T. H.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Hollins, A. (Hanley)

  Purbrick, R.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)

  Holmes, J. S.

  Pym, L. R.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Brabner, Lt.-Comdr. R. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

  Broad, F. A.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Brooklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hughes, R. M.

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hunter, T.

  Richards, R.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Rickards, G. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

  Ritson, J.

  Butcher, Lieut. H. W.

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Roberts, W.

  Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Robertson, D. (Streatham)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)

  Cary, R. A.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

  Ross Taylor, W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Rowlands, G.

  Channon, H.

  Jewson, P. W.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  John W.

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (St'l'g & C'km'n)

  Salt, E. W.

  Christie, J. A.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Savory, Professor D. L.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.

  Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

  Cobb, Captain E. C.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Collindridge, F.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)

  Shapperson, Sir E. W.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Shute, Col. Sir J. J.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Kimball, Major L.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Lakin, C. H. A.

  Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

  De Chair, Capt. S. S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Debbie, w.

  Law, R. K.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver

  Drewe, C.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Storey, S.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (Northwich)

  Dunn, E.

  Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)

  Ede, J. C.

  Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.

  Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.

  McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Elliston, Captain G. S.

  Macdonald, Sqdn.-Ldr. P. (I. of W.)

  Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Mack, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Etherton, Ralph

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Stockton)

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Maitland, Sir A.

  Thorne, W.

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Foster, W.

  Marshall, F.

  Touche, G. C.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Martin, J. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

  Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

  Mathers, G.

  Viant, S. P.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Walker, J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mitchell, Colonel H. P.

  Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Glyn, Sir R. G. C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Montague, F.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Granville, E. L.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt. C.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, Sir S. Richard

  1504

  1505

  Westwood, J.

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)

  White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  York, Capt. C.

  White, H. (Derby, N.E.)

  Wilmot, John

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Windsor, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Mr. A. Young.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Woodburn, A.

  NOES.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hardie, Agnes

  Wilson, C. H.

  Mr. Maxton and Mr. Stephen.

  Harvey, T. E.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—(Major Sir James Edmondson.)

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is less ambitious in its scope than its volume would lead one to believe. It is in no sense a far-reaching measure of social reform, but it deals with a number of practical matters affecting workmen's compensation which have become urgent as a result of war conditions. While it is a matter for regret that it is not a more far-reaching Measure, it is not, I think, an occasion for apology on behalf of the Government. When I went to the Home Office in 1939 the Royal Commission was sitting, and there appeared a reasonable prospect of my having the pleasure of being associated with a Measure completely overhauling our workmen's compensation system, which is in many respects an obsolete model of what a social service should be. Then came the war. The Royal Commission was unable to proceed with its task, and the immediate financial problem was dealt with by an agreed Measure, the Supplementary Allowances Act, 1940.
  It is disappointing to me that we have not been able to bring forward more far-reaching proposals. It is equally if not more disappointing to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because I know that nothing would give him greater satisfaction during his tenure of office than to be responsible for a large Measure of reform of workmen's compensation. Our present Act is still modelled on the Measure introduced by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1897. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken an active
  1506
  part in the negotiations which have led to this Bill, and it is only his arduous labours as a member of the War Cabinet which prevent him introducing it to-day. The work begun, so far as workmen's compensation is concerned, by the Royal Commission was continued, and has just been brilliantly concluded, by Sir William Beveridge. In these circumstances it is no matter for apology that this is only a limited Measure. Explanation and apology would indeed be required if directly after the publication of that epoch-making document the Government had taken any steps in regard to workmen's compensation which might prejudice consideration of, or might prejudge the issues raised in, the Beveridge proposals.
  This Bill is, therefore, limited in the first two Clauses to a matter on which the Government have been pledged to legislate for a long time past, and, so far as the remainder of the Bill is concerned, to difficulties which have arisen out of war conditions. The first two Clauses make provision for an industrial disease which has been the subject of an inquiry by a committee of the Medical Research Council which was begun in 1936. Since the Silicosis Scheme of 1929 was extended to apply to all underground workers in coal mines in 1934 the number of claims for compensation has steadily increased, and it was noticed as long ago as 1936 that the proportion of applications in which certificates were refused by the Medical Board was increasing also. This fact among others led to a suspicion that some other pulmonary disease existed among underground workers in coalmines which could not be said to be caused by silica dust but which, nevertheless, was due to the employment.
  The result of the medical inquiry was published early this year. It is exhaustive and, to the lay mind at any rate, conclusive. The investigations of the committee have established the existence of a form of pneumoconiosis, which differs from silicosis and cannot be said on

  1507
  present information to be due to silica dust. It can be distinguished by both radiological and pathological methods, and it is due to inhalation of airborne dust in the course of employment. It was found to exist not only in the anthracite area but throughout the South Wales coalfield, though its incidence and severity varied greatly in different regions. It was also found in surface workers employed on the screens and in coal-trimmers employed in the dockyards of South Wales. Although the inquiry was confined to South Wales, the disease was found under conditions which point to its occurrence in other coalfields. There is confirmation of this from the Silicosis Medical Board, who have examined cases from other coalfields similar to those found in South Wales.
  In the mines the root cause of the trouble is the dust which is inevitably produced in the normal process of coal getting and is accentuated by shot-firing. The reduction of the concentration of dust within limits which can be considered safe must be the main objective of everyone concerned.
  The purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill is to extend Section 47 of the Act of 1925, which enables compensation schemes to be made for fibrosis of the lungs due to silica dust or asbestos dust, so as to enable schemes to be made for any form of pneumoconiosis. It will enable a unified compensation scheme to be made for silicosis and the new form of pneumoconiosis found in coal workers. The liability for compensation in respect of future cases will fall, in accordance with the established principles of the present law, upon the individual employer, and it cannot be doubted that the cost of this new disease will fall most heavily on those employers already bearing a heavy burden in respect of silicosis, that is to say, the anthracite areas of South Wales. While this burden can so long as the present control of the industry continues be relieved by arrangements made under the Coal Charges Order, a serious difficulty will arise if and when the anthracite industry has once more to endeavour to maintain itself in open competition with other forms of fuel.
  When the silicosis schemes were introduced they applied only to persons engaged in the processes or industries at
  1508
  the time of, or after the passing of, the enabling legislation. These diseases, however, develop gradually over a period of years and it was thought most desirable in the present case to provide in some way for those who had already left the industry, as we recently did in the benefit scheme for workers in the card-rooms of the Lancashire cotton industry. Clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, enables a benefit scheme to be made for dealing with old cases, that is to say, the cases of men who have already left the industry since the comprehensive scheme for silicosis in coalmines was introduced in 1934, but who have no right under any scheme to compensation. It will be appreciated that employers have had no opportunity of insuring their liability in respect of such cases and there is no fund out of which provision for them can be made. It is proposed to provide a fund for them by means of a levy, spread over the whole of the coal raised in Great Britain, which it is calculated will probably not exceed one penny per ton, and that for a single year only.
  Since the industry is now subject to Government control and the profit margin is, in fact, fixed by the Government, the cost of this levy will be taken into account in fixing the industry's margin, that is to say it will, in effect, be passed on to the consumer, and the capital sum thus raised will be at the disposal of the administrative board charged with responsibility for operating the scheme. The scheme will continue as long as any old cases exist. It would, I think, have been unreasonable and unfair to have imposed this liability retrospectively upon the particular employers in whose employment the disease had been contracted. Under the scheme it is proposed to pay 15s. a week in addition to National Health Insurance benefits in cases of total incapacity, and a death benefit to a widow at a flat rate of £250. I think, therefore, there will be no dispute as to the merits of the first two Clauses of the Bill.
  Clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with difficulties arising out of war conditions which we are satisfied should be dealt with if a just sense of grievance is to be avoided. Clause 5 deals with the compensation of the widow who has taken up war work and whose compensation may, in consequence of her earnings in that work, be reduced or wiped out if her husband's death subsequently occurs in an industrial acci-

  1509
  dent. Under the existing law compensation in fatal cases is payable only to members of the workman's family who were dependent on his earnings at the date of his death. The sum payable may be reduced by virtue of their own earnings. Cases have occurred where women have undertaken, or been directed into, work in connection with the war which they would not normally have undertaken, their husbands have been subsequently killed in industry, and in some cases the amount of compensation received has been less than it would have been had such work not been undertaken. It is, I am sure, just and equitable, especially in view of the compulsory powers now possessed by the Minister of Labour, that this matter should be remedied. Clause 5 therefore empowers the court in determining dependency and assessing its degree to disregard either wholly or partly the earnings resulting from such employment. It also covers the case of a female member of the workman's family acting in the capacity of his housekeeper, and the word "housekeeper" here, perhaps I may observe, is to be used—
  Mr. George Griffiths: Let us have a definition of that.
  Mr. Peake: —in its natural and ordinary meaning and has no technical significance.
  Clause 6 deals with a matter which has caused a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. Now that everyone, or practically everyone, who is capable of work is able to secure employment there are many injured persons engaged in industry. The amount of compensation payable to such persons is half the difference between their average weekly earnings before the accident and the amount which they are earning or, if unemployed, are capable of earning in some suitable employment after the accident. The object of this provision was, of course, to secure a gradual reduction in the workman's compensation as his earning capacity increases through improvement in his physical condition. The result has, however, been that where general all-round increases in wage rates have occurred, partially disabled men to whom wage increases have been granted have lost half of the advance through a consequent diminution of their weekly payment of compensation.
  1510
  The Act of 1925 assumed a fairly steady level both of wages and of cost of living. It did, however, provide by Section 11 Sub-section (3) for a review of compensation following on variations in wage rates of a general character in the case of long-term cases. This Section provided in certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations that the compensation figure might be the subject of review. Under that Section, if a workman could show, that, for a period of 12 months preceding the review, he would have earned, owing to higher wage rates, 20 per cent. more than he did in the corresponding period before the accident, his compensation could be recalculated upon the basis of what his pre-accident earnings would have been, if he had remained uninjured and continued in the same class of employment. The limiting factors in this Section of the Act of 1925 both as to time and as to percentage increase, are very severe. No doubt they were intended to avoid frequent reviews.
  Since the war, increases in wage rates have taken place over a wide field of industry. They benefit men on light work as well as the wholly able-bodied. The result has been that in thousands of cases of partial incapacity, compensation has been reduced under the rules laid down in Section 9 of the Act of 1925, although there has been no improvement in the workman's physical condition. It is, obviously, a source of grievance when a general increase, applicable to all workers of, say, 10s. a week, takes place, that disabled men, and only disabled men, should obtain half of the wage increment only, by virtue of forfeiting part or all of their compensation. It is true that, after 12 months or more, review under Section 11 (3) may be open to them, but, generally, disability does not last so long, and reduction of compensation operates immediately. Clause 6 is therefore designed so as to make a review of pre-accident earnings both immediate and automatic on changes occurring in rates of remuneration. It will operate both when wages rise and when wages fall, and the general effect will be, in cases of partial disability, to tend to stabilise the amount of the compensation payment. It is obvious that if 10s. a week, for example, is added to a disabled man's actual earnings and a similar sum is automatically added to the figure of his pre-accident earnings, the difference

  1511
  between the two figures will remain the same as it was before.
  When we first considered this matter our intention was to deal only with changes in the rate of remuneration which took place since the outbreak of war and only with cases of partial disability. If we had, however, limited it to post-war changes, it would have led to difficult and involved calculations in the case of a man who had been disabled before the war and in whose trade there had been some increase of wages before the outbreak of war. Moreover, since we propose, by Clause 6 (4) to repeal Section 11 (3) of the Act of 1925, some injustice might have occurred had the new provision applied only to wage increases which have occurred since 3rd September, 1939. It is logical and consistent to apply similar methods of automatic and immediate review in cases of total incapacity and, indeed, as Section 11 (3) is to be repealed, it is necessary to do so.
  Clause 7 deals with a minor point which has been urged upon us by the Trade Union Congress, in regard to the duties of the examining surgeon. Under Part II of the Act of 1925, in the case of industrial disease, a certificate of disability can be granted only by the examining surgeon for the district in which the disease was contracted and in which the workman was employed. Many workpeople have during the war been directed to work at some distance from their homes. Cases have arisen where, after returning home, disease has become apparent. We therefore take power to give directions which will empower an examining surgeon in the district in which a workman resides to give the necessary certificate.
  I need not say very much about the remaining Clauses of the Bill. Clause 3 gives statutory authority, as explained in the Financial Memorandum, for the Exchequer contribution towards the cost of the medical board for silicosis cases established under the Act of 1930. Clause 4 gives additional powers to the Ministry of Fuel and Power to deal with the suppression of siliceous dust produced by drilling. Clause 8 deals with the machinery established for the making of County Court rules governing the procedure in workmen's compensation cases. This Clause can be explained, if necessary, in greater detail during the Committee stage. Clause 9 has been included at the request of the
  1512
  Minister of Pensions. Hon. Members are aware of the terrible frequency with which deaths occur in the ranks of the Mercantile Marine owing to enemy action. The Ministry of Pensions in all cases desire, quite rightly, that there shall be no delay in granting a weekly payment to the dependants. In some cases subsequent inquiry shows that the claim is for workmen's compensation and not for pension. In such cases it is right and proper that the advances made by the Ministry should be recovered either from the employer liable to pay compensation or, where the employer has paid the money into the County Court, out of the money so paid. Clause 9 will enable this to be done and thereby assist the Ministry in its work.
  I should like to tell the House to what extent the proposals in the Bill have been accepted by the parties concerned. I have had many useful discussions with various representative bodies, which have brought out and clarified points of substantial importance. As regards pneumoconiosis the Mining Association have expressed fears as to the effect of the proposals on the production of fuel at the present time, and they suggested that consideration of the question of legislation should be deferred until after the war. They further took the point that the medical inquiry was confined to South Wales, and that the case for a scheme of general application to the whole of the mining industry had not been made out. I have dealt with the latter point earlier in my speech. As regards the former, I have made it clear that the Government is pledged to introduce this legislation at the earliest possible moment and I have informed them that it cannot be postponed. On all aspects of our proposals we have consulted the Compensation Committee of the Trades Union Congress. Their representatives, and particularly their Chairman my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), have been most helpful in their suggestions. They have informed us that they accept all the main proposals in the Bill without prejudice to their right to raise the whole question of workmen's compensation or any aspect of it at a later date.
  The British Employers' Confederation have also given us much assistance in the preparation of the Bill. They accept the proposals set out in Clauses 5, 6 and 7, although a heavy administrative burden

  1513
  will be placed upon them, and on the mutual and other insurance companies in the operation of Clause 6. This Clause will come into operation immediately and many thousands of cases will become the subject of immediate adjustment and review. It will clearly take some little time to make the necessary adjustments. I am sure every effort will be made to overcome the difficulties which will be involved.
  In conclusion I should like to pay a tribute to the valuable assistance rendered to the Home Office in the preparation of this measure by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. He and I have had long association with the coal industry in days gone by. We have often crossed swords on the Floor of this House, and we did so as recently as the passing of the Supplementary Allowances Act in 1940. We are both, however, by our past experience and by our present environment deeply interested in the human problem which lies behind the dry bones of this Workmen's Compensation legislation. Nothing could have exceeded the good will which has existed between my hon. Friend and myself, and it has been a great pleasure to me to be associated with him in the preparation of this Measure, which I hope will have a speedy passage through this House.
  Mr. Windsor: In his remarks on Clause I, the hon. Gentleman gave the impression that this disease applied only to the mining industry. Does not this disease occur equally in the pottery and other industries? Many of us are deeply interested in the subject.
  Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will observe that Clause I extends Section 47 of the 1925 Act, to enable schemes to be made applying to workmen suffering from any form of pneumoconiosis—that is to say, that in future, where a form of pneumoconiosis is established by medical inquiry and is proved to be specifically due to the employment, we shall be able to make schemes without coming back to this House.
  Mr. Windsor: My only point was that the hon. Gentleman never mentioned it, although I read it in the Bill.
  Mr. David Grenfell: The hon. Gentleman said that this was not a very far-reaching, but a very useful and ser-
  1514
  viceable, piece of legislation. I do not think he put his claim too high. Everybody on this side is agreed that this is an admirable amendment of a law which is unscientific and I think the hon. Gentleman said obsolete. No workmen's compensation is payable, under the law as it stands, unless it can be shown that the workman has suffered pecuniary loss in consequence of disablement through an accident in the course of his employment. This legislation deals with the position in regard to pecuniary loss. The first Clauses deal with silicosis, or pneumoconiosis—whatever term we give to this serious complaint—which is one of the deadliest enemies of men working underground in certain conditions. It is true that the incidence of silicosis is worse in some areas, and is only slight in certain coalfields, but it causes very serious loss indeed of man-power and of health. It is a very expensive evil, which has been manifest now for well over 20 years. In the area where it has become most prominent, the South Wales coalfield, I have observed in the last 30 years the effect on friends and workmates of my own who were strong workmen. Generally the best type of workmen were chosen particularly for the most hazardous places in the pit, and they became subject to strong concentrations of dust, which caused their death.
  I want to emphasise once again, as I have done for nearly 20 years, the point that, if the concentration of dust is heavy enough, there is no escape. In the South Wales coalfield, silica and possibly other mineral elements are in the rock more than is the case in any other coalfield, and wherever men work drilling stone in confined spaces without sufficient ventilation—and they breathe almost as much stone as air in some of these places—these men break down. You can measure their life almost with a sort of annual tape measure. I have seen these men dying. I am very glad that we have gone one stage further—not to the end I am sure—to establish a kind of diagnosis or test of these men to ascertain at what point they become entitled to attention and compensation.
  I hope that out of the scheme provided for in Clauses 1 and 2 and the further provisions of Clauses 3 and 4, there will come a regularly constituted board with a fund, financial resources, medical advice and a clinical organisation. I hope that

