Sitting of 25 October 1946

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  PALESTINE (TERRORIST ACTIVITIES)
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke (By Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the sharp increase in terrorist activities in Palestine in the last few days; and what further precautionary measures are contemplated to safeguard the lives of British troops and police.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. During the last few days there has been an intensification of minor terrorist activities in Palestine, noticeably in the mining of roads and the planting of explosives in public places. Attacks on individual soldiers and policemen have occurred, and during the last month casualties to troops and police have amounted to five killed and 12 injured, not counting casualties in last night's outrage, as to which details have not yet been received.
  I should like to express the abhorrence which I am confident the House feels at these abominable and cold-blooded outrages, and our keen realisation of the trials and dangers which beset troops, police, administration, and indeed all concerned with the maintenance of law and order in Palestine. I am sure that our condemnation of these acts is shared by large sections of the Jewish population there. These outrages, which bring sorrow and anxiety to so many homes,
  156
  come at a time when every effort is being made to bring about a release of tension in Palestine, and to discover a solution of the long-term problem of the future of the Holy Land. Their effect can only be to postpone the day when a just and lasting settlement can be reached.
  The House will not expect me to enter into detail as to the precautions being taken and the measures contemplated for the future. I can however give an assurance that, quite apart from military operations, all possible steps are being and will be taken.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that measures like the repeated reimposition and lifting of the curfew, and the comparatively light sentences now being passed—for example, one year for a man closely connected with the illegal storing of arms—are adequate, having regard to the generally inflamed state of the country?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I want to assure the House that both the civil and the military authorities are very alive to the complexity of the problem and have it constantly under review. They are determined, and are taking all precautions to meet so difficult a situation.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: In connection with this new series of outrages has the Minister received any offer of co-operation from the Jewish Agency, either here or in Palestine?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I want to make it clear that this is the ebb and flow of outrage. It is not, as it were, a new spurt in outrages. It is a continuous policy on the part of a group of terrorists. We have recently had discussions with the Jewish Agency, and I think there is a disposition to help towards the restoration of order. I hope that these discussions which we have had will be productive of good results.
  Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Office to see that the facts of this situation are made widely known in New York, where there is intensive propaganda, not merely on behalf of the Zionists but actually on behalf of the terrorists?
  Mr. Creech Jones: We are alive to that also, and that will be, done.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendment.
  Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 46, at end, insert new Clause A (Availability of transferred documents and staff for compensation proceedings.)
  "It shall be the duty of the operating company—
  (a) to afford, without payment, to any company mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, such facilities as that company may reasonably require in prosecuting its claim to compensation under this Act for the examination of, and the taking of copies of or extract from, documents relating to the operating company's undertaking; and
  (b) so far as may be reasonably necessary in order to enable any such company effectually to avail itself of the right conferred by the preceding paragraph and to prosecute its claim, to enter into arrangements for its having, for such period as may be reasonably necessary for that purpose, the services of any person in the employment of the operating company."
  11.10 a.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment provides for the reasonable use of the services of the cable company's staffs and for such access to their records as the holding companies mentioned in the First Schedule may desire to have up to the appointed day for the purpose of making any claim they might desire to make for compensation. It follows in general terms, similar provisions which were put into the Coal Bill, and this Amendment is in line with a suggestion put forward during the sittings of the Select Committee at the instance of the petitioners.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
  11.12 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move,
  "That the date of expiration of Section of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, be postponed to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."
  This Motion is to continue in force until 31st December, 1947, Section i of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, which will otherwise expire at the end of this year. The effect of the 1944 Act is to suspend any requirement as to a qualifying period of residence for inclusion in the civilian register of electors. The genesis of this matter is to be found in Section 5 (1) of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act of 1943. Provision is there made for a person's inclusion in the electoral register in respect of an address for which he had been registered in the National Register for a period of two months terminating on a qualifying date. This qualification was subject to the condition that a removal from one address to another in the same constituency during the qualifying period, would not destroy the maturing qualification. A second condition was that a qualification once obtained, subsisted until a subsequent qualification was acquired.
  It was found that the administrative and clerical operations necessary to ascertain the existence of an electoral qualification in accordance with the 1943 Act were very intricate, and experience soon showed that the staffs at the disposal of the electoral registration officers were not sufficient, either in quantity or quality, for the purpose of dealing with this work. As a result, the Act of 1944 provided that a person should be registered in the electoral register for the address at which he was registered in the National Register as residing on a qualifying date.
  This Act of 1944 was due to expire at the end of 1945 unless it was renewed by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but Section 2 of the Elections and Jurors Act, 1945, continued it in force until the end of this year. The practical difficulties that the registration officers would have in operating this complex procedure of the Act of 1943 are still extremely great, and the staffs of local

  159
  authorities are so limited, and the work that they are doing is of such importance and, in many cases, of such urgency, that the Government would not feel justified at this stage in adding any unnecessary labours to their duties. Moreover, the present electoral registration arrangements are not of a permanent character because, as the House knows, there is in existence a Committee to consider this matter, on which all the principal parties are represented. This Committee was appointed to consider whether any changes should be made in the existing system of electoral registration to bring it to peacetime requirements. It will be reporting very soon and one of the matters which will fall to be considered in the light of its recommendations, will be whether as a long term measure any qualifying period should be restored. Therefore pending the report of the Committee the Government are satisfied that the right course is to make no change at present and to continue the arrangements which have operated in respect of registers prepared in 1945 and again this year.
  In those circumstances I ask the House to approve the Motion because, as I think I have shown, the existing arrangements are purely temporary, and to revert to the 1943 arrangements, where it would be necessary to reestablish two months qualification with all the work that that would involve on local authorities staffs, would be imposing a burden on local authorities which present circumstances would not justify.
  11.18 a.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: The hon. Gentleman has explained very clearly to the House the reasons for this Motion. It is obviously necessary to prevent a reversion, on 31st December this year, to the complex procedure embodied in the Act of 1943 which, for various reasons which the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the registration authorities have found themselves unable to operate hitherto. I think it was on 12th October, 1945, that the Home Secretary announced the appointment of the Committee on Electoral Registration, whose terms of reference included a variety of subjects, but whose main task is to report upon the working of the present system and to recommend a system of registration which will prove permanently satisfactory. I could have wished that the Committee
  160
  might by now have presented their report and that the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary might have been in a position to introduce permanent legislation, but obviously we cannot hurry the Committee over such an important task. The hon. Gentleman indicated that the report of the Committee might be expected shortly. If that is so, I hope the Government will waste no time in making up their minds with regard to permanent legislation because I regard it as of prime importance that we should have an accurate and a satisfactory register available in the event of a General Election next year.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): What—an election for Parliament?
  Mr. Peake: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree, that it is of vital importance that Parliament should be in a position to dissolve itself and renew itself at any time? It would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in a democratic country if, for purely technical reasons, reasons of machinery, we were unable to have a General Election.
  All registers based upon the national registration machinery, in my opinion, have proved unsatisfactory. Accuracy is the first essential of a Parliamentary register. Before the war, although many people were disfranchised through removing from their residences, and for other reasons, one never had a complaint that anybody entitled to be on the register had been left off the register. At the last Election there were many complaints, and many proved cases, of persons with a good entitlement to be on the register whose names had been omitted through some clerical or other error. That situation does democracy a great deal of harm, because the main function of democracy is exercised by the people by placing a cross upon a small slip of paper once in every four or five years. If a man or woman finds that, through administrative error, he is deprived of that privilege, he or she has a very serious grievance against our constitutional system. Therefore, I hope that the Committee now sitting will report in favour of a reversion to the system we had before the war, which, although it did not give us a register which was always completely up to date, did give

  161
  us a register which was nearly 100 per cent. accurate. We cannot object to the Motion now before the House, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will hold out hope of early legislation and of a reversion to the satisfactory system we had in operation before the war.
  11.22 a.m.
  Mr. Beechman: On behalf of myself and, I believe, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I can say that we do not intend to offer any opposition to this Motion. But I should like to underline what has already been said about the imperfections of the register at the last Election. There were complaints all over the country in large numbers about omissions from the register, and citizens felt very indignant about the matter. I am not making any criticism, because at that time our officials were extremely overworked and it was obviously most difficult to compile a register. But I hope the Government will take steps to see that there is an adequate staff to make the register complete.
  I would also like to emphasise the point which has been made about the importance of legislation being introduced as soon as possible, so that the citizens of this country may know on what basis they are going to vote. It is true at the moment there does not appear to be an Election impending immediately, but we all know how quickly the weather may change in this country, and we all want to know what the basis will be. There are many problems to be considered. The Government must be well aware that many people, in all parties in this House, are feeling a little unsure as to whether we are taking the right steps in regard to our electoral arrangements. I am not going to elaborate this point but, for instance, we should have decided what the local authority boundaries are to be, before we decided what the Parliamentary boundaries are to be. I say no more about that, Mr. Speaker, because, quite rightly, you are keeping a vigilant eye on the boundaries of my observations. With these remarks I offer my support to the Government on this Motion.