  1515
  the first and lasting result of the work we are trying to do will be to save lives and reduce the incidence of these terrible complaints and enable men to retain their places in an industry where men, normally, have a fairly long working life. We know that that life is very much shortened and there is much suffering and loss in consequence of this disease. I remember that when I was on the Royal Commission for Safety in Mines, I was very much touched by a letter I received from a woman in West Wales in the anthracite area. She wrote to me because she knew my name and the fact that I was on the Royal Commission. She told me, in simple and eloquent terms, of six deacons who had gone—elders of the Church, respectable, good men who played their part in the church life of the neighbourhood. Six of them no longer attended the services; they were to be found not on the elders' seats inside but in the churchyard outside. I could name more than 50 men that I have known very well, the very best of men, good and strong men, who have gone. The difficulty in getting anything done has been the difficulty of establishing the causation of disease and establishing a means by which something could be done to remedy and reduce the concentration of dust—dust is the enemy—to improve ventilation and give better health standards to men working under these conditions. I believe that this will be done by the Measure that the hon. Gentleman has rightly introduced.
  I take credit too, because I really did pioneer this proposal. I have for years and years worked in this House, and my name has been known to the Mines and Home Departments for nearly 20 years in connection with this subject. I have raised my voice in this House and I have been to the Home Office, and I am very glad to say that I believe they are coming nearer to the stage which leads to development of prevention. After much trial, X-ray photographs and post-mortems—horrible things but quite necessary in the effort to trace the disease—there has been discovered what is called dust reticulation, which is mentioned in this Bill. In my opinion it is not a disease but a skiagrammatic symptom which can be seen only in X-ray photographs. It is a symptom of the disease which previously eluded detection. We had not noticed it in the earlier stages. X-rays photography
  1516
  has also developed. We want to catch these cases as soon as we possibly can and take them out of the industry. The first and urgent need is prevention, and the second is clinical treatment. I have not given up hope of pharmacopeial or some kind of treatment which will arrest fibrosis and reinforce and strengthen the undamaged tissues. We welcome all these provisions and I am glad that the employers have consented to a levy. It is a joint responsibility; it is not the responsibility alone of an employer who happens to have a heavy disablement rate in his pit. This is the cost of coal and the price of coal must be adjusted to meet this liability. I do not think there are many Amendments which could be suggested at this stage but there is much work to be done yet. Years and years of hard work are ahead of us and if this is a beginning by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Home Office and this House, with the task of removing this evil from our mines, then it will be a good job of work.
  I want to say a few words about Clause 5, which deals with compensation to be paid to a widow who would qualify under the very difficult and complicated series of Acts passed since 1898. I have watched the working of them all. I was working in a pit before any one of those Acts had been passed and I remember as a boy helping to carry home on stretchers men who had had their spines broken. They were taken upstairs to bedrooms from which they never emerged alive. Every meal was carried up to them by their wives or children; they were faithfully attended sometimes for as long as 12 or 14 years before they died. They did not receive a penny piece in compensation. I played some part in the agitation which was necessary to move this House to deal with that matter. There has been much improvement since those days. When compensation was introduced a person had to be proved to be within a certain category of relationship before compensation was paid. The person had to be a father, mother, sister, brother or wife to receive compensation on the death of the breadwinner and not only had it to be proved that the beneficiary had a certain standard of relationship but the person had to prove actual dependency at the time of the death of the breadwinner.
  In these very difficult times women who were formerly engaged in minding

  1517
  the homes of the country have gone out to work, and there are cases in which women who formerly were fully dependent on their husbands are now earning more than the husbands who formerly maintained them. Under the law as it was, there is no possibility of establishing a claim for compensation unless they can prove actual dependency at the time of the man's death. This Bill puts that right. There is one small point to which I would like to refer, because it may be raised in Amendments on the Committee stage. In Clause 5, lines 34 and 35, it is provided that:
  "The tribunal may disregard those earnings…and accordingly may treat the widow as wholly or partly dependent upon the earnings of the workman at the time of his death."
  We shall propose that the word "may" be deleted and the word "shall" inserted. We feel that if this is not done, it may lead to a terrible amount of unnecessary litigation and controversy when the war has finished and the time comes, which we hope may not be long, when the wife becomes dependent on the husband, as she normally would be, and should be, in my opinion. Clause 6 contains a very well deserved provision. I have been associated with other hon. Members on this side in the past in making constant appeals in regard to this matter. I have known some very hard cases. This provision attempts to put right something which has been wrong for a long time.
  The basis upon which compensation is paid to a man, whether he is totally or partially incapacitated, is that if he was earning £3 a week before being injured, the compensation would be 30s. a week. In 1940, some addition was made to that, but the basic idea is that he should get one-half of his wages up to a maximum of 30s. If the person then recovers sufficiently to do light work, although he still suffers from partial incapacity, and goes back to work, he may get £2 a week, for instance, instead of the £3 a week he got formerly. He then gets half the difference by way of compensation, making a total of £2 10s. a week. He is, therefore, 10s. a week worse off because he was injured, although he works all that he can and does the job given to him and the one he can perform having regard to his disabled condition.
  1518
  During the war wages have gone up, and a man who earned £3 a week before the war may earn £4 10s. a week now because of war advances. Under the law as it is at present—this Bill will change it—such an injured man, getting £2 a week on light work and receiving half the difference, that is to say 10s., would, by reference to the wages now paid in the industry, suffer a loss of 30s. a week. This Bill, instead of putting such a man's pre-accident wage at £3, would put it at £3 plus the 30s. a week by which wages in the industry have been advanced since his accident. He can now come again to within 10s. of his neighbour's earnings, because he gets the full wage advance without sacrificing the 10s. a week partial compensation which had been based upon 50 per cent. of the difference between £2 and his actual pre-accident earnings of £3 per week.
  There is something else to be done in this case, but that is not before the House to-day. This is putting the thing very much more right than it was before, and every workman will welcome it very much. Those whom I know so well who were injured in 1927 and 1928, when wages were not more than £2 5s. a week, and who have mow gone back on light employment will be very grateful to those who have brought this concession about. There are one or two other little Amendments in this paragraph which will be dealt with by other speakers. I am sure we are doing a good job of work to-day. I hope the Government will not resist these suggested changes but will give way and join with us to make as good a job of this as we can until an opportunity comes for a larger review of the whole thing.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I, too, welcome the Bill as an instalment long overdue which ought to have been passed years ago. I was very glad to hear the Under-Secretary say it is now recognised that our Workmen's Compensation Acts are obsolete. Whereas we were the pioneers in this matter in 1897, I believe that to-day our system of dealing with workmen's compensation is almost the worst of any country in the world, for this reason, that all We have contented ourselves with doing is to pay half wages at a time when a man requires much more, and no steps have been taken to rehabilitate him and put him

  1519
  back into industry. Surely we, who have been pioneers, should have attended to that long ago. Injury has been caused to men arising out of their work and during their work, and the only reason why compensation was not being paid was that it was not regarded as an accident.
  I should like to draw attention to the position of quarrymen, especially slate quarrymen. I was glad to hear the question put to the Under-Secretary, and his reply that this is to be extended to other matters than coal. The only two speeches that have been made so far have dealt purely with the position of coalminers, but the position of some of those working in the slate quarries of North Wales is even more serious. I shall never forget hearing the evidence of doctors attending to quarrymen at Festiniog. They go down to the bowels of the earth in the same way as the coalminers, and they have now reached a gallery which is about the 17th down. The evidence was that the amount of air was so small and the dust so bad that candles would not burn if they were allowed to stand upright, and they had to have their heads turned down to keep them alight. I sent the evidence straight away to the Home Office and other Government Departments, asking that something should be done forthwith, but nothing has been done to this day. The evidence of the doctor was that that very morning before he came to give evidence before me he had conducted a post-mortem examination of the body of a strong man of 41. At 28 he was a shepherd, and therefore absolutely healthy. At 41 he was dead, and the doctor said that his lungs were like two bricks. Festiniog graveyard is full of such men. I want an assurance that this Bill and the Regulations will be extended to meet these terribly hard cases. The Bill is not enough, but for the time being we shall have to accept it. I hope that in a short time we shall have a Bill, not to keep these men on half pay, but to rehabilitate them.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to join the hon. Gentlemen who have extended a welcome to this five-point Bill, which is the result of a reasonable amount of negotiations. The proposal to provide for the victims of mine dust will be welcomed very much in South Wales. The recent report indicates the extent of this
  1520
  disease throughout the industry. In some collieries as many as 50 per cent. of the men engaged have reached the stage where they have become disabled by pneumoconiosis. The proposal to disregard the earnings of widows in war work will reassure the womenfolk. The proposal to transfer to the injured some of the benefits of the increasing wages which they would have had were it not for the accident will lessen the injustice which these men and their families have laboured under for a long time. Although it lessens those injustices, it does not remove them. We shall have something to say about that during the Committee stage. The other points of the Bill are more or less helpful in meeting the small injustices which have arisen cut of framing and paying workmen's compensation.
  In general, we welcome the Bill, and we are satisfied that it is an honest attempt to meet a number of grievances. The necessity for its speedy passage is a reflection of the need of remedies. Our men want relief and want it soon, and mining Members do not want to delay the Bill. May I compliment the Home Secretary, in view of what has been said outside, upon his readiness to deal with the obvious injustices which we have brought to his notice? He has been subjected to criticism outside, but it is our view that he has shown a commendable readiness to meet all the representations that have been made to him in South Wales. In the negotiations he has been assisted by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel. There is every reason to commend them for the efforts they have made in trying to arrive, at this solution. The only fear we have is that they may weary in well doing. This Bill amply redeems what was promised except for one of the Clauses which we will discuss on the Committee stage.
  While we pay tribute to the honesty of the endeavour which has so far been made and which we hope will be continued, it must not be assumed that the incomes of industrial casualties are such as to give us satisfaction. It is still a matter for shame that we treat the victims of industry in the way we do. Let me cite one example, a silicosis case which was mentioned before the Royal Commission. This man is and was totally disabled by silicosis. He; was paid 20s. 5d. per week for total disablement. He has a wife and six

  1521
  children to maintain on that. That was in 1938. Since then, I agree, he has had the benefit of the War Additions Act, 1940. Because of the seven-eighths rule he now gets 35s. instead of 20s. 5d., but is it a matter for pride that a man who has sacrificed himself in the mining industry has to keep himself and six others upon 35s. a week? Under these proposals he will, it is true, get £2 15s., but is that adequate to maintain seven people? That is what the Under-Secretary for the Home Department will have to justify when we come to discuss Clause 5. I have taken the worst case I can find, a case in which the maximum benefit obtainable under this Bill is shown with clarity.
  The best this Bill will do is to even up injustices; it fails to provide a standard comparable to that which obtains in any of the administrative departments of our social life. I chose the worst case deliberately, but let me take the average case. It is safe to assume that 27s. is about the average weekly payment under the 1925 Act. That figure may now go up a bit. All this Bill will do on that point, and I agree that it is something which we were not promised, is to level up those payments to 30s. a week. Can this House defend such a payment when recently it agreed in the case of women rather raising their rate when they are idle or casualties from £2 12s. to £3 10s.?
  The injured miner is still the worst-treated casualty in the life of the nation. If his wife gets hurt in a Royal Ordnance factory she will get her full wages for 13 weeks. If his daughter gets hurt in Civil Defence work, she will get her full wages for six months. If his son falls on the pit top when he is doing fire watching, he will get £3 12s. a week for six months. But if the miner himself stumbles over the same obstacle at the same place on the pit top the most he can get is 35s. a week. Surely this is a matter to which this House ought to give more attention. Let me put it this way: A man who may be careless about the national interest and his responsibilities and who takes a day off to go to dog-races will, if he is injured by an enemy bullet, get 7s. a week more compensation than a man who goes down into the pit and gets the coal with which to make the bullets to fire at the enemy. How can we defend that? The Government in our view must keep it firmly in
  1522
  mind that excellent as some of the proposals in this Bill are it is not to be regarded as a substitute for the pressing need of raising the rates of workmen's compensation.
  Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member who introduced this Bill said that the Acts as they stood were an obsolete model. To some of us they are not an obsolete model but a garment that is worn out and smothered with many patches. To-day the Government have brought forward a new series of patches, which are very welcome, but we must bear in mind that some of these patches do not cover the bare spots. It reminds me of a little boy at school in London. The teacher noticed that he had a new patch on his trousers and that it was rather light in colour. She said to him, "Johnny, that is a very light patch," to which he replied "Garn, that's not a patch, that's me." I am afraid some of these patches will still leave some great injustices. There have been enough references to the mining industry to make it unnecessary for me to say anything more about it, even if I were competent to do so, but on the question of diseases I would mention that it is 10 years since the Trades Union Congress suggested to the Home Office that pneumoconiosis should be covered by workmen's compensation. It has taken all these years for the Home Office to find out that what the Trades Union Congress said 10 years ago was right, and that it is included in this Bill is due very much to the Under-Secretary, whose activity and interest in this matter we so much appreciate.
  I would like to mention something about the widows and their loss of earnings. Even here not everything is covered by the Bill, which is limited to a female member of the workman's family, if she was acting as his housekeeper. We all agree that in this case "housekeeper" has the meaning given to it in the dictionary and not what was given to it in a certain police court in London. There are other female members. They may be a daughter, a sister or a mother who was absolutely dependent upon the workman and upon his compensation, but is able to do in the war some minor kind of work of a character which will not exist when the war ceases. We might find that injustices will remain there. With male