  11.26 a.m.
  Mr. Keeling: I think it is no exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects were unable to vote at the last Election.
  162
  Among them was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Churchill), who was not on the register which includes 10, Downing Street, or on any other register. I understand that, through one cause or another, he has never been able to vote in a Parliamentary Election. I hope that at the next Election, whether it comes next year, or at any later date, he will be able to vote. I do not oppose this Motion, especially as I am, with several other hon. Members, a member of the Committee which is sitting on this matter under the chairmanship of the hon. Member the Under-Secretary. We have been working very hard, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, we expect to report soon—he said very soon. It is quite certain that legislation will be required, and a new system of electoral registration is urgently required. May I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will arrange that there should be a promise, in the King's Speech, of the necessary legislation next Session?
  11.27 a.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I am afraid I do not view this matter with quite the same placid outlook as previous speakers. I am one of those who hold, rightly or wrongly, that of all the duties imposed on a Government, the duty of enabling electors to vote and of ensuring that all are registered, is the highest of all possible priorities. That is the primary thing a Government should do. I may be right or wrong, but I hold that old-fashioned, democratic outlook. We are told that this postponement has to be made for two reasons. In the first place, there is the lack of labour. That is quite obvious all through the country, but I should that thought that, at the present time, with the enormous data necessary for completing our register, and getting a better method, we could have used some of the clerical labour which is being used in some other schemes. A higher priority should have been given for this purpose. Although, unfortunately, we have to accept that excuse today, I hope it will not be used very much longer. The other point made by the Under Secretary was that we could not possibly hand very much more, if any, of this work on to the local authorities. I entirely agree on that, but I think it is fundamentally a bad thing that again we should have to postpone the expiration of a Section of this Act. There are many inevitable postponements

  163
  at present, but of all the things that are bad, postponement of this kind, which must inevitably leave the register less complete, is worst.
  May I say a word or two on the Committee which is sitting, and to which a certain amount of reference has been made? We are told that their report will be presented soon, or very soon. I am not taking that as anything except interesting information which we receive with hopefulness. But I hope that before agreeing to this Motion we may have some kind of pledge that when the Committee reports the Government will not merely give consideration to it but will give a real pledge that, early next year, when we come back after Christmas they will bring in definite legislation on the matter. Otherwise I do not see the good of setting up a Committee of this sort which must delay matters. When a report is made by a Committee on a matter of such high priority as elections, surely that report should be implemented by the House as soon as possible.
  If that pledge can be given it will do something to relieve the anxiety of a good many of us who dislike this method of having to pass Motions of this kind. I would only add that there is a greater need, as I see it, for trying to return to a more perfect system of elections than seems to be in the minds of certain speakers. I would submit with great seriousness that I have never seen any House of Commons—and this does threaten an election—in which signs of senile decay were so apparent at so early a stage in its existence. Cabinet Ministers do not attend here, and all sorts of things of that sort are creeping in, and from that point of view there is much greater urgency attaching to this question than might be thought in a House of Commons which is not quite a year and a half old.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the date of expiration of Section f of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, be postponed to the thirty first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CIRCUIT OFFICERS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.32 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill comes from another place, and as its Title would import, will be more particularly of interest to those Members of the House who are in the legal profession in one capacity or another. The objective of the Bill is limited. It is designed to effect certain Amendments in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, to pave the way for a scheme whereby the staff of assize courts would be reorganised on a central system under the control of the Lord Chief Justice. As Members may or may not know, the principal officers in assize court administration are the clerk of assize, the circuit associate, the clerk of indictments, and then there is the circuit bailiff. The clerk of assize is a barrister. As the law stands he does not necessarily have to be a barrister, but he is one in practice, and for the proper performance of his duties it is, in fact, necessary that he should so be. He is employed only part of his time on circuit, he has no pension rights, and the circumstance of his being only part-time employed is reflected in his salary. The circuit associate and the clerk of indictments are likewise only employed part-time. They again have no pension rights, and their salaries are substantially lower than that of the clerk of assize.
  The first objective of the Bill is to improve the conditions of service of these officers. Under the new system pension rights would be conferred upon the clerks of assize, and they would be put in a position similar to that of the King's Bench masters, although their salaries would be lower than theirs. With regard to the other officers I have mentioned, they would become part of a new department of the central office of the Supreme Court, and they would be integrated with the higher grade clerks of that new department. That, therefore, is the first objective—to improve the conditions of service of those officers.
  There is a second purpose to be achieved by the Bill. At the moment the system under which the associates work

  165
  is rather anomalous. There are circuit associates of whom I have spoken. As members of the legal profession very well know, when judges are sitting in civil cases in London there are London associates who assist them. The London associates have important duties in the conduct of the business of the court. They have to prepare the certificate upon which the final form of the judgment is based. As things work at the moment, when judges are on circuit the London associates do not go with them, and, therefore, they are, in a sense, out of work while the judges are not in London. Conversely, when the judges are sitting in London, the circuit associates do not come to London, and there is sometimes difficulty in finding the necessary London associates to man the civil courts in London.
  When the new system is introduced the circuit associates will, as I have said, be part of the new department of the Central Office, and they will be available, both the London associates and the circuit associates, to work as required, either in London or on circuit. That would obviously bring about a much more efficient system of their work. It is proposed that the clerks of the assize should, when they are not on assize, take a hand in the training of the associates, who would form part of this new central department. These are the objects of the Bill.
  If hon. Members will turn to the Clauses they will see how these objects are brought about. Clause I(I) effects a change in the manner of the appointment of clerks of assize. At the moment they are appointed by the circuit judge on circuit. With a view to the centralisation system it would be better, it is thought, if their appointment lay in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice. The judges are agreeable to relinquishing their privilege of appointing the clerks of assize. That would be done, under the new system, by the Lord Chief Justice, and that is effected by Clause I (I). The clerks of assize would, under the Bill, have to be barristers; hitherto they could have been solicitors. They also had another qualification, which would be adequate under the law as it stands.
  As I said earlier, it has in practice been found necessary for the clerk of the assize to be a barrister. He must be a Member of the circuit mess. For the
  166
  proper discharge of his duties he must be in a position to keep closely in touch with members of the Bar on circuit. In practice, it is also the case that clerks of assize for a long time—so far as I know, always—have been members of the Bar and not solicitors. Therefore, under this Clause they would have to be barristers, and the qualification of solicitor would be abandoned. The next Subsection applies to them the statutory provisions which embody the pension rights which will now be conferred upon them—pension rights, rights in relation to retirement, appointment, salaries, etc. They are to be found in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and that Act would be extended to include clerks of assize.
  Clause 2 deals with circuit officers other than clerks of assize. The Clause abolishes their offices, and provides that, in future, their duties shall be carried out by members of the new department of the Central Office of the Supreme Court. That is to bring into effect the second objective which I indicated, to integrate the circuit associates and London associates, and generally make possible a centralised system. The result of that would be that their emoluments and pension rights would be integrated with those of the clerks of the higher grades in the central office of the Supreme Court. Subsection (2) deals with the circuit bailiffs. There will be no change in their conditions, but for various technical reasons it is necessary to introduce them into the Bill, and that is done here. Subsection (3) deals with the appointed day.
  As hon. Members will readily realise, in order to bring into operation a scheme of this sort a good deal of administrative work will be necessary. The rules will have to be made in order to bring into being the new department of the Central office. It is for this reason that the scheme under the Bill, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, is only to be brought into operation as from an appointed day. Clause 3 is the formal Clause which always appears in a Bill. It contains the short title, commencement, repeal and extent. The Bill is designed to obtain a limited end. It will effect a considerable improvement in the present system of the staffing of assize courts, and it will also improve the conditions of service of those who are employed in

  167
  staffing the courts. I ask the House to say that it is a useful Measure, that there can be no objection to it, in principle at any rate, and I therefore ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  11.42 a.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Although lawyers often trespass on the good nature of the House, I hope that they do not too frequently do so on their own professional affairs. Therefore, I shall ask the House to forgive me, as I am a circuit lawyer by origin and affection, for a brief moment to pay tribute to those whose positions we are considering today. The clerks of assize do a great deal more than merely sit under the "red judge." Almost all of His Majesty's judges owe a great debt, which they freely admit, to the wise counsel which they have received from the clerks of assize. This extends not only to intricacies of procedure but also to advice tactfully and silently given with regard to sentences. In effect, it produces a steady standard of sentence, geographically, which in my view is of great advantage to the administration of justice.