  1523
  members of the family, there may be a son who was absolutely dependent upon the family before, but to whom war work of some kind has been possible. I could quote instances of men who thought they would never be able to do work again because of their disability and who were dependent upon their fathers, but who have now found work in the war effort, which will shortly come to an end. We shall still get difficulties remaining.
  On Clause 6 and the question of partial earnings, it is clear that a workman is entitled to half the difference between his pre-accident earnings and his post-accident earnings, but there are three examples of how this works out quite differently. Let us assume that he is in a lower-paid job. His pre-accident wage was 60s. per week and in the new job is 40s., a difference of 20s., which gives him 10s. as the partial loss of wages. If his pre-accident job is now raised to 70s., and his present light job remains at 40s. there is a difference of 30s., and he is entitled to 15s., that is, half the loss. He therefore earns 40s. and gets 15s., a total of 55s. He is only 5s. better off, and so is the insurance company, which save 5s. out of his compensation. Why that should come into the picture we do not quite know.
  Mr. Tinker: That is not the point. It would be an advance in wages, and it would go on to his present earnings.
  Mr. Isaacs: There are three separate instances: the case where a man's post-accident earnings increase, but not his pre-accident earnings; the case where his pre-accident earnings increase and not his present earnings; and the case where both increase. I was trying to give the example of one of these cases. In the case where his present earnings increase by 10s., going on to 15s., and at the same time his pre-accident rate is increased by 10s., making it 70s., there is still a difference of 20s. and no difference in the amount of compensation which he receives. In the case where the injured man is doing light work and his wage of 40s. is increased to 50s., and there is no increase in his pre-accident rate, which remains at 50s., his compensation could be reduced, because there is only 10s. difference between the pre-accident rate and the present earnings. Compensation is reduced to 5s. in that case, and the man
  1524
  loses 5s. therefore, of the wage increase. We appreciated, in the discussions with the Ministry, that these were difficult points, though if we had approached them in the way the Ministry first suggested, there would have been injustices and inequalities elsewhere. We feel that we should take the best that can be got under the circumstances and although we point these things out we do not raise them as matters of objection.
  Clause 7, which deals with the question of the Home Office certifying surgeon being allowed to certify in the district where the man lives in addition or in place of the locality where he worked, is a very valuable concession indeed. I have had experience of a man who came from Leeds and worked at Watford. His home was in Leeds. He became ill at Watford and went back to Leeds. There he was advised that his trouble was an industrial disease. He had to travel back to Watford to get his certifying certificate from the surgeon. While accepting this Bill, we want to place on record our claims for the early correction of other faults in workmen's compensation. We have had statutory committees, rehabilitation committees, Royal Commissions, all of which have pushed matters off. I want to set out the particular things we want to see remedied: the basic rate of benefit; the calculation of average earnings; compensation for women workers with children dependent on them; complete alteration of the medical referee system; and the necessity for a rehabilitation system.
  In spite of these shortcomings, this Bill is welcome. I speak for the Trades Union Congress and its Compensation Committee to say that we welcome this Bill, especially as it is to be put through very quickly. In spite of being charged with exchanging a battle of bouquets with the Parliamentary Secretary, and while thanking him for what he said, I wish he had not said it, so that I might say what I am going to say with less embarrassment. In our frequent interviews with him we have been impressed, first, by his great knowledge of this Bill, the painstaking care he has always exercised in dealing with it, and, above all, his courtesy and gentlemanliness to us when we have worried him over such long periods of interviews. In thanking him, we say this merely in anticipation of the favours to come.
  Captain Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think it would be right if all the tributes paid to my hon. Friend came from the other side of the House, because there has always been a section of the Conservative Party which has taken a keen interest in Workmen's Compensation measures. As one of them I welcome this Bill as fully as anyone in the House. But I do not wish just to hand out another bouquet. I rise for the purpose of saying that I welcome the Bill particularly, because it shows that the Home Office is coming round to the point of view that it is worth while amending details of the Workmen's Compensation Acts in piecemeal fashion. I cannot help feeling—I have often said it—that the interests of the injured workman have suffered very materially because neither the Home Office nor any party in this House has been content to deal with the Workmen's Compensation Act bit by bit, piecemeal. The hon. Member who preceded me has enumerated a list of points that need attention, and I could add others. I re-echo what he said, and if the Home Office are not weary of well-doing, and are not content to sleep on their few laurels, I suggest that later on, perhaps even during this Session, they introduce other Bills covering other points regarding workmen's compensation.
  The volume of literature on the subject is colossal. I should like to refer in particular to the monumental and comprehensive work of the late Sir Arnold Wilson. I miss him more deeply and mourn for him more deeply than for any other Member of Parliament who has lost his life or died, since I entered this House. He died a hero's death in this war at the age of 54. He is one of the greatest men I have had the privilege of knowing. He wrote a remarkable work on workmen's compensation. His collaborator, Professor Hermann Levy, still happily with us, has brought out a second volume, which I think some Members have read.
  His works and those of certain other students could suggest several useful minor reforms in the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which could be brought forward as this Bill has been. In particular, there is the question of rehabilitation. I believe that all along we have gone on the wrong principle. We have said that the employer's responsibility is fulfilled if he gives a partially-injured workman a pit-
  1526
  tance upon which to eke out his existence. It ought to be considered just as much in the interests of employers as in that of individual workmen that men should be restored to a wage-earning capacity. I will not go on, because I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to get up and reply to some of the bouquets that have been hurled at him; I will only say this. The Beveridge Report refers to workmen's compensation. That is all very fine and large; but does that mean that once more reform of the whole system is going to be put off until the Beveridge Report is adopted? I hope that this precedent of introducing small, detailed, piecemeal Amendments to those Acts will be followed. I welcome this act on the part of the Home Office, and I hope they will carry on.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I would be less than human if I did not say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Office for his tribute to what little I have been able to do in bringing in this Bill. With regard to Clauses 1 and 2, my interest in this subject of occupational chest diseases goes back 32 years. I remember that, in the days when we used to talk about Lowe's disease in the Loxley Valley, we had a committee of inquiry, through the Y.M.A., in 1911 and 1912. We had well-built men with their biceps and triceps completely withered, and frequently they used to die. In the course of examination, a lung which was petrified was brought down to the Home Office, and that largely led to the initiation of the first scheme for some form of payment for silicosis disease. Members of my own family who after the Boer War went back to South Africa and worked in the gold mines got what we then called miners' phthisis, and they paid the penalty. This Bill, which confers on the Home Secretary wide general powers to make schemes as occasion warrants, is a big departure from the first scheme which came before the House of Commons. Those who are familiar with Macaulay's Essays will recall that, even at that time, he referred to grinders in Sheffield dying like flies from the silica coming from the silica wheels.
  It ought to be made perfectly clear that this does not apply only to the mining industry. The immediate scheme, indeed, was a result of the Medical Research

  1527
  Council's Report, largely on South Wales. Silicosis was an internationally-agreed definition, agreed at Johannesburg in 1930. There were a large number of people in the South Wales coalfield, particularly in the anthracite portion, who had undoubtedly a disease which totally incapacitated them, and which made death almost certain; but they had no claim to compensation, because their disease did not come within the definition of silicosis. Now we get the wider definition of pneumoconiosis. I am certain that as time goes on we shall find a less tongue-twisting word; though I have said it so often lately that I could repeat it backwards. I think we are all agreed that Clause I is welcome and much overdue. The very big scheme we can talk about later. It is not merely the fact that we have to pay compensation for occupational chest diseases. That is all right. We have to get down to prevention and, if needs be, cure. I was myself tried as an experiment 25 years ago for a preventative measure of curing silicosis in a certain coalfield. I worked a full day in the coalpit, with respirator, cutting coal to see how it worked out. We were in a hard end heading where the pick used to fly about to within 1–16th of an inch from either ear. Stripped to the waist and with sweat pouring from one, the respirator became like a piece of blotting paper within 25 minutes. But I still believe that there is something in preventative measures, and in Clause 4 of the Bill the House can take it that we intend, as a Ministry of Fuel and Power, to do everything we possibly can to bring about preventative measures.
  Certain things have been done. I may say without egotism that a good deal was done while my hon. Friend the. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was Secretary for Mines. When I went to the Department I made it my duty immediately to ask for papers relating to any preventative measures which had been put either into operation or suggested in different coalfields. I went through them very carefully indeed. I found that a good deal had been done, but that there was still a good deal more that needed doing. Whatever might be said about hostility and suspicion in the industry—and perhaps we in the mining industry have been rather prone to delay preventative measures because we have had to pay for them—there is the utmost
  1528
  co-operation in trying to bring about whatever can be done by way of prevention and cure. A Section in the 1911 Act, under which Regulations were issued, was considered to be perhaps a little too narrow or too restricted to permit the preventative measures we had in mind coming into operation. Therefore, Clause 4 is put into this Bill for that purpose. There is not time to go into detail about preventative measures, but hon. Members can take it that preventative measures have been developed to suit the various dust-producing operations in mining districts, including the control of shot-firing, the removal of debris and dust from roads, and so on, and we shall endeavour to do all we possibly can in that direction.
  With regard to the cost, two or three references have been made with regard to the pneumoconiosis scheme. It so happens that of all useful reforms in this country, the only one that has cost the State nothing is workmen's compensation. That is the liability of the individual employer, who covers himself, therefore, by insurance or by co-operation among employers. We would have liked to have spread the cost of this risk over the entire mining industry. But the opposition does not come from us. Among miners there are good comradeship and a good deal of clannishness, but do not imagine for one moment that when the pneumoconiosis scheme comes into operation all the cases will be from South Wales. In my opinion, there are quite a number of cases in other districts which will come in under the pneumoconiosis definition. It perhaps would have been as well if we had had the risk spread over the entire industry, but we have had to do the best we can. With regard to the benefit scheme, it will not possibly need more than one levy of a penny a ton. That may be sufficient to deal with all cases which at the moment anyone can see with accuracy.
  With regard to Clause 1 and 2, whatever the joint Ministries can do to ease the burden and provide some remedy will be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) rightly stressed the position of those in slate quarries. I understand that in 1939 underground workers in these quarries were brought within the scheme. If there is any doubt on the matter, I

  1529
  will certainly look it up in the next two or three days and communicate with him, but I think he will find that the point has been met.
  This Bill never aimed at altering the structure of the present workmen's compensation; it aimed at removing and remedying three or four different anomalies or injustices that were created by the war. Take, for instance, the question of the woman who is working and whose husband is killed. Because she is working, the widow has been denied the £300 because she was not totally dependent upon her husband. Instead, she gets £175. We were asked to try and safeguard the partially incapacitated man with regard to war-time earnings. Well, this Bill is not limited to mining. It would have been a social injustice and politically inexpedient to try and legislate for one particular industry on that point. It applies to all. This gives automatic review both of the totally incapacitated and the partially incapacitated cases, and I will show where there is some benefit in it. Suppose a man was injured in 1933 or 1934 and had an average wage of £2 per week. He was then drawing compensation of 22s. 6d. a week, being half his earnings and half the difference between £1 and 25s. In his particular class of work now his wages have advanced. That man will be able to get automatic review and go up to the ceiling figure. The partially incapacited man, as a general principle, will have restored to him his partial compensation that may have been removed as a result of any wartime increases in his wages.
  Mr. Foster: Will full compensation be restored in every case?
  Mr. Smith: We want to get this Bill through in the next few minutes, and I cannot go into that now, but when we come to examine the Clause in detail there will be an opportunity to deal with that point. All I have time to say now is that this is a very welcome Bill, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, with whom I have crossed swords so often, is very happy about the way in which it has been received. I am more concerned about the welfare of our injured workmen than in making a long speech, and I will conclude by asking the House to accept this Measure.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend section forty-seven of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to workmen suffering from pneumoconiosis, to provide for the payment of benefit in the case of such workmen, to enable the Treasury to contribute to certain medical expenses, and to make provision for certain other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums retained by the Minister of Fuel and Power out of payments collected from employers under any such scheme, being sums retained for the purpose of repaying any advance made by him as aforesaid.—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Peake.]

  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

  PARLIAMENTARY CRITICISM (CENSORSHIP)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which has caused me some concern, but which is in addition a matter of public interest. The other day there came into my possession some information with regard to the question of censorship. I have discovered—at any rate, this is my understanding of the matter—that it was the intention of my right hon. Friend

  1531
  the Minister of Information to exercise more rigorously than hitherto his powers of censorship. To what did the matter relate? It would appear that it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to interfere with the rights of foreign correspondents in this country to send information to their people abroad on the subject of Parliamentary criticism. For example—this is my interpretation of the matter—if an hon. Member criticised the Government, or any Department, of His Majesty's Government, or any Minister, or any of the United Nations, or anything pertaining to the conduct and organisation of the war, my right hon. Friend had the power to decide whether that factual criticism—I use the term advisedly—should be censored or whether a foreign correspondent should be permitted to acquaint his people with what had transpired. On the basis of my interpretation of such information as was in my possession, I regarded this as highly reprehensible. There is too much censorship already. Of course, in these times some measure of censorship is essential. Here I would remark that it is not a desire of mine to embarrass the Government in this matter. I recognise at this time that the situation is highly delicate and complex. Unnecessary criticism is inadvisable. Nor is it my intention to address hon. Members on this matter with any desire to antagonise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information. On the whole, taking Ministers of Information by and large, he has not made such a bad job of it. He has won, I will not say the affection, but the admiration of the House. I hope he will appreciate that there is no hostility in the matter. I regard it as quite impersonal.
  I saw the right hon. Gentleman privately, after having addressed a Question to him across the Floor and received what I regarded as a somewhat oblique—I will not say evasive—reply. He was a little troubled, not to say embarrassed, by the fact that I was in possession of what he described as a secret document. I ascertained then for the first time that it was a secret document. He was very anxious to know how I had received the information. I beg him not to press me unduly on that point because, if I informed him, he might be even more surprised, and it is not my desire to administer any further shocks. He seemed at one point to indi-
  1532
  cate that I might be visited with extraordinary penalties if I did not disclose the source of my information. That left me quite cold. Perhaps a sojourn in the Tower would do me no harm. If I were subjected to torture, the thumbscrew, or the rack, or the inquisition of a Star Chamber, I should certainly not disclose the source of my information, and I hope the matter may rest there. In a further conversation with him I ascertained that there was no desire to impose a more rigorous censorship than at present. I have no desire to quote from the document and, in order to make certain that I should not quote from it, as one might be tempted to do by provocation and interjections, I have left the document at home, so that I am proof against any such temptation.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a specific assurance that it is not the intention of his Department to prevent foreign correspondents retailing to their people in any part of the democratic and civilised world information which relates to factual criticism addressed by Members of this House to the Government. If he will give such an assurance I shall be content and no more need be said about the matter. I understand, from his answer to a Question that I addressed to him, that he was anxious to prevent Members being misquoted. That may be the case but, on the other hand, it may be otherwise. There is a distinction, which applies to foreign correspondents, between factual criticism, however unpalatable it may be to the Government, or to the United Nations, or to the war effort, and comment on criticisms. I have seen some comments on criticism which foreign correspondents have tried to send abroad, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that much of that comment, that interpretation, that misunderstanding—garbled, distorted and misquoted—ought not to be sent abroad. It is very harmful and, in the main, untrue. I am concerned with what is true. If it is merely factual criticism, I do not think there should be any suppression at all. Let us take an example, which occurs to me as I speak. Let us assume that an hon. Member expressed himself in this way, "The B.B.C., an otherwise excellent institution, for some unaccountable reason does not permit critics of the Government to broadcast." That, of course, would be a statement of fact.
  The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): Not entirely.
  Mr. Shinwell: There can be no doubt about it. The B.B.C. have occasionally allowed people who indulge in criticism to broadcast, but not to criticise the Government. A distinction must be drawn. Taking it by and large, the critics of Government policy are not allowed to broadcast. Only a coterie of people who are responsive are allowed to do so. Some people call them "yes men," but I do not want to strike a discordant note. If a statement of the kind I have indicated is made, it is a factual statement. On the other hand, if a foreign correspondent tells his people in any part of the civilised world, on the basis of that statement, "Because of that the B.B.C. is an anti-democratic institution inimical to the war effort," that would be going too far. That is the distinction I draw. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see the appropriateness of the point I am making. If he cares—I do not put it higher than that—to pay a little more regard to what I have said about critics broadcasting, all contributions will be gratefully received. In raising this point there is no desire to embarrass the Government, but we are very jealous of the privileges of this House. Even in war time it is necessary that our censorship should not proceed too far. I agree that a measure of censorship is inevitable and no one wishes to dispute the right of my right hon. Friend to enforce it, but let him not go too far, even with his democratic conceptions. If he does, it may be necessary to quote the document. In the meantime, I leave the matter there and hope that my right hon. Friend will give us the assurance we desire.
  Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) embarrasses me by the compliments he has paid me, and in order not to prolong this Debate, I will give him the assurance he desires in advance of anything else I have to say. There is no question of censoring speeches made in this House. No speech has ever been censored, and unless some Member, through some aberration of the intellect for which he is not physically responsible, says something about military operations—in which case the House will be taken into consultation—there will never be a question of censoring faithfully reported speeches made by
  1534
  Members in this House. There is, however, a duty reposing upon us at the present moment. That is to make certain that the speeches made in this House are properly reported. For instance, a speech by my hon. Friend is a matter of some importance to people in various parts of the country and of the world, and it is desirable that speeches made by him and other Members should be properly reported. I remember one or two occasions when speeches made in the House have been most improperly reported. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson) one day came to me in a state of most violent indignation. He said, "Here is a speech bitterly criticising the Government and attacking the Prime Minister. It is attributed to me. I have read it on the tape. What have you got to say about it?" I said I had not seen it. He said, "It is a very serious matter." I looked up the report, and there it was. Again, remarks made by Mr. Speaker have been grossly misrepresented in the United States of America. So I beg my hon. Friend to realise that it is quite important that we should make certain that speeches attributed to hon. Members of this House have actually been made by them, and that is the sole censorship, if you can call it censorship, or action, for which I am responsible.
  As a matter of fact, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this point. I could easily have given him the assurance in private. I can now give it to him in public, and I welcome this opportunity of saying something about the work of the Censor's Department. Of all the disagreeable war jobs, I think the censorship is one of the worst. As hon. members know, we started in this war without any trained censors. We have never, unlike the dictators, bred a race of censors, so we had to start off with amateurs, and, believe me, they made probably the maximum possible mistakes in the first year and a half of the war; but by brutal treatment in Parliament and by fairly rough treatment from the Press the censors have learned a very good lesson. Over 11,000,000 words go out of this country every week. They have to be dealt with by about 360 censors, and I must say that it is amazing they make so few errors and, what is more important, that they make so few enemies.