  From the point of view of the Bar they are equally important. To young members of the Bar their advice is just as valuable, and many a distinguished leader has learned from their lips in forthright terms the first quality of an advocate, namely, not to ask questions to which he does not know the answers. Their success is essentially an intimate one, but their work continues and makes a recurring contribution to the great and flowing stream of the law. I therefore feel that any step which does, on the long view, improve their status and position is one which the House, as one of the guardians of the administrations of justice, should welcome. I am glad to hear from the learned Solicitor-General that he agrees with the sentiment expressed elsewhere, and with which I myself agree entirely, namely, that it is found essential in practice, if the clerk of assize is to do his work properly, that he should be a member of the circuit and, indeed, a member of the circuit Bar mess where he can be in close touch with barristers actually practising on that circuit. I am fully prepared to accept the other alteration, that he should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. To us circuiteers there was always an un-
  168
  certainty under the old methods as to whether the relevant judge of assize to whom by chance the appointment came, might be as familiar with the conditions on the circuit and the problems of the circuit as was necessary to make the appointment satisfactory and successful.
  I now come to the second part of the Bill, dealing with other officers. I should be very grateful if the learned Solicitor-General would at some time give us some further information about Clause 2. The associate, as he has told us, sits with the judge who takes the civil business at assize. He is usually, but not necessarily, a barrister and, as it works at present under what I may call the system of devolution, he has a peculiar knowledge of the workings of the civil list at assize—the making up of the lists, the arrangement of business, which of itself is of great help not only to practitioners but to litigants. Many hon. Members are aware that the conditions of assize are that people are assembled for a day's work from wide areas. It is important that the business should be arranged to suit their convenience and not to prejudice them by increasing the difficulties of travel. It is essential, therefore, that the associate should be eminently approachable by members of the Bar, solicitors, jurors and all those who have come to take part in the administration of justice. That has been the case, by and large, in the present method of working.
  Now the office of associate on the circuit is to be abolished, and the objective of the Bill, as I understand it, is that the procedure is to be that officers of the Central Office, who will be clerks in the higher grade of the Central Office of the Supreme Court, will in time take their place. Whether this will function well depends on the training that is given and the trouble that is taken to make those officers who are going to deal with the circuit business really knowledgeable about the problems with which they will have to deal and the circumstances of the circuit on which they have to go. I was a member of the Northern circuit and, therefore, most familiar with conditions in Lancashire, but I have had the honour to go on the Welsh circuit and I appreciate the conditions there. There are very special conditions. From a look at the cause list one can see where the parties are likely to come from, how many of them will require that a case should be heard in or

  169
  interpreted into Welsh and numerous other special problems of that kind. It is essential if we are to centralise, that the officers of the centralised system should he trained and practised in the special circumstances of the circuit with which they will have to deal I should like to hear from the learned Solicitor-General what procedure has been foreshadowed in regard to this Bill to see that the training is effective. Devolution has worked and has been a convenience, but there is a burden on those who suggest centralisation to see that it will fit the circumstances of the case and the people who will be affected.
  A minor point arises in regard to clerks of indictment which the learned Solicitor-General will appreciate. He has to deal with the taxation of the bill of costs in criminal cases. One knows, when one has been there, what happens. We get a very busy representative of the prosecuting local authority, who comes over for the day and who has to get his bill through or come back and make another journey, interrupting his other functions as a local authority officer. It is most important that we should have somebody there who is completely familiar with the special problems that arise on the taxation of bills in criminal cases at assizes, and, again, I ask the learned Solicitor-General whether it has been considered how the officers of the central office are going to be trained in this special work, because, as far as I know, the taxation of criminal bills is not a matter which does occur in a building in the Strand.
  That is a point on which I myself and some of my hon. and learned Friends have felt a little apprehension. We are all for the improvement in the status of these officers, because we know very well what admirable services they have given to the community under the conditions which the learned Solicitor-General explained, which were often difficult for them, but we do want to ensure that the community—and, after all, the law is only one of the essential services to the community which the State must provide—we want to ensure that provincial communities who are affected by the circuits will not receive any less good and less efficient services because of this change.
  It is important that we should have some indication that this training will be given and that this adaptation of these
  170
  officers for this special work will be well and efficiently done. If that is the case, we raise no objection to the Bill. We welcome fully the provisions for a better status, but we should like to receive some assurance, and, if that is given to us, we shall be happy to cooperate in letting the Bill go through.
  11.54 a.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: In speaking from this side of the House, I desire, first of all, to say that I do not take the view that we, as lawyers, must regard this Bill as if we were doing something to our own advantage. Anything that contributes to an improvement in the administration of justice is desirable. It is not only desirable but laudable; it is not only desirable from the point of view of practising lawyers, who, no doubt, under the present system, are in exactly the same position, but desirable because of the value which will undoubtedly accrue to the public itself.