  1535
  Our censorship is the most liberal in the world, and lest anyone should accuse me of praising the shop I keep, I can say that I have heard that from the journalists of every free nation in the world, and I am particularly anxious that people should realise how splendid is the work of the Chief Censor's staff. The Chief Censor's life is not a very happy one. For him there can never be any rest. There is a right of appeal always to the Chief Censor by any newspaper correspondent, and as newspaper correspondents do their work at strange hours, the Chief Censor must always be available. The Chief Censor spent his life before he came to the Ministry in Information in submarine warfare, and I feel sure that from time to time he has some nostalgic feelings for his old service. He has done the most splendid job of work I have ever seen. I can hardly praise him highly enough, and if any Member thinks I am just paying a tribute to one of my own officials, I would remind him that the hard-bitten Press correspondents of Great Britain and America and other
  1536
  correspondents actually give him a lunch the other day, and that some man with great discernment gave him a copy of one of Cato's works, saying that it was a delicate hint to censors who were critically severe but that it was an appropriate document, and that he would be the last Chief Censor in this country.
  I think a great deal of credit is due to these censors, because if we had a clumsy censorship like that in France, depending on whims, caprices and obscurantism, it would have made innumerable enemies for this country abroad. As it is, I have no hesitation in saying that in the most difficult task in the world, that is, imposing a realty competent censorship, and at the same time carrying with you the good will of the Press, Admiral Thomson and his staff are deserving of the highest possible praise, and my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham has done a very great service to me to-day, because he has given me this, the first, opportunity of saying the truth about our censorship.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  ESTATE DUTY (AFFIDAVITS AND ACCOUNTS)
  ESTATE DUTY (AFFIDAVITS AND ACCOUNTS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT (SUBSCRIPTIONS)
  BRITISH ARMY (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE)
  BRITISH ARMY (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE)
FUEL AND POWER
  Output, South Yorkshire Coalfield
  Output, South Yorkshire Coalfield
  WIRELESS LICENCES
  WIRELESS LICENCES
  Coal Mine Accidents (Killed and Injured)
  Coal Mine Accidents (Killed and Injured)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Toys (Prices)
  Toys (Prices)
  Utility Furniture
  Utility Furniture
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION SPEAKERS (POLITICAL ISSUES)
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION SPEAKERS (POLITICAL ISSUES)
  CLOGHER VALLEY RAILWAY (SCRAP)
  CLOGHER VALLEY RAILWAY (SCRAP)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (FOOD SERVICE)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (FOOD SERVICE)
  PROBATION COMMITTEES
  PROBATION COMMITTEES
  OLIVE OIL AND CURRANTS (IMPORTS)
  OLIVE OIL AND CURRANTS (IMPORTS)
  ANIMAL SLAUGHTER (AMMUNITION)
  ANIMAL SLAUGHTER (AMMUNITION)
Preamble
The House met, The CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Message from the Commons for leave for the Earl De La Warr to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Special Inquiries of the Select Committee appointed by that House on National Expenditure. Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a

SCUNTHORPE GAS ORDER, 1942.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COM PANY ENDOWMENTS (AMEND MENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill which was introduced into your Lordships' House the other day. The long title of the Bill will show those who are
424
interested that this measure will amend the law relating to British nationality in several respects. I imagine that your Lordships will wish for a brief account of the main contents of the Bill. My account will be more easy to follow if I remind your Lordships, in the first place, of what is the broad principle of our law of nationality. A man may be a British subject either because he was born such or because he has acquired a certificate of naturalization. I think I am right in saying that, under the existing law, a man who is a British subject by virtue of a certificate of naturalization has the same full rights of British citizenship in all respects as a natural-born British subject. The other main matter to bear in mind is that our law governing nationality differs from the law as it prevails in some foreign countries, and indeed, I think, in most of Europe, in that we base British nationality on a territorial test rather than on a test of descent.
For our purposes you answer the question whether or not an individual is a British subject by asking: "Well, where was he born?" If he was born on British soil he is a British subject at birth. A son of Chinese parents born in Jamaica, for example, is just as much a British subject as would be a child both of whose parents were natural-born British subjects. Complications have been introduced in order to modify the full operation of the rule that your nationality depends on where you are born, because the individual is not able to control where he is born. In Hanoverian times, when there was a further complication because of the two Crowns—the Crowns of Hanover and of Britain—statutory provisions were made by our ancestors in the form of two Bills which provided that, even though an individual was born abroad, if his father was born on British soil he also was a British subject. At one time that also extended to cases in which the paternal grandfather was born on British soil, the grandchild then being considered to be a British subject also.
This Bill, which is not uninteresting, deals with a number of difficulties which have arisen and makes one or two provisions which are of special importance because of the war. Clause 1 is rather forbidding and technical. It starts by

425
repealing sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section one of the main Act of 1914, and, having repealed it, it makes provisions which are easy to follow and which will be, I think, of greater usefulness. By a previous Act of Parliament, an Act of 1922, provision was first made for the acquisition of British nationality by registration at a British Consulate. Take, for example, the large commercial communities which you find in various South American States, British communities, very often Scottish, communities of people who are very proud of their British nationality and are resolved to maintain it. In 1922 we provided that by registration of his birth at the appropriate Consulate a child though born abroad, if born of a British father, could acquire British nationality, the object of this being to secure that British households and families living in foreign parts should be able, for the sake of their descendants, to maintain their British nationality. The conditions laid down in the Act of 1922 were found in practice to be unduly severe. For example, it was necessary that a child born, let us say, in Buenos Aires of a British father must be registered at the British Consulate within one year of birth, or, with the leave of the Secretary of State—the Foreign Secretary, I suppose—within two years
The Argentine is a very large country, and many of these countries are very big. Many British subjects living a long way from the Consulate may not appreciate the opportunity which the law gives them. We have had a number of cases in which the conditions which the previous law lays down have not been appreciated and acted on in time. Clause 1 of this new Bill, therefore, provides for more latitude. That is particularly important at the present time, because there are large numbers of young men, the sons of British fathers, who have been brought up in various foreign countries and who have regarded themselves as British, who are coming over to join His Majesty's Forces and who naturally desire, as we all desire, that there should be no doubt at all about their British nationality. The provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill, therefore, give more latitude for such registration, and I do not doubt that this proposal will be universally approved. Clause 2 is a little more
426
technical, although it is important. It turns on the circumstance that a British Protectorate, which for domestic purposes may not be regarded in the fullest sense as British territory, is none the less regarded as British territory for international purposes. We want to secure that the child born to a British father in the Protectorates shall be in the same position as a child born in a Colony.
Clause 3 is a very curious provision, and shows how difficult it is to get the expression of the law exactly right, for most lawyers have believed that what is here laid down was already provided for. It provides that:
"Any person born after the death of his father, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, if his father died a British subject, be deemed to be and, in the case of a person born before the commencement of this Act, always to have been, a natural-born British subject …"
It has recently been appreciated that in the case of posthumous children it could not be said that at the moment of birth the father was a British subject, because he was dead.
Clause 4 is a clause of very special interest, and it will attract the notice of your Lordships. The provision is quite exceptional. Clause 4 provides a special power to grant a certificate of naturalization to French nationals if they desire it, if they are serving in His Majesty's Forces. Under the general law, in normal cases, the Home Secretary is empowered to grant a certificate of naturalization to suitable applicants only if the applicant has spent five years out of the last eight in British territory, and only if he has resided for the last twelve months in the United Kingdom. Service under the Crown abroad, whether in a military or a civil capacity, is treated as though it was, for this purpose, residence in the United Kingdom. Similarly, the Governor of a British Colony can grant a certificate of naturalization to an applicant only if the individual concerned has lived for five out of the last eight years under the British Crown and for the last twelve months in the Colony. The provision which we are making in Clause 4 does not call for these special conditions to be fulfilled at all; as I have indicated, it enables British nationality to be conferred on a French citizen who applies for it and who satisfies the usual conditions with regard to character and the like,

427
provided that he is a person who is serving in the British Forces.
There are numbers of French sailors, soldiers and airmen who are serving with the British Forces—I think about five hundred in all. The Prime Minister, soon after the French collapse, made a public promise about them; he said in the House of Commons on July 4, 1940, that they should have the opportunity, if they desired it, to acquire British nationality. And this we are ready to grant, but without prejudice, of course, to the position of the vast numbers of Frenchmen who are fighting or serving in French units, and who are not in the least affected by this provision, which is limited entirely to Frenchmen who wish to take advantage of it and who are in this very special position, that they form no part of the Fighting French Forces, but who had preferred to serve as members of British units alongside British subjects.
Whereas Clause 4 deals with the special grant in war-time of certificates of naturalization in this country in a limited class of case, Clause 5, as your Lordships will see, has to do with certificates of naturalization under the law of a Dominion—Canada, for example. Several of the Dominions of the Crown have legislated to provide for the naturalization of persons in consideration of service rendered at any time during the present war period in connexion with the prosecution of the war. I think there are some cases of American citizens who, by that means, have become Canadian subjects. Clause 5 merely provides that the certificate of naturalization granted in those circumstances in a Dominion shall be treated in this country as we should treat an ordinary certificate of naturalization granted in a Dominion; that is to say, it shall be regarded by our law as equivalent to the grant of a certificate of naturalization in this country. One of the complications of this branch of the law is that naturalization may come about in the case of some individuals under the law of the United Kingdom and in other cases by the operation of the law of a Dominion—for example, the Dominion of Canada. As far as may be, the rules are made to correspond, and this is an instance of where it is necessary specially to legislate to achieve that object. I do not think that I need say more about that.
428
Clause 6 has to do with loss of nationality. I told your Lordships a few moments ago that a child born of a British father in a foreign country could none the less be registered at the Consulate and thereby secure British nationality. That, however, lasts only until the child comes of age, when, of course, he may have a different view of what he wants to do. If the child now grown up to be a young man wishes to maintain his British nationality that has to be clone by what is called a declaration of retention of British nationality after he comes of age. Clause 6 makes a rather more practical provision under that head. The difficulty is that in many cases, although the young man does want to keep his British nationality, he has not taken the step which he ought to take in his 22nd year—and I think later if the Secretary of State so allows—and has made no declaration of his retention of British nationality. Thus he no longer remains British. But what we are doing here is repealing that provision, we are re-enacting the former rule with an additional provision for those who obviously do mean to retain their British nationality because they are serving in the present war. Where you have a child who is registered in the Consulate for the purpose of securing his British nationality, and has omitted when he grows up to retain that position by making the declaration, he is treated, if he has joined the Forces fighting under the Crown, as having indicated his wish to remain a British subject, and is declared by this Bill to be a British subject in spite of his omission of this formality.
Although there are other clauses, I think what I have said is sufficient to show the House that this Bill is of some considerable importance. It brings together a number of needed changes and reforms, some of them specially needed in connexion with the war, and others of them making plainer and more effective the existing statutory provisions. That is the nature of the Bill, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I think most of your Lordships will agree that this Bill is a liberalizing Bill, enabling more people to become British subjects, and one to be wholly recommended, particularly in war-time. There are obvious reasons why we should make it easier for

429
those people to become British subjects who are serving in the British Army and who prefer to be British subjects rather than anything else. But we cannot look on a Bill like this without observing the omissions from it. There is in this Bill no mention, as there might so well be, of the British-born wives of aliens. Their position is still extremely unpleasant and difficult, and when we are making these liberalizing provisions in our law I could wish that was also included. But worst of all is Clause 4 relating to the naturalization of aliens serving in the British Forces. There, quite rightly, we make provision that where these aliens are French citizens they may, if they satisfy the Home Secretary, become British subjects. Very few of them will want to be British subjects, but so far as it goes the provision is all to the good.
But the overwhelming majority of these aliens who are serving with the British Army to-day are not French citizens but Jews of all foreign countries. They are more in need of British nationality than any other race on earth. They have already for three years been serving in the Pioneer Corps, and did very well in the Dunkirk evacuation. Their one ambition is to get British citizenship so that they and their children may be safe hereafter from the bloodiest persecution in history. Here we are met to discuss a Bill which will allow a few more aliens who are safe in any case to-become British subjects. At the same time we read in our newspapers this morning of the deportation of Jews from Norway. Everyone from eighty years old to babies in arms, with the exception of the men physically fit who are already in concentration camps, has been herded on the docks at Oslo, crammed into a ship, and sent away to the ghettos of Poland. We know what has been happening in France and throughout the whole of occupied Europe where the extermination of these people; is progressing, It has moved this country more than any persecution that has happened, certainly in my lifetime. We are all thinking of what we could do to prevent this abomination continuing till the liquidation is complete. I hope the Government are approaching the American and Russian Governments that we may make it easier for such neutral countries as remain within touch of Germany to receive these people if they
430
can escape over the frontier, opening the door to them here. I hope they are making arrangements whereby anybody who escapes to Palestine will be allowed to get into that country. I hope they are considering the possibility of changing our attitude towards the Jewish refugees and assuring them that there is one country left on earth where they can expect freedom, justice and safety from these horrors.
This Bill provides an opportunity and I do not think that we should be acting up to the traditions either of this House or of the country if we let this opportunity pass without seeing what alternative there is, how we can save any of these people, how we might show that we are not as the Germans, so that when people are willing to fight for us and have shown their mettle, and are otherwise desirable, they should be allowed to acquire our nationality as a reward for their services. In the last war, for some reason or other which I do not understand, it was infinitely easier to acquire British nationality. I remember that when I went out to Siberia in 1917 I took with me a young man of Finnish birth, speaking Russian and of American citizenship, who had served in the Royal Flying Corps. Within twenty-four hours he was converted into a British subject, and has remained one ever since, with satisfaction to the country. It could be done in the last war. It is far more needed in this war, and I hope that when we deal with this Bill in Committee your Lordships will consider favourably an Amendment which will extend the provisions of Clause 4 conferring British nationality on these people who are fighting in the British Army to a rather wider company than these three or four hundred French citizens, who do not need it. I am sure your Lordships would not hesitate for a moment to include in this Bill American citizens who had any desire to become British subjects. And I do not believe you would object to Stateless men who were serving in the British Army coming in. I want this provision extended to those people who are the principal enemies of Hitler, against whom we are fighting. Could we not get away from the idea that this is a national war and remember that it is a war between two different conceptions of government and of humanity, and include in the liberation all those people who are on our

431
side and fighting for us, whatever their colour, class or creed?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chancellor a question regarding Clause 2? I apologize for not having given notice that I intended to raise this, and if the Lord Chancellor prefers I shall postpone pressing for an answer until the Committee stage. The question is this: In what way will Clause 2 affect the position of Palestinians? The reason I ask is that many people who would be British subjects are said to be Palestinians because they went to Palestine under the various schemes of settlement. They have all the obligations of citizens of the British Commonwealth, but when they come to this country they are treated as aliens. If Clause 2 eases their position I shall be very glad; but in any case I suggest that the particular complications that have arisen in regard to Palestinians might be further inquired to.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I rather hope that the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, may be sympathetically considered as far as possible. The fact of the matter is that these nationality laws can no longer be considered without the closest reference to the laws of other nations. You cannot consider to-day the mere facts of British nationality without considering the effects on other peoples. This is a House of Lords Bill and presumably, therefore, it has been drafted with a view to going through all its stages in this House, with such changes as we may care to make in it, before it goes to the House of Commons. It is easier to make any changes now than it would be if it were a House of Commons Bill coming up here. In the first place, there is the impact on American citizens. It is interesting to notice that in Clause I we get the traditional term for British citizenship which is "British subject." I do not know whether there is such a term as "British citizen," but the term used in the Bill is "British subject." There are no American "subjects," they are American "citizens." It is just the difference in approach indicated by the different wording. It would be advantageous to have an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that in drafting the Bill the greatest possible consideration has been given to the Citizenship Laws of the United States to
432
see that nothing has been included which might effect adversely their attitude to these problems.
The other point I would raise was partly dealt with by Lord Wedgwood. He referred to the position of alien-born wives of British citizens. We have here two problems. As I understand it, under our law, if an English woman marries a foreigner, she loses her British citizenship. She may not always acquire the citizenship of the national whom she marries. She may not acquire it for a certain number of years. For example, I believe that an English woman marrying an American cannot become an American citizen immediately. I am subject to correction on the point, but I believe that is the case. If, therefore, she loses British citizenship on marriage to a foreigner, and does not acquire foreign citizenship immediately, she becomes a Stateless person for a period of years, which is a very serious disadvantage. It would seem to be a pity not to do something about this when we are amending the law. Similarly, I think I am right in saying that a foreign-born woman marrying an Englishman immediately becomes a British citizen regardless of the justification for granting that privilege. We see examples of it in the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where a woman who has taken a prominent part for years in the discussions of that body suddenly becomes ineligible through marrying a foreigner, however distinguished, whereas a foreign-born woman, simply by marrying an Englishman, acquires the right to participate in all these discussions. It seems a pity, when we have to deal with this question of nationality, that this matter, which has long been recognized as unsatisfactory, should not also be dealt with. I wonder if the Lord Chancellor could say whether there is any possibility, before this Bill goes ahead, of including a clause dealing with these two specific problems—the loss of citizenship by an English woman who marries a foreigner, and the gain of British citizenship by a foreign-born woman who marries an Englishman.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I ask your permission to answer briefly the points which have been raised. I shall not argue them because at this stage we are giving the Bill a Second Reading, and I am anxious to study more exactly the matters which have been indicated.

433
The most important thing, perhaps, to bear in mind, which I am afraid I omitted to mention when I moved the Second Reading, is that legislation on this sort of subject must be most carefully prepared and agreed with the Dominions. Nothing but confusion would result if one portion of the Commonwealth legislates along one line and others take a different line. I should have told the House that this Bill is the result of most careful communication with the Dominions, and the Government would naturally feel great difficulty in pulling it about because that would not be consistent with the general arrangement we have made about it.
Let me, however, answer two or three of the questions that were put. Lord Strabolgi asked whether Clause 2 would have any bearing on Palestine. Clause 2 would apply to the children of British subjects born in Palestine. Your Lordships will see the words, "if at the time of his birth his father was a British subject." But that does not, and could not, apply to those who are not children of a British father—that is to say, it does not affect Palestinians as such. I hardly think we are entitled to interfere with Palestinian nationality. Lord Marley asked whether it would not be possible to reconsider the use of the phrase, "British subject." He was quite correct in saying that in the United States they speak of American "citizens," but there is nothing very degrading or objectionable in the British people calling themselves "British subjects." We are and intend to remain British subjects. That is the language that is used in reference to the Crown all over the Commonwealth. It is to be found in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, and I really do not think we can use this Bill for the purpose of making that change, even if it were desirable.
Then I was asked about married women. Your Lordships are aware that, though the matter has been briefly mentioned in two of the speeches this afternoon, this is a very large and difficult subject. It has been the topic of more than one investigation, I think of more than one Bill, and it certainly would not be possible to use a Bill with this title under these limited aims, carried to meet difficulties which arise in the war, and turn it into a measure altering fundamentally the law relating to married women. There is a good deal
434
to be said on a number of points there. I think the situation is generally but not quite as stated by Lord Marley, but I think it is outside what we are aiming to do in this Bill, and I should doubt very much indeed whether your Lordships would wish to turn this measure, the clauses of which will have, I think, universal support and approval, into a measure of a different kind which raises at once very large questions that cannot be described as other than questions of controversy.
My noble friend Lord Wedgwood, in very feeling and very characteristic terms, pointed out that the provision with respect to Frenchmen in the British Forces did not cover others. He mentioned particularly the Jews, but not exclusively. Of course the reason why the provision is made in the form in which it is is that a specific pledge was given in reference to these particular people, and I do not think the noble Lord's impression is correct when he said very few want to avail themselves of it. I think he will find that quite a number who are serving in British units side by side with British soldiers, sailors or airmen, do want to avail themselves of it. We shall see how that is. No one will be naturalized if he does not desire it. It would be a different matter to extend it very generally. There is no objection, I am very glad to think, to the naturalization of an alien because he is a Jew; certainly not. I know enough of the work of the Home Office to know that is not so. I know very well from my own service in that office that that question is decided and dealt with constantly. No one would suggest for a moment that there is an objection to the naturalization of a man or woman who is a Jew, and I trust that that attitude will never be departed from. At the same time naturalization under ordinary conditions does not require any new Act of Parliament at all, and I think there would be a good deal of difficulty in extending to others this Clause 4, which has reference to certain individuals to whom a definite pledge has been given, who have not got their own Government established here in this country like, for instance, the Dutch have, or the Norwegians have, or the Czechoslovaks have. Those who come within the clause are to a certain extent at the present time very much

435
wanderers on the face of the earth, and they lost not a moment, when things were most critical in France, in joining our own Forces and saying they wished to fight as part of the British units. That is quite a special case and that is the reason why they are dealt with in this Bill. I will attend very carefully to all that has been said, but I hope your Lordships will now allow us to have the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I point out that most of the Pioneers were assured that they would have the opportunity of becoming British subjects? It is true the pledge was not given by the Prime Minister, but a pledge has been given to these people and many of them joined up on that assumption. I do not say it was universal, but even if the pledge has been given by the humblest recruiting officer I think we are just as entitled to implement that pledge as if it had been given by the Prime Minister himself.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

VENEREAL DISEASE.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy in relation to venereal disease, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that there must have been a time in your Lordships' House when the mover of such a Motion as stands in my name upon the Order Paper would have made some apology to your Lordships for introducing a very disagreeable subject. Perhaps it is a sign of the march of events that I feel your Lordships will not consider that any such apology is called for to-day; certainly I should find very great difficulty in offering one. There are, however, two matters which I would like to mention. The first is that I fully recognize that there are many whose attitude in the matter which I am about to discuss is dictated by reasons of conscience derived from moral scruples or from their religious beliefs, and I have no wish whatever to give any offence to those who hold such opinions, even though I find it necessary to speak plainly. The other thing is that I may perhaps quote statistics or opinions relat-
436
ing to the medical profession, and I trust the representatives of that profession will believe that I do so to the best of my ability and in complete good faith, even though they find reasons to differ from me.
Venereal disease always increases during war, and the present increase is not so great as it was during the last war, but nevertheless the position is very serious and urgent. This problem affects public life, the future of the race, the man-power question and the general efficiency of the war effort. Before the outbreak of this war venereal disease in this country was decreasing. The position was good as compared with many other countries, but since the war there has been a very marked increase. Last year, during 1941, the new infections of syphilis amongst civilians treated at clinics was 7,300. Experience shows that eight cases of gonorrhea occur for one of syphilis, which would give some 60,000 cases in that same year, a total of upwards of 70,000 new infections during 1941. The figures show that during the war syphilis has increased by 50 per cent. amongst the civilian population, and if we add in the Services the increase is in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. But I must remind your Lordships, so great is the secrecy which surrounds this matter, that 70 per cent. may well be an under-estimate. In Great Britain we have got to set these figures which I have quoted against the fact that on the basis of admissions to clinics—and it is stated that 90 per cent. of syphilis cases are treated in clinics—the syphilis' rate was halved between 1920 and 1936, and in 1936, it is estimated, the incidence was only, 52 per cent. I think that lends point to the present estimate of 70 per cent. increase.
The existing position is that large numbers of men and women are contracting diseases which, if not dealt with, will cause very serious consequences. These diseases leave a terrible long-dated legacy of ill-health, and to-day men and women are suffering and dying from infection contracted during the last war. Venereal disease is very peculiar in one respect, that prevention and cure are so closely linked together as to be almost synonymous terms. Early treatment would eventually lead to virtual elimination. The great obstacle is secrecy. In this matter

437
secrecy is the prime enemy. I feel that the matter is of particular urgency to-day because of the arrival in this country of very large numbers of Service men and women, many of them very young, from the United States, from Canada and from the Allied Nations in some of whose countries notification of such diseases is compulsory. I understand there have already been complaints from the American and Canadian Service chiefs, particularly about London. I feel that we have a duty to these countries in this respect. At any rate Regulation 33B, which has been recently brought into existence by the Ministry of Health, docs show that we are trying to do something.
When speaking about Service men and women I should like to say one word about the Merchant Navy. The men of the Merchant Navy are not subject to the same supervision as the men of the Fighting Services. The Scottish Committee of the British Social Hygiene Council recently said that it was very disturbed—here I quote—by "the tragic and dangerous increase in venereal diseases in many parts of Scotland and particularly near the ports." In this matter of the Merchant Navy there also arises another question regarding foreign seamen arriving in merchant ships in this country. There are very few amenities provided in our ports for these seamen, and I feel that that fact has a bearing upon what is reported by the Scottish Committee of the British Social Hygiene Council. I trust very much that the noble Lord who will reply to this debate-will impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, what might be done in this respect by providing more social amenities for the merchant seamen of foreign countries visiting our ports.
It is important to remember that these diseases taken in their early stages can certainly in the case of syphilis be quickly rendered non-infectious and ultimately almost certainty cured. Existing medical knowledge, I am told, is adequate and the facilities for such treatment are ample or at any rate can very easily be rendered ample, but as the existing system in this country outside the very limited scope of the 33B Regulation depends upon voluntary notification and submission to treatment, the diseases remain and increase. Medical officers know who are causing the mischief but they have no power to
438
deal with it. At this point I feel it very important to emphasize that venereal diseases do not always arise from loose habits, but they are often contracted by quite innocent people and often by young babies. A man may infect a completely innocent wife. The fell results of these diseases may be borne by innocent people and by infants. However, I do not want to labour that point unduly because I am the first to agree that hard cases make bad law.
But there is no doubt about the seriousness of the diseases. In England in 1915 the recorded deaths place syphilis tenth as a killer. Dr. Osier believed it caused more deaths than any other infection. But the important point to bear in mind about syphilis is that it is a secret disease and medical authorities have to fight it to the best of their abilities without knowing its incidence. In the case of other diseases more or less exact statistics exist. There must be a very great number of unrecorded cases of syphilis. Yet, although this is so—and here I have to go for my evidence to another country—Dr. Parran, Surgeon-General of the United States Health Services, has emphasized the necessity for locating cases early for ascertaining the source and for the tracing of contacts. He suggests that earlier location is essential for rendering cases non-infectious as quickly as possible, to render them non-infective before proceeding with the cure. Dr. Par-ran says as regards cure that delay shows a drop in cures from 86 to 64 per cent. Yet, as I say, syphilis is so largely a secret disease. Ascertaining the source of infection and tracing contacts no doubt present difficulties. In the first place the patient must be protected, but experience shows that when it has been made clear that prevention and not punishment is the object, most patients will give all the assistance that they can in tracing the source of infection.
That leads to another important point, the necessity for continuous treatment. Reports from five clinics in America show that only 16 per cent. of syphilis patients persevere with their treatment. The defaulter rate in the United States of America is 84 per cent. The defaulter rate in this country in 1935 was 82.5 per cent. of patients who did not persevere with their treatment. I ask your Lordships to contrast these figures with figures

439
in Sweden, where the defaulter rate was only 2.5 per cent. The importance of these figures is that, as is well-known, syphilis is the great relapser among diseases. That makes continuous treatment all the more important. I do not know the figures for gonorrhea in America. Whereas syphilis is described as a killer, gonorrhea is described as a crippler, making a tremendous strain on the productive energy of the national life, in particular having a great bearing upon sterility, which is of first importance at the present moment because of the figures of declining birth-rate with which we are confronted. Gonorrhea can certainly be very easily cured even if it cannot be made non-infective, but because of the mystery and secrecy which surrounds this subject a great number of victims resort to quacks. It is extremely difficult to get them to come out of hiding and take the safe and easy cure which is available. If it is possible to work back to the source of infection, I understand it is believed that this disease could be eliminated.
What is the existing position in this country? The efforts to combat these diseases have been since 1916 based upon persuasion, upon a system of voluntary attendance and free treatment at clinics provided by local authorities under conditions of complete secrecy. Publicity of a certain rather furtive type regarding the need for early and continued treatment has been afforded, and this system met with some success up to the outbreak of the war, but since then progress has been reversed. Now by Regulation 33B compulsion in certain cases has been substituted for persuasion. The Ministry of Health has, I feel, been active and forward in this matter, and has provided increased facilities for treatment since early in the war, while the Exchequer has assisted local authorities in regard to the expense incurred by some 75 per cent. The Ministry of Health has watched the situation very carefully in co-operation with the local authorities and the British Medical Association. I think it would be fair to say that the facilities for treatment in the big towns are now reasonably satisfactory, and I understand that the Ministry, at the present moment, is
440
extending clinics and arrangements for propaganda and education.
But there are certain questions in this respect which I would like to ask the noble Lord who, I understand, is going to reply on behalf of the Government. Are the existing clinics satisfactorily and adequately staffed and organized? Are sufficient funds available for their efficient working? I would also like to know if medical education in regard to these diseases is sufficiently up to date. I feel that in this connexion I should point out that the British Council for Social Hygiene have stated that there are large new areas of population which have sprung up because of war work where there are no clinics reasonably accessible. The Council also state that young women are repelled by the title of "V.D. Clinic," and consequently do not attend so well as they should. The Council have further pointed to the necessity for the extension of the number of-trained venereal disease health visitors attached to these clinics to search out contacts. I am told that such visitors as are now operating have performed very useful work in securing continuity of treatment. The question therefore arises how far more of these visitors should be provided. The figures quoted by the British Council for Social Hygiene show that more men attend these clinics than women. I think that that is very unfortunate, and it points to the necessity for improving the conditions relating to women. Generally speaking, the Council feel that there are gaps in the treatment scheme which ought to be filled before compulsion is resorted to.
That is what we are doing in this country to meet the existing situation. I think it may be of value to glance for a moment at what other countries are doing. There is compulsory treatment for these diseases in the Dominions, in the United States of America, in the Scandinavian countries, in Russia, in France, in Czechoslovakia, in Turkey, in Cuba, in Nicaragua, in Panama, in Yugoslavia and in Spain. Some of these countries impose penalties for knowingly infecting others and insist upon compulsory examination and treatment. I have spoken of the danger of unreported cases. In Chicago, in a drive which the city authorities recently instituted against syphilis by completely voluntary methods, a blood test of one in every five of the inhabitants was

441
taken. As a result of that voluntary submission to a blood test, 42,000 unreported cases were discovered, and of those 42,000 cases over 1,000 were discovered amongst 148,000 school children. A very large percentage of the cases discovered were in an infectious stage. Statistics, following that drive, show that there was a considerable drop in the figures relating to the disease, and an American health official stated that he believed that the disease can be exterminated in a city of the size, and with the density of population, of Chicago.
I quote here again the evidence of Dr. Thomas Parran. He describes syphilis as the "Number one Killer and Crippler." He points out that 40,000 deaths occur annually in the United States from syphilitic heart disease. He states that £6,000,000 per annum are spent on the care of the syphilitic insane. He also states, with all the authority of his position, that he believes that the disease can be eliminated from the United States in one generation. But in reporting 478,732 new cases in the United States in 1939, Dr. Parran says: "Like an iceberg the greater proportion of the menace remains submerged in States where the control programme is new." That relates, of course, to the secrecy which prevails in these matters, and Dr. Parran emphasizes how necessary it is to teach youth to avoid infection. Referring to 518,000 new cases in 1935 he says that probably an equal number of cases went unrecognized or were being treated by quacks. He points cut that many remain ignorant that they are infectious until the disease has passed through the latent stages, and only go to doctors when very dreadful conditions appear and when the chance of cure is far less favourable. These facts, quoted by Dr. Parran in regard to the United States, certainly point the moral here of the evil of secrecy and emphasize the need for education with regard to these diseases.
So much then for what has been done in America. Let us look at a country nearer home—Sweden. In that country very great progress has been made. In New York City there were 1,836 cases in one month in 1936. In Sweden with the same population there were only 431 cases in the whole country in 1935. If we look at Scandinavian principles in regard to this matter we find that they are these: All cases must be reported. All cases
442
must take treatment. Free treatment must be available for all who are infected; and patients must go to hospital if necessary. In Scandinavia, people understand all about syphilis. There is no taboo about it. They recognize the necessity for treatment. Our advice notices are placed, as I have said, in very furtive surroundings, but I remember that in Copenhagen they appeared on public hoardings alongside other advertisements. The result of this more realistic outlook is that in 1936 there were only 1,600 cases in the whole of Scandinavia, and in fact in Scandinavia syphilis is spoken of as a rare disease. In Sweden, in particular, great progress has been made in reducing the incidence of it.
With regard to the necessity for reporting the sources of infection, I should like to quote certain figures to your Lordships. In Sweden, between 1926 and 1935, 137,563 people were treated for the first time. Of those, 17,480 named the source of the infection, and no fewer than 10,329 of those sources were brought under treatment. The effect is, as I have said, that in Scandinavia syphilis is spoken of as a rare disease, and I think that that is due to the fact that, if we compare the figures in Scandinavia and in this country, we shall see that there is far more sense of secrecy and shame shown here than in Scandinavia, where people are very much more matter of fact.
What are we doing to meet this war situation with regard to venereal disease? Regulation 33B has been brought out by the Ministry of Health, and is aimed at a limited but admittedly a very serious aspect of the problem. The powers taken under it are taken as a war-time measure, based on information on war-time conditions which has reached the Ministry. The existing law, prior to the passing of Regulation 33B, was unable to deal with infected persons who refused to be treated and who were spreading the disease. Public health authorities had no power to deal with this type of case, and consequently the spread of venereal disease could not be checked. This matter is of very great importance to Service authorities. I served at Grimsby as Chief Staff Officer for a certain number of months in this war. I was in charge of trawler convoys on the East Coast. Trawlers have very small crews and a very heavy armament.
If any man is unable to go to sea in his trawler on convoy duty, it means that some other man must do his work, and that some portion of the armament of that trawler remains unmanned. I remember at Grimsby that in the course of a week we traced eighteen cases of infection to the same woman. The matter was notorious. The Chief Constable, when appealed to in the matter, said he could do absolutely nothing. I wrote to a member of the War Cabinet about it and I received, in rather more flowing language, the same reply, that nothing could be done about it. That was the situation with which we had to contend in Grimsby.
Regulation 33B will enable the medical officer of health to enforce examination and treatment of any person named by two separate individuals undergoing treatment as a source of their infection. It provides fairly severe penalties—a fine of up to £100 and three months' imprisonment—but the Regulation is really merely a loop-hole in the general policy of education and voluntary treatment, and those whom it will bring under treatment will be a very small proportion of those who have proved impervious to propaganda and persuasion. It is hedged about by safeguards. Medical officers of health are enjoined to exercise special care and discretion. They must assure themselves that the information is reliable and, after that, they must do all they can to persuade infected persons to undergo treatment, and only if such persons refuse treatment will compulsion be applied. All the information will be treated as confidential. Compulsion has to be sanctioned by the county or county borough council. When one thinks of all the safeguards, one must admit that the Regulation will be very difficult to administer; nevertheless, in my opinion, the Ministry of Health is to be commended for introducing it. It is certainly a step in the right direction, and various committees who make these matters their concern have expressed their approval of it. The Regulation can operate only, however, when the mischief exists in an aggravated form, and it insists only upon treatment and cure. Is it wrong to insist that people who, with no conscience, are spreading a deadly disease, should be taken out of circulation until they are no longer a danger to the community?
I think it is always a good thing to examine the arguments against a case which one is putting forward. I agree that the Bill introduced by the Edinburgh Corporation in 1928 on the Swedish model, which had in view compulsion to undergo complete treatment until a cure was certified, was defeated in another place. I think that the figures of the voting on that occasion are very interesting; the Bill was defeated by 156 votes to 93. In other words, only 249 votes were cast upon this occasion, which, I think, illustrates how very nervous people are, or were at that time, about expressing an opinion on this matter. I agree also that a Commission sent by the Ministry of Health in 1937 to study conditions in Sweden and Holland did not report in favour of compulsion. They reported against compulsion for four reasons. First of all, they said that compulsion would lead to concealment for fear of exposure. They then referred to the difficulty of its application in densely-populated countries, which would make tracing back to the source of infection very difficult. That is a strong argument, but I think that the evidence which I have quoted from Chicago militates against it. They spoke of the possibility of blackmail, but surely we should be able to control the possibility of blackmail in this matter, and I cannot regard that as a serious objection. Finally, the Commission argued against compulsion on the ground of respecting the liberty of the subject. I feel that the liberty of the subject is a peculiarly weak argument in this respect. What about the liberty of the subject in regard to other infectious diseases?
As regards the argument that compulsion would lead to concealment, and that sufferers will not seek medical treatment if it involves notification to a public official, again I quote Dr. Parran, who, out of the fullness of his experience, observes that the actual name of the patient need never be reported to a public official; he says that the initials, the date of birth or a number are sufficient for record purposes, and only if the patient refuses to continue treatment and remains a menace to the community should be forfeit his privacy. The possibility of driving the fact of infection underground can be dealt with by establishing confidence on the part of those infected and by educating them to realize that concealment is

445
an anti-social practice. There are also other objections raised against Regulation 33B from the point of view that it would be ineffective. It is said that it would operate unfairly against women. I do not know why, because 33B applies perfectly equally to men and women; there is no discrimination. The objectors to 33B also say that more and better facilities for local treatment will meet the case. But however much you improve the facilities for local treatment, you are only dealing with cure, and you are net tackling the question of prevention.
I consider that these diseases are a social menace. Religious and moral scruples may have operated to weave a cloak of mystery and hyprocrisy about them behind which these diseases have done their deadly work. It is time to strip the cloak aside. These diseases can and should be eliminated. That should be the ultimate aim of Government policy. And to that end a healthy public opinion ought to be created, by education and publicity. Control and elimination should be our aims. The public must co-operate with the health authorities, remembering that apart from all other considerations the cost of elimination will be less than the existing cost of clearing up the wreckage which these diseases leave in their wake. How much are we spending upon research into and treatment of venereal disease as compared with other diseases? This is a matter of public health. Let the public remember that public health is purchasable, and if the public demand it this plague can be stamped out. Education is essential, and removing the taboo on discussion will help the work of education. We have been letting ourselves be ruled by Mrs. Grundy in this matter. I feel that it is time that we faced squarely up to it and looked the facts in the face. We hear much in these days from Sir William Beveridge and from President Wilson about certain freedoms; I do not think that among those freedoms should be the freedom to spread disease and contaminate innocent people and children. I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am quite certain that the House recognizes the great importance of this question, and I for one am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing it. He need not have hinted even at the possibility of an apology for bringing
446
this kind of matter before the House. Quite obviously it is a matter which we ought to discuss, and those of us who sit on the Episcopal Benches are the very first to welcome free and open discussion of a matter which affects morals as well as health. In the last war of course this subject was very much to the fore. I was at that time vicar of a great parish in one of the largest of our seaports, and I know how much this matter of venereal disease was in the mind both of the military and civilian authorities. In some ways the position to-day is even more difficult than it was then. Twenty-five years ago the disease was at its worst in a large class of prostitutes unlikely ever to marry or to have children. To-day that class has dwindled in numbers, but instead there are large numbers of women, some of them not much more than girls, who are not professionals, who would never think of taking money, but who, in the exercise of what they regard as sexual freedom, run risks of disease which may have disastrous results both on themselves and on their children when later they marry.
I do not suppose the Government can give us detailed figures showing how far the disease is spreading both in the Services and in the civilian population. I think if they could it would show us that it was affecting classes which hitherto have been largely immune. The reason for the increase of disease in wartime is of course obvious. You have large numbers of young men and young women, full of life and health, well fed, removed away from their homes, far away from family influence and the standards to which they were accustomed in their locality, often bored with their work and still more bored with their leisure, and from time to time some of them under very great nervous strain. These are the pre-suppositions for sexual licence unless there is very definite conviction in favour of self-control. And those who lack self-control are not always those who are naturally profligate; but you do find occasionally young men from perfectly respectable homes who before they joined the Services had kept free from any risk of incurring disease, but whose self-control under the special circumstances of the time has given way; and the penalty which falls upon them as well as upon the man who

447
is profligate is sometimes perfectly appalling.
The House will rightly expect me to approach the problem from the religious rather than the medical point of view, though there need be no inconsistency between the two. I will state the Christian position quite bluntly. It regards promiscuous sexual intercourse as sin, and it uncompromisingly condemns it as such. The Christian Church cannot therefore approve of any suggested remedy which appears either to contradict this teaching or to condone the sinfulness of such intercourse. Its first duty in this matter is to teach continence and self-control. In the Services the chaplains are given opportunities of doing this. I understand too that the doctors in their lectures on sex make it plain that continence and self-control are the surest safeguards against infection. This should be emphasized throughout every lecture and not come in merely as an incidental remark. It will do infinite mischief if young men who come from decent homes find when they join up that it is assumed as a matter of course they will be immoral. But there are many who never hear the religious appeal or, if they hear it, regard it as irrelevant to their every-day lives. There are many, too, who fail to live up to the moral standard which they know to be right.
In a matter which is so gravely affecting the health and life of the nation it is then clearly the duty of the State to supplement the religious teaching of the Church by bringing home to its citizens the personal and social dangers which may arise from promiscuous intercourse. I understand, and I sympathize with, the position of those who shrink from the public discussion of a question which is both medical and moral, but it would be criminal for the State to allow its citizens to remain unaware of the dangers of venereal diseases and of the best methods of treating them. There is, of course, a great deal of vague and uninformed discussion on these matters, not least among the young. I sometimes think that the hackneyed phrase, "a conspiracy of silence," is in our days inaccurate. I felt that the noble Lord opposite was inclined to overrate the amount of silence on the subject. The subject is very widely and generally discussed, but there is usually
448
very little appreciation of the grave results of these diseases and of their contagious character. I suspect there is less than there was after the last war, when there was active propaganda. Familiarity has bred contempt, and there is a widespread tendency to regard these diseases as easily avoided by certain precautions and as easily and simply cured by modern medical science.
It is in the interests, both of the individual and of the community, that these foolishly optimistic views should be shattered. The horrid quack advertisements of some years ago, now rightly forbidden by law, did at any rate, in a very unwholesome way, bring home to the public the dangers of these diseases. The State should undertake itself, or should entrust the voluntary societies with, such a thorough and careful propaganda that all classes of the population except the youngest should be made aware of the consequences of the diseases and of the necessity of immediate treatment if they have been contracted. Literature, the Press, and occasionally the wireless should be used for this purpose. But when instruction is given to the adolescent, I would urge very strongly that it should not be mainly on these diseases, but warnings against them should be given only incidentally as part of the larger instruction on the meaning and right use of sex. I am confident that the Christian Churches would support a bold and wise policy for the enlightenment of the public on these diseases provided it was always made clear that abstention from promiscuity is the most certain safeguard. I do not believe that scientific lectures, literature, still less the appeal to fear, will prove sufficient deterrents when the religious appeal is ineffective, as it will be in some cases. There should always be a moral appeal for the safeguard of future children and for the welfare of the nation.
I would next urge that there should be suitable extension of the clinics for the treatment of these diseases. There are not nearly enough. Often they are out of reach of the sufferer. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government could tell us how many new clinics have been started since the war began. I should be glad if he could tell us how far these clinics are accessible throughout the country. Often they are far away.

449
They ought always to be a department of a hospital so that those who go to them are not at once recognized as suffering from this disease, as would be inevitably the case if a clinic stood by itself with the title that it was intended for venereal disease treatment. Those who go to these clinics should be treated, as I believe they are, with sympathy and understanding, and encouraged to persevere with the cure. Here I should like to emphasize a point that was made by the noble Lord opposite. It is a most serious matter that so many of those who go to these clinics never complete their treatment. As he says, in this country something like 82 per cent. left before they were cured. By giving up the treatment before he is cured, the patient may endanger his own health, the health of his family, and the health of the nation. While notification is voluntary it is impossible to force him to persevere in the treatment, but much can be done by persuasion, by confidential visits—I know it needs tact and skill—from a social worker connected with the hospital, who will remind the patients of the danger they are incurring by their failure to persevere. I believe that such visits have been undertaken in connexion with one of these clinics in a northern town with considerable success.
Then I would ask the Government—this is another matter—to encourage local authorities to employ more women police. This is not a solution of the problem, but it is a contribution towards its solution. Round a number of military establishments there often collect a number of thoughtless silly girls, who are sometimes a nuisance to the soldiers and occasionally, through sheer foolishness, run into moral danger and later, to their consternation, find themselves suffering from venereal disease. Male police, whether military or civilian, find it extraordinarily difficult to deal with girls of this type. Women welfare workers have not the authority and often, if they offer advice, are merely ridiculed; but the police woman is specially adapted for this problem. She has both the training and authority to deal with this class of girls who are troublesome without being criminal. Experience has repeatedly shown the value of these police women, and the Home Office has already encouraged the local authorities to make more use of them, but the Victorian
450
prejudices of some of the Chief Constables and their watch committees have frequently stood in the way of their employment.
There are two other matters to which I want to make some reference. It is notorious, as I agree with the noble Lord, that one person, through selfishness or ignorance, can infect a large number of people, and at present there is no method by which that person, whether man or woman, can be restrained from doing so. No doubt this is a reason for Regulation 33B, but I am bound to say that I have the gravest doubts about its practical working. I dislike intensely, for instance, the anonymous informer who, out of ignorance or malice, may bring false accusations against an innocent person. The danger of that is much more serious than the noble Lord appeared to realize. I can recall, when I was a vicar, more than one case of a man being threatened with blackmail—sometimes successfully—by some woman. There is a real danger if we are going to have informers who can give their information anonymously. But there also seems to me something absurd and illogical in the position that while a person who is informed against must receive treatment, if found to be infected, the equally infected informers are under no amount of compulsion to receive treatment. I am also very apprehensive of the use which may be made of the so-called clearance certificate. This may encourage a false plea of security, for the person who has received it may be infected again within a few hours.
A much larger question is that of making the notification and treatment of venereal diseases compulsory. Common sense and logic both seem to demand that, if scarlet fever and whooping cough must be notified, the much more serious venereal diseases should also be notified. As the noble Lord has told us, in Sweden notification has been the rule for a quarter of a century with great success. There is also great advantage in the fact that where there is compulsory notification it is possible to insist on the completion of treatment. On the other hand, it is doubtful if at present it would be possible to enforce compulsory notification and treatment in a crowded country like our own. To avoid compulsory treatment there would be a tendency to conceal the disease and to postpone seeking medical advice. I should be greatly interested in

451
hearing what the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, will say on this. Nothing is worse for respect of the law than that it should be disregarded. This threatens to bring all law, not only the specific law infringed, into contempt. The arguments for and against compulsory notification are therefore strong.
While there is any chance of voluntary action in the way of education and treatment succeeding I should be against compulsory action, but if the disease still increases then it would be the clear duty of the Government to reconsider afresh the whole question, and, if necessary, to consider the application to the civil population of the compulsory notification which is already in operation in the Forces. When once the nation understands the gravity of the position, that the health not only of this generation but of the next generation is at stake, I believe it will be ready to welcome legislation far in advance of anything we have at present for the control and reduction of diseases which cause untold mental and physical suffering. But before there is any possibility of the acceptance of such legislation the Government must let the nation know frankly and plainly the actual facts about the extent of these diseases and of the results which follow from them.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat some of the figures you have already heard, and I will limit my figures to a few. It is the fact that in the ten years prior to the war there was a satisfactory decrease of venereal disease, but since the war broke out there has been a reversal in the trend, and we are now in about the same position as we were in in 1932. There has been an increase of 70 per cent. in the number of cases. The increases are chiefly in the ports. In seven ports, comparing 1939 and 1941, there has been a rise in the figures from 942 to 1,909. There is no doubt, therefore, that the increase is a serious one. Figures which I think are perhaps worth attention show that in practice amongst civilians there has been a steady increase of treatments amongst women—45·9 per cent. in syphilis and 29·3 per cent. in gonorrhea. That leads us to this reflection, that we are not dealing with the same problem as our forefathers were even in the last war.
452
The women who are open to contract these diseases belong to more classes than they used to do. There is obviously a class, a professional class, who gain their livelihood and must of necessity be promiscuous. That class is relatively decreasing. There is a second class in which you have the so-called amateur who gets her own living, who is irresponsible in temperament and sets out to get pleasure from the men who attract her and profits by the amusements they give her. In some respects I think that is the most dangerous class of all. They are more likely to give disease where disease is least likely to be expected. But we must not altogether ignore a third class. There are girls of good repute who no doubt will in future become mothers, who set up friendly relations, which friendly relations embrace sex relations, and I think there is an increasing number—one cannot say how many—of venereal infections arising in those circumstances. It is important to mention that, because directly you get outside certain set classes your problem becomes much more o complex and it is more difficult to tackle. There is one good feature about the increase in the women cases amongst civilians and that is it does show that the women do use the clinics. For myself I am a little doubtful whether the labelling of a place makes much difference in days when these things are discussed more openly than was the case hitherto amongst young people, almost across the table. I do not think we need have much fear if good treatment is provided. If good treatment is provided, I do not think that women, any more than men, will be kept away from availing themselves of it.
Both gonorrhea and syphilis are remarkable for the precise knowledge we possess of their causes, and, equally, for the precise knowledge we have of the treatment which will cure them. A third important feature is this, that they both start as local diseases. They do not produce constitutional effects for some appreciable time after infection takes place and that is one of the many justifications for facing up to this problem squarely. We cannot get away from the facts. We have the facts that the causes are known, that the means of treatment have improved vastly, that those methods of treatment are effective; and, what is more, that the diseases start as local

453
diseases and there is a good chance of catching them up. On the other hand, there is a gloomy side to the picture, because if left alone, if left untreated, these diseases do become constitutional, especially syphilis, and the results may go on for years, almost to the end of life. There is the further difficulty with both these diseases that there is a danger of people who contract them not fully realizing even that they have the disease. They may have it so slightly, and they may be the means, quite unintentionally, of infecting those nearest and dearest to them. even their wives and their children.
These being the facts, what is the way of facing them? We have to admit that there is a large boy of opinion—a diminishing body it is true—which has been opposed to taking too much care for these people. A certain body of opinion says that "a man must suffer for the consequences of his own acts." That was seen in the last war only twenty-five years ago, when there was a proposal to put up preventive ablution centres with the idea that a man who knew he had exposed himself to infection co lid there and then undergo ablution and thereby be saved the infection he might otherwise contract. That measure caused a considerable outcry in the last war, as your Lordships know, and great objection was raised to the setting up of the ablution centres because of the old principle "you must suffer for your own deeds." In a truly British way the problem was solved by altering the title of the clinics, and instead of calling them "preventive clinics" they were called "early treatment clinics." A more characteristically English evasion it would be difficult to imagine. However, it did the trick. It must be said for our Catholic friends that at about the same time the difficulty was referred to Rome, and when Rome had given a sufficient consideration to the question it gave out a brief edict that because a man imperils his immortal soul that is no reason why we should not do the best we can for his mortal body. That, I think, really holds the field.
I cannot myself see how this illness can logically or sensibly be treated except under the Public Health Acts,. treated in same way as other infectious diseases. I have never in all my life, and I am sure no doctor ever bas, found that the fair and considerate attention given to a man or
454
woman's body ever had anything but a good effect on that person's mind. Therefore there should be no hesitation. Anything which promotes efficiency of treatment of these diseases should be received with a favourable eye. Take certain other diseases for purposes of comparison. It has been the custom in this country for public health authorities to take gradually more powers. They have done it in that gradual evolutionary way which is characteristic of this country. Local authorities began by asking permission to require notification of infectious disease, and from that point back in the last century the system has grown so that now there are a certain number of recognized notifiable diseases. Since the Act of 1936 it has been within the power of health authorities to take care of the people affected if they are unable to take care of themselves. If, for example, a person is verminous or suffering from scabies it is within the law for that person to be taken for treatment to a public institution. If a patient is suffering from something of an infectious character inside a factory, it is within the power of a public authority to say that the patient must be put away where he will be safe and can be looked after, and where he will cease to be a trouble and menace to other people.
If that system can be applied to such diseases as typhoid, why in heaven's name should it not be applied in the case of venereal disease? There are two sets of difficulties that we have to meet. The first difficulty is in regard to notification. It is true that up to now venereal diseases have not been notifiable, but that is purely a matter of tactics and expediency. I agree with the most reverend Prelate on the subject of notification. I think that people would be more frightened and would be more anxious lest they should be discovered. That is the opinion of most health authorities. But the question of treatment is different. We. know that, apart from those who are afflicted and go to the clinic and carry out treatment, there is an irresponsible residue of persons—they are not vicious, they are people who are feckless, who live for the clay, in other words who have the faults that brought them to grief—who will play about and be responsible for multiple infections, multiple infections indeed as high as seven and ten. I will give your Lordships two examples.

455
There was one instance in the Forces of a woman who gave infection to no fewer than seven men in succession, and of those seven three were married and their wives became infected. There was another case of a girl who haunted a place having infected no fewer than eight or nine people.
It is that hard core of irresponsibles that must be dealt with. In some way or another they must be got hold of. They cannot be dealt with in the ordinary way. In my judgment Regulation 33B has been most carefully thought out and is the best under the circumstances. Many people may say that it does not go far enough, but you can always take a further step forward. It is no longer an offence, as in the last war, to have intercourse with the opposite sex if you are infected, but it is an offence not to go for treatment, which is a purely personal question. There is this protection that if the doctor as the head of the clinic gets to know, as he does get to know, from his men who are the women hanging about the place, and if suspicion falls upon one or two women from more than one source, then the doctor will report these women secretly to the medical officer of health and it will be for the medical officer of health to take steps with the permission of a justice or of a court of summary jurisdiction to secure compulsory treatment. I cannot think that anything serious is likely to occur in such cases, and at any rate what might occur would be better than letting people spread disease in an irresponsible way when they might be restrained for their own benefit as well as for the protection of the community.
There is one other question with which I should like to deal. That is the matter of preserving secrecy, and not only preserving secrecy but preserving the belief of the people in secrecy. That is one of my reasons for hesitating before compelling notification. I am afraid the effect on the ordinary layman's mind would be to make him think that that would mean publicity. There is an aspect of publicity that concerns our legal colleagues. Since secrecy was promised some years ago in connexion with venereal disease, there have been, I think, three occasions on which secrecy has been thrust aside in a Court of Justice. There was the Guildford case
456
where a man was asked to produce the secret books of a clinic. The Judge in Court always looks more formidable in his wig and gown on the Bench than the gentle demeanour of noble and learned Lords here present, and on all the occasions to which I am referring the doctor was practically hammered into giving away the secret. If only a medical man would put his two feet on the ground and say "I won't do it" it would bring an end to the whole business. I think it is worth our while to consider soberly the general question of medical privilege which is here involved. I remember the late Earl of Birkenhead meeting me one day and saying to me: "I hear you are out for medical privilege." I said: "I am looking forward to the day when we can fight that out on the floor of the House." That day never came, but I recall an interesting episode a little later, when Lord Birkenhead said to. me: "I have come round and altered my opinion. I think a modified privilege would be a right and proper thing." It remains, however, that there have been at least two, if not three, occasions when the privilege of secrecy involved in these cases has been ignored and broken, and the consequences, if repeated, will be very serious. I hope that in some way or other there will be a "come together" on this matter, and that the principles to be observed in regard to this question of secrecy will be made abundantly clear.
I think Regulation 33B is a good step forward. It is a step from which we can go on still further if necessary. I, at any rate, think that it is quite a right and wise Regulation. I agree that we do require more centres, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that the country is suffering from a very grave depletion of the medical profession at the present time—a far greater depletion than was ever anticipated when the war began. Effort has been directed to increasing the number of these centres, but it is obvious that in war-time this cannot be done so expeditiously as in times of peace. But, that the best that can be done is being done, I am quite confident.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I shall venture to detain you for a few moments only, but there are one or two points which have arisen in this debate to which I would like to refer. First, about compulsion. I am satisfied, and I think that

457
your Lordships must be satisfied also from what you have heard of the prevalence and terrible effects of these diseases, that venereal diseases are really a peril to the State, and that there is no form of belief in liberty which world prevent one from whole-heartedly accepting compulsion if compulsion would cure the State of the evil which threatens it, especially in war, and more particularly when the persons who are especially affected are members of the Forces of the Crown. Therefore, while the most reverend Prelate—very naturally, if I may say so, and everyone, I think, will agree with him—attaches very much importance to moral education, to Christian education in respect to continence and self-control, at the same time, to try mind, the time has plainly come when, in conditions of war, compulsion ought to be applied. And if compulsion ought to be applied it seems to me that provision is made for its application in a very modest and moderate form by Regulation 33B.
I, for my part, can see no objection to the fact that the informers are to have their names kept secret. There is no doubt that you would get no informers at all if you did not make such a condition. Personally I would go much further. First of all, so far as the people concerned are affected, it seems to me that if a woman who is a professional prostitute is found soliciting and is also found to be infected by venereal disease, that is a case in which she ought to be compulsorily treated. Why you should wait until you have proof of her passing on infection to two other people I cannot think. Obviously she is a danger to the community, and as the noble Lord who introduced this Motion said, in what seemed to me a most convincing speech, it is clear that a woman of that kind in a seaport might destroy, for the time being, a whole ship's crew. I see no reason at an, therefore, why you should wait for two informers in a case where a woman suffering from disease has been found soliciting. I think she ought to be subjected to treatment.
I would go much further than that. I do not see why it should not be made an offence for anybody who knows, or has reason to believe,. that he is suffering from venereal disease not to submit himself to medical treatment. To make the necessary provisions for that I think would be quite easy. Obviously anybody
458
who has heard about and knows of the effect of these diseases would know that a man in fact is very unlikely to avoid going to his doctor, and if he does go to his doctor then he would comply with the law. The only condition I would make is one which was referred to by the noble Lord—that is to ensure that if once a man has begun his treatment for venereal disease he is put under a legal liability to go on with it until the treatment is completed. Once he has beep to the doctor or to the clinic it seems to me quite an easy thing to secure that continuity by law. In an instance in which a man was treated for venereal disease and it was found that he had not gone in time for treatment, he would be making himself liable to the publicity which to my mind is the chief sanction in these cases, and he could be dealt with accordingly.
We have heard a good deal about clinics. No doubt these provide the best way of dealing with these diseases. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, has pointed out,. in the past, and, no doubt, at the present time also, a great many people are treated not by clinics but by local medical practitioners, who in most instances, no doubt, are quite experienced in dealing with these diseases, and quite capable of curing them in, at any rate, the simpler cases—cases of gonorrhea, for example. I have said that secrecy, to my mind, is one of the great essentials if you are going to deal satisfactorily with these diseases. For that reason I entirely agree with the criticism that the clinics should not have put over them: "V.D. Clinic." The first essential is that persons who are encouraged to undergo treatment should be enabled to undergo it without betraying to their neighbours the fact that they are undergoing it. That is one reason why I consider it would be very much better to compel a person to undergo treatment either at a clinic or at the hands of his doctor than it would be to institute a system of compulsory notification. Notification is only a means to an end. It is. only a means to getting a person to undergo treatment. If he does undergo treatment that is all the State can possibly require, and the true object seems to me then to be attained.
From the point of view of ensuring secrecy, I entirely sympathize with the criticism made by the noble Viscount,

459
Lord Dawson of Penn, about the compulsion on doctors in Courts of Law to disclose the treatment of a patient for venereal disease, and I have already spoken to the noble Viscount about this. The late Lord Birkenhead held a different view. The noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, said that Lord Birkenhead did not discuss it in this House, and that may be so; but in his collected papers there is a very animated paper by him controverting the idea that there should be privilege in respect of medical communications. It is most interesting to hear from the noble Viscount that that great Judge eventually changed his point of view.
One of the cases which the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, mentioned, seemed to me to be a terrible case. It was the case of a man who had gone to a clinic under the guarantee of secrecy given in one of those printed communications which are affixed, as the noble Viscount said, in furtive places—by which he means underground lavatories—to the effect that the treatment would be entirely confidential and would not be communicated to anybody. One of these men, acting upon that, went to a doctor and was treated; but, when the case came before the Courts—it was a matrimonial case, I think—the doctor was told by the judge that there was no privilege, and that he must communicate from what his patient had been suffering. To my mind medical privilege, in circumstances of this kind, is a national necessity, because people will avoid going to doctors if they know that a doctor can be compelled in a Court of Law to disclose the information in his possession. I see every reason for protecting the doctor in regard to communications in that respect. If we can maintain secrecy as much as possible, we shall encourage people to go for treatment. I think that they should be compelled to go for treatment, and I think that Regulation 33B is most valuable; I only wish it went further.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene in this debate, especially in a maiden speech in this House, if it were not. That I have been closely connected with all questions and problems and work to do with sex morality on behalf of the Church of England for a considerable number of years. If I am now critical of the policy of the Minister of Health, and
460
in particular very critical of the new Regulation 33B, it is not from any lack of understanding of, or of sympathy with, his problem; indeed, it is not his problem, it is the problem of the nation. The spread of venereal disease in these last years is truly alarming, not merely from the point of view of the sufferers, the point of view of the immense accumulation of ill-health which could have been avoided, but even more as threatening the health of the nation at large and the health of the next generation. The Minister is surely right in determining that something must and shall be done to meet the new needs and therefore the criticism of many people directed against Regulation 33B—and I should like to emphasize that the opposition is very widespread amongst those who know most about these problems from the social, as apart from the medical, point of view—is directed not against the purpose of the Minister in dealing with this problem but against the particular methods that are proposed. Of these methods, of the content of Regulation 33B, others have spoken, and there is no need for me to deal with this matter at length; but there are one or two points which I should like to emphasize.
First of all, there is the rather horrid emergence of statutory blessing given to an informer, something which is very alien to the general spirit of English law, something much more common in the countries against which we are fighting than in our own. Secondly, there is a very real danger that under this Regulation 33B, which is intended, of course, to bring about a decrease in promiscuous relationships, the result may be an increase rather than a decrease, owing to the very real danger of giving a false sense of security. The contact who has been summoned to a clinic and who has undergone treatment will be given what is called a clearance certificate. That is not a certificate of health; it is merely a certificate that he or she is no longer suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form. Obviously there is nothing in the world to prevent that person having the disease in a communicable form an hour after receiving that certificate, but it is inevitable that other people, seeking promiscuity, will interpret that certificate of clearance as though it were in fact a certificate of health. The danger, therefore, of increasing promiscuity, with all the risks of

461
venereal disease still inherent, will be increased.
I doubt very much whether the methods suggested in Regulation 33B will be found to be very practicable in working, but, even if they were found to be successful, they would deal only, and are indeed intended to deal only, with the "hard core," as the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, spoke of it, of irresponsible, perverted and difficult people. I seem to trace something rather illogical in the speech of the noble Viscount when he dealt with that point, for, though he himself said that these provisions were directed against the hard core of vicious persons, he began his speech by showing that that was not the sole class that is under consideration, or the sole class through which the great increase in venereal disease has come. Surely the real problem of this spread of venereal disease is not that hard core, to eliminate which will obviously be a very difficult matter under any Regulations, but the large number of men—I stress "men"—and women, some of them very young, who are not in the least hardened sinners, but. who have, through one circumstance or another, drifted in these war days into a promiscuous mode of life. Consequently, I view these Regulations as a result of faulty thinking on the part of the Minister. They do not show either a true grasp of the problems involved or serious constructive remedies to meet them.
If the desire is—and of course it is—to limit the spread of these diseases and to deal with infected persons, surely the right and the first method is the increase of the number of treatment clinics. At present there are very few such clinics in country areas, and there has been a very small increase to meet the immense changes of population which have filled country areas with large masses of troops or large collections munition and other workers. The facts are, I think, these. According to the latest return there are to-day in England outside the London area—I exclude that—175 venereal disease treatment centres. There were 160 before the war began; so that only 15 new ones have been started since September, 1939. The noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, talked about the serious shortage of doctors. No doubt that is true, but is that really sufficient to justify an increase of only 15 of these clinics in these
462
three war years, with the immense needs of new areas and of large masses of people separated from their homes and from their friends? In Wales there are seven centres in one county, and there are only four centres in the other eleven counties of the Principality. That means that even if people are willing to undergo treatment, the expense involved in visiting the centres and the time involved—almost all in working hours, for there are not very many centres outside big cities that are open out of working hours—are deterrents which in fact prevent a great many patients from seeking the treatment which otherwise they would seek, and which they need and which we would wish to give them.
There is no doubt, I think, that in the pre-war years the system of voluntary treatment at available centres was to a great extent successful in meeting the needs of venereal disease incidence. Surely, then, the right and obvious thing is immensely to increase those opportunities in these war days in order to meet the new and changed needs. But I would plead for something even more than that. Is it not the fact that the Ministry of Health and the authorities of the Armed Forces have concentrated too much on merely trying to prevent or to limit the evil consequences of vicious behaviour? That policy is always largely doomed to failure. What is required surely is far more effort to restrict the vicious behaviour itself. Here is a peculiarly loathsome and crippling disease, or diseases, with terrible consequences both to the sufferers and to the children yet unborn, and they need not continue. These are diseases that could be stamped out in one generation. Why, then, not do very much more to appeal for that self-control which is in fact the only safe way of escape as in line with, and part of, the true self-sacrifice that the times in which we live and the cause in which we are engaged summon us to; in line, too, with the magnificent willingness shown by so many people, both men and women?
And when you consider the recent decision to start recruiting boys from the age of eighteen this becomes a much more urgent and pressing matter. I would assure your Lordships that many mothers have spoken to me with very grave anxiety, aghast at the thought of their boys lacking the right kind of guidance in these difficult questions as soon as they

463
join the Forces of the King. I would go even one step further. Why not have a nation-wide campaign, inspired and backed by the Ministry of Health, carried out by voluntary societies, by the Churches, by local authorities of all kinds, for instructing young people in the dangers of promiscuous relationships, and calling them to a discipline that is worthy of themselves and of the times in which they live? Is it not possible for the Minister to give deeper and wider consideration to this most urgent problem, and enlarge his vision so as to concentrate on greater measures of prevention and greatly increased facilities for voluntary treatment of the sufferers from these diseases?
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, there is one point which I believe has not been brought out in this debate, although I admit I have not heard the whole of it. It always used to be an offence in the Army—I think a court-martial offence—not to report venereal disease to the regimental medical officer. I imagine that that rule still applies.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, it is a fact that this sort of subject is eminently suitable for debate in the non-political atmosphere, for the afternoon, of this House. And while it is to be hoped that the Government will proceed with 33B—I am not going to discuss it this afternoon; it is a first step—it is, I think, further to be hoped that this debate will form the subject of consideration by the Government in the future activities, legislative or otherwise, which will almost certainly be needed to deal with the inevitable increase in venereal diseases. Therefore I make no apology for going a little further than the noble Lord who introduced this Motion in drawing on the experience of the United States of America. If we can learn from them something of what they are doing and something of their difficulties, we can, I think, learn how to deal with the problems with which we are going to be faced, if we are not already faced with them. Attention has been drawn to the improvement which had been effected in the venereal disease position both in Great Britain and the United States. The first million men examined by the American Army proved to have 63,000 venereal infectees. That was as regards syphilis, only one-seventh
464
as much as in 1917, and as regards gonorrhea only one-third. But those figures are based upon a routine clinical examination. I am not an expert in this matter, but the medical authorities in the United States say that the blood tests have revealed thirty-two cases of syphilitic infection for every one revealed by the ordinary examination. Could we know from the Government upon what their figures for venereal infection are founded? Are they founded upon ordinary routine and examination, or are they based upon blood tests? We should know that, so that we may at least build the foundations for the erection of a system to eliminate the disease.
We have heard a good deal about the unwillingness of infectees to proceed with the treatment provided in the hospitals. One of the reasons for that is that the treatment offered is for a very long period. Here we have something to learn from the United States. There has been developed and is in use in a great many hospitals there a five-day drip treatment. There has also been developed in Dayton, Ohio, a one-day treatment. They have got down in some places to a ten-hours' treatment. In the United States marine hospitals the treatment has been reduced to six weeks. It would be interesting to know if we are exchanging information with the American health authorities so as to secure that there is available in this country the knowledge of the progress made in the United States in the cure of this disease.
There is one other point. We have heard a good deal about the danger to the troops of infection, but nothing has been said about the danger to those other troops, the workers in the factories. America has discovered that infection comes from unstable social conditions. There are no social conditions so unstable as the bringing together of tens of thousands of people into new factory areas, and the effect of venereal infection on war production in these areas is inevitable. The Americans have discovered that prostitutes have been peculiarly active in the ship-building yards and aircraft factories. The trade unions in the United States refuse to admit prostitutes as members. In Portland, Oregon, only the other day, one trade union cleared from membership fifty prostitutes who were discovered to be following their trade in the ships which

465
were building in the shipyards there. In San Francisco they discovered women giving out cards with addresses of brothels for use in leisure hours. That is the sort of danger that may even arise to a less extent in this country, and it would be interesting to know whether the Government are giving attention to the matter. In any case it is quite clear that good home conditions, good wages, good food, good social arrangements, will militate against this danger, as will of course general education and education in prevention.
Education in prevention is of course a difficult subject, but I suggest that it is always better to put up a fence at the top of a precipice rather than provide an ambulance at the bottom. If, therefore, we can by some means prevent the infection starting, we have done a good deal. And finally, let me say that a very well-known ex-medical officer of health, Dr. Lister, now Chairman of the National Society for the Prevention of Venereal Diseases, ho s himself suggested that the prevention of knowledge has been one of the causes of the increase in venereal disease in this country. He points out that in his area in the last war, by prevention of infection, the disease disappeared, to use his own words, "as though by magic." He quotes also Sir Archdall Reid who worked, I think, in the former diocese of the most reverend Prelate—at Portsmouth—and who made a report to the same effect. In my own case, in the last war, I had a unit of 250 men, and by simple use of prophylactics available for men going on leave, with brief instructions, we reduced venereal cases to only two during the two years I commanded the unit, compared with an incidence in neighbouring units twenty or thirty times as great; and of these two cases one was due to drink and the other was that of a very young officer. I canont help thinking that if we were to provide more information in the clinics for people who may expect to incur infection, we may do something to diminish the growth of the disease, and therefore add to the war effort. I hope that the Government, in their consideration of means of dealing with this matter, will bear in mind the importance of the suggestions which have been made by many speakers in this debate.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you would wish me first of all, on your behalf, to welcome the speech which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—his first speech in his Lordships' House. We welcome it because it was cogent, penetrating, and full of serious thought, and, irrespective of whether we share the opinions of the right reverend Prelate, we all welcome his intervention. The short answer to the question on the Order Paper is that the Government policy in relation to venereal disease is effectively to control it and, if possible, to destroy it. The Ministry of Health is rightly proud of the fact that, in spite of the war, general health conditions remain good, even robust, with two exceptions—tuberculosis and venereal disease, to the latter of which Lord Winster has usefully called attention. The twentieth century, whatever its faults, may be proud of inaugurating a world campaign against both these diseases, and Great Britain has played a notable and commendable part in that war.
It is desirable that I should explain as quickly as possible the principles that guide His Majesty's Government in relation to the matter before us. Their policy is based on the principles laid down by the Royal Commission of 1913–16. These principles were: (1) Voluntary attendance for treatment, without any system of notification or compulsory powers to secure attendance; (2) treatment (both outpatient and institutional) should be available to everyone free of charge; (3) laboratory facilities for diagnosis should be available to all practitioners free of charge; (4) treatment by unqualified persons should be prohibited; and (5) education of the public should be an essential part of any arrangement of dealing with venereal disease. No. (4) of these principles—treatment by unqualified persons should be prohibited—was brought into operation by the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917. The remainder were embodied in the Public Health (Venereal Diseases) Regulations, 1916.
There were imposed upon councils of every county and county borough in England and Wales certain specific duties. They were required to provide laboratory facilities for the expert examination of specimens by doctors; they were required to start out-patients' clinics and beds for in-patients; they

467
were expected to supply doctors free of charge with arsenical preparations for the treatment of syphilis; they were asked to secure that treatment should be under conditions of secrecy, and to publish such information as would lead to the protection of the people. This policy was started by an Exchequer grant of about 75 per cent. of the expenditure, but in 1929, under the Local Government Act, this was merged into a block grant. This then is the form in which venereal disease treatment service was set up, and it has remained in force until the present time.
If we look at that policy from the point of view of success, we have to say that it did reduce the incidence of these diseases. With reference to cases of syphilis, the number that attended clinics in England and Wales in 1931 was 9,104; in 1939 the number had fallen to 4,986, or a fall of 45 per cent. The experience in Scotland was, I believe, of the same kind. Only in Sweden was there an incidence rate which was materially lower. Lord Winster drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that war always involves social disturbances, the ways of life of people are altered, and under those conditions venereal disease becomes more prevalent. That has been our unhappy experience during the present war. In regard to syphilis the newly-infected cases attending clinics rose by 47 per cent. between 1939 and 1941. The most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, asked whether I could give him the figures. I am afraid I have no accurate figures, but they are estimated to be these. If the infection of the Forces is included, there has been an increase amounting to 70 per cent. The problem is increasing in gravity, but at the same time measures to meet it are also growing. Local authorities are urged to keep a careful watch over their areas, and to provide additional treatment. This concerted plan to meet increased disease is growing, and will grow stronger, we hope, very speedily.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, said that the right way to meet this problem was by an increase in the number of clinics. At the present time there are 249 such clinics in Great Britain where free and confidential treatment is
468
given. Eighteen of these clinics have been opened since the war began, five are now being prepared and will shortly be opened, and there has been started a new scheme for rural areas providing for free treatment under special practitioners—that is practitioners with a special qualification for these diseases—in their own surgeries. There are 109 of these special practitioners serving 74 areas in 11 different counties. Special attention is also being given to the Merchant Service at ports, to which Lord Winster drew attention, because these men represent a very special need. They are away from home, their ships have, as a rule, no doctors, and their case is one of urgency. The authorities are doing their best to meet it.
Regulation 33B, which represents the latest step to combat these diseases, has given rise to some controversy. There are two separate oppositions in this matter. There are those who allege that its provisions are too weak and that it is bound to be ineffective because it does not go far enough. They point to the experience of Sweden, which has had compulsory notification for the last twenty-five years and which has a lower rate of incidence, than ours. The view of the Ministry of Health is that this lower rate of incidence may not be the result of compulsion. Sweden has a population of 6,500,000—less than that of Greater London. Its population is scattered mostly over rural areas. There are only three towns with a population of more than 100,000, and, as Lord Winster has pointed out, Sweden has a very highly developed sense of communal responsibility and of health consciousness. When Lord Winster compares the state of things in Sweden with that of New York, he is not really comparing things that are comparable, because of the rural nature of Sweden and the urban nature of New York City. The Ministry of Health feels doubtful as to whether the Swedish experience would be repeated in our own country because of these differences, so 33B leaves unchanged the voluntary basis of treatment.
Then there are those who oppose compulsion in any form. They feel that it is too uncertain a method and that so far from being effective it may give a kind of false security. The argument is that women will be mainly subject to its operation and not men, that they will be deterred from undergoing early treatment

469
since they will wait for compulsion to be applied, that a false sense of security will be created amongst those who indulge in promiscuous sexual intercourse because fear of infection acts as a deterrent, that the Regulation relies on an "informer" for its operation, and that an innocent person has no redress if thoughtlessly accused by an informer. This Regulation has been most carefully framed to secure equality of treatment for both men and women. We have had it admitted in the debate this afternoon that compulsion does exist in the Dominions and in many other countries, but under Regulation 33B compulsion extends only to a group of persons small in number but responsible for much harm, who are impervious to methods of education and persuasion and who refuse to attend voluntarily.
So far as a false sense of security is concerned, that was stressed by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, and also by the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, who was most anxious about this aspect of the matter. It seems to me that that anxiety rests upon a false idea as to the clearance certificate itself. A doctor will be unlikely to issue this certificate until he is medically satisfied that it is safe to the community to do so. Then the certificate is not kept by the contact but as sent at once to the medical officer of health. As to the fear that persons may give false information and that an innocent person will have no redress, the tracing of persons who spread infection does and must depend upon receiving information somehow. It is not a new practice, let it be understood, for most clinics rightly try to find out the source of infection. Every kind of precaution is taken against the dangers that have been suggested. In the first place, there are heavy penalties for false information; secondly, the special practitioners must be satisfied that the information is medically likely to be accurate; and thirdly, the medical officer of health must also be satisfied before he takes action.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, put certain questions to me. I must ask to be forgiven if I do not answer all the arguments at length, because if I did so we should overrun the time at which we ought to close. The first question was whether treatment centres are adequate in numbers, situation, staffing and medical treatment particularly in areas to which
470
war workers have been transferred. No service is ever perfect—at least I have never been in one that was—but the Ministry of Health as well as the local authorities do keep a continuous watch on these matters and make improvements as evidence suggests that they are needed. Eighteen new centres have been provided since the war began, and as I have said five more are in course of preparation. Also for rural areas there is special provision for treatment by experienced general practitioners.
The noble Lord also asked about the need for clinics to attract women for treatment. This is a proposal which was urged some years ago by the British Social Hygiene Council and the Ministry believes it is based largely on an exaggeration of the unwillingness of women to attend existing centres. The idea seems to be that if special centres were set up dealing with gynaecological conditions generally as well as venereal diseases, and were labelled "Ailments for Women Clinics," the women would attend for treatment more readily. It is doubtful whether this argument is valid. As it is, of the 199 treatment centres in England and Wales about 75 per cent. are part of the out-patients departments of hospitals where all kinds of conditions as well as venereal diseases are treated and are not labelled as venereal disease centres. Furthermore, experience suggests that it is the adequacy of the premises and of the treatment given rather than the labels attached to them that has most influence on attendance by women.
The noble Lord asked how much is spent on research into and treatment of venereal diseases compared with similar expenditure on infectious diseases such as diphtheria, measles and so on. Our information does not enable us to state separately the amount spent on research or treatment in relation to individual diseases. We can, however, say that in 1936 the expenditure by the local authorities on venereal diseases was £450,000 compared with £3,800,000 spent on all infectious diseases. Then the question arises as to whether the arguments put forward against compulsion are really valid. I shall have to ask to be forgiven for not going into that. I have no time and I want to say something in conclusion about another aspect of the subject.
The whole question is surrounded by immense difficulties and there is a most

471
real need for a new and saner outlook in regard to it. If I, as representing His Majesty's Government, could impart into this debate my own private opinion I should be afraid to trust myself to speak about the injury which has been done by self-righteous Pharisees in regard to this matter. If these diseases are hidden it is because those who contract them are afraid to be considered as social lepers. So they hide what they ought to reveal. The psychology of both the sufferer and the community must be altered. The individual has two supreme duties in regard to his body—to keep it clean and healthy, and if it becomes diseased to get it cured as soon as possible whatever it may involve. There must be a better way of dealing with this grave problem than that of ignoring it, unless we still believe that folly and ignorance are the necessary conditions of health and virtue. The matter rests as much with the community as with the individual. These diseases thrive in the conditions of secrecy that they have had to encounter for so many years.
It is not as if these diseases were not responsive to treatment. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson, has satisfied us on that point, and we had in this matter to a degree we have perhaps never had before the whole-hearted cooperation of the medical profession. Mr. Hilaire Belloc, in a playful and perhaps half-malicious comment, wrote these lines:
"Physicians of the utmost fame
Were called at once, but when they came
They answered, as they took their fees,
'There is no cure for this disease.'"
That is not true in this matter. Medically these diseases are curable. It should be the business of the community to take every step to reduce them to the lowest possible number. It should be the duty of the individual to refrain from contracting such a disease, but if he does contract it he should get himself cured as soon as possible. I would, in conclusion, associate myself to a certain extent with what fell from the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, by saying that whatever the medical and practical aspects of the question may be there is much more than a merely physical question. Personal issues are involved, and self-control, the discipline of restraint which every man has to go through in the course of his lifetime, also has to be taken into account. These
472
qualities, which must be encouraged and developed, play an increasing part in the world war against sexual disease, which is now being waged by all civilized nations. In answer to my noble friend Lord Marley, I will say that this debate will be carefully noted by the Department concerned, for which I am speaking to-day. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for the useful and timely discussion which his Motion has evoked.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that a Motion which has drawn such speeches as those to which we have listened to-day from the most reverend Prelate, from the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, and from the right reverend Prelate is well justified. I would say to the most reverend Prelate, to whose opinions I always listen with deep respect, that nothing I have said was intended to contradict the teaching of the Church on this subject, to condone sin or to minimize the importance of continence and self-control in these matters. I noted what the most reverend Prelate said on the subject of silence, and that he said that these matters are discussed widely among young people. I fear that much of that discussion is furtive, and I wish to see it encouraged and brought out into the open by a more frank attitude on the part of the Government and public men to these matters. I think it was the most reverend Prelate who, in referring to Regulation 33B, spoke of anonymous informers. In my view, it is most important to have that matter made straight, because I understand that information, in this connexion, must come from individuals who are under treatment for venereal disease and, therefore, there can be no question whatever of any anonymity about the matter. The hour is late, and I will not refer to other points which have been raised in the course of the debate. I would, however, like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Snell, for so kindly replying to the questions I ventured to put to him. As he has assured us that the policy of the Government is a policy which aims at control and elimination of the evil, I feel that it is a most satisfactory and adequate reply. I therefore beg leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPORT OF CURRENCY
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether any special facilities are accorded to members of the Armed Forces of the various Dominions and of the United States during their stay in this country in respect of the dispatch of financial remittances to their dependants overseas; and, if not, whether they will consider the desirability of relaxing in such instances the regulations governing the export of currency.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it should be made clear in the first place that there are no restrictions on remittances within the sterling area, which includes the whole of the Empire except Canada and Newfoundland. No question arises therefore except for members of the Forces of the two Dominions named, and of the United States. So far as all these Forces are concerned, full arrangements have been made, as from the dates when they first arrived in this country, to enable them to remit to their dependants overseas up to the full amount of the pay and allowances they currently receive. These arrangements are operated partly through banks and partly through official channels—British, Canadian or American as the case may be—and the necessary detailed arrangements have been laid down in instruction to those concerned. The effect is that full provision has been made for what is recognized as a most necessary kind of remittance and that there is no necessity, or indeed scope, for any further relaxation. These arrangements are, of course, fully known to the military authorities concerned, with whom they have in every case been discussed and agreed.

LICENSING OF RECEIVING SETS
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, if they will consider the possibility of amending the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, 1904–1928, in such a way as to relieve members of the Armed
474
Forces of the U.S.A. and other Allied Nations from the necessity of purchasing licences in respect of any radio receiving sets which may be in their personal possession during their stay in this country.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my right honourable friend is making administrative arrangements which will effect the object of the noble Lord's suggestion without necessitating an amendment of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTA TION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1942.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order be made in the form of the draft approved by the House on the 18th of November last.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NORTH AFRICA.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBOKNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to make an intimation to noble Lords. I have been asked by the Leader of the Labour Party whether on the first sitting day of the next series I should be prepared to make a statement on developments in North Africa, including the position of Admiral Darlan, similar to that which is being made in another place in Secret Session on the third sitting day of the present series. I shall be very ready to do this in answer to a private notice question. The House may be assured that such a statement will not appreciably delay the business on the Paper as there will be no debate on it. It will be taken at the beginning of business, and in Secret Session.
House adjourned.