  I would like to endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said about the services of the legal functionaries on the circuits. It is the recognition of their full-time status, and of the fact that they are entitled to the consideration which is usually given to the permanent functionaries, that will, I am sure, be most welcome and acceptable to every lawyer on this side. It is an absolutely indefensible position that we should take a man like the clerk of assize, who performs the most important and very helpful functions on the occasion of his work, and leave him in a part-time position, and a precarious position, in which he can do practically no other work. I think that, as the law stood, he was unable to take any work on the circuit on which he was engaged as clerk of assize. In view of what a clerk on the circuit has to do, he was unable to do anything else, because his probable position is that he is only known there. His position also necessitated periods of being out of town, so that he would not possibly make contacts and do any other work. The net result to him was that the only means of subsistence and employment which he had were those he received from the duties he performed as clerk of assize. This is, of course, absolutely indefensible, and an almost reprehensible position. This Bill means that his position will be put right.

  171
  The learned Solicitor-General indicated that the status of a clerk of assize would now correspond to that of a master of the King's Bench, but he also indicated that the salary would not be quite the same. As far as I can gather—and perhaps the learned Solicitor—General will clarify the point—it is proposed that the pension is to be the same, but not the salary. I am not quite sure if that is the intention, and would like a further indication on the subject. I hope that this matter will be considered very seriously. It may very well be that a man who performs the office of clerk of assize is under larger private expenses than a master of the King's Bench, and it certainly is essential, if we are to put any one in the very responsible and influential position of clerk of the assize, that, at least, his mind should be eased with regard to his subsistence. We shall never get the maximum full exercise of judgment unless the person whose judgment is to be used is free from the apprehensions that come from inadequate emoluments. Therefore, I ask the learned Solicitor-General to clarify this position by saying that these officers will be given the same status as a master of the King's Bench.
  Another point that concerns us very much is the position with regard to associates. I have had some experience on the circuits, though not, perhaps, as much as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because my practice in the last decade has been mainly in town, but it is perfectly clear that the position of an associate is a very important one, and I can see no reason why, if he is appointed in the way which is now suggested, so that he is convertible for use either in London or on circuit, his legal position should be prejudiced. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it must not be prejudiced, because the main function of an associate i not the work he will do in London but the work which he will do on assize. If there were any competition or rivalry between his work at the assize and in London, we would naturally have to come down in favour of the assize, because that would be his primary function.
  I quite agree it is essential that there should be no derogation from his usefulness and effectiveness in that capacity, but I do not really see that there should
  172
  be any difficulty. It is true that when he is not occupied with the work of the assize circuit, he will probably come to London and do his work there, but if there is great care and selection in the appointment of the person, so that he has the local attributes, knowledge and cameraderie necessary for the effective discharge of his functions, I do not think there would be any loss in his doing that; indeed, I think there would be an advantage. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General agrees with me in this. I think the practice and experience which the associate will gain in London, and the constant contact he will have with judges will contribute to his usefulness and rather enhance than diminish his value.
  I look upon this Bill as one which ought to be accepted; it is useful, and it will undoubtedly be an improvement in the administration of justice. Finally, it is clear that the proposal to bring the whole of these appointments and the direction of this administration under the Lord Chief Justice must be right. The idea of desultory appointments by the senior judge going on the winter assizes cannot be supported. This Bill will give fixity, concentration and continuity to the appointments, and the Lord Chief Justice will undoubtedly be guided by local considerations and such assistance as he can get with regard to the appointments. On all those grounds, I heartily welcome this Measure.
  12.3 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I welcome anything that will improve the conditions of service of the circuit officers. For a long time their pay has been niggardly and they have had no pension. In many cases they have done very hard work for very little reward, and many of them have been unable to afford to retire, which has not always led to efficiency. Welcoming as I do anything that will improve their conditions, I am sorry to strike a discordant note. I am wholly opposed to the abolition of the offices of associate and clerk of indictments, at all events as far as the Northern circuit is concerned. I do not attempt to speak with regard to conditions on the smaller circuits, where these officials are only part time officials, and where there may be a case for rationalisation and centralisation. On the Northern circuit—that is to say, the courts which handle

  173
  High Court litigation in Lancashire, Cumberland, Westmorland, and to a considerable extent from Cheshire—the courts sit almost permanently. As soon as one assize finishes at Manchester, the next commences up North, and we have the High Court in almost continuous session up there. This means that on the Northern circuit the associate and the clerk of indictments have almost a fulltime job.
  I feel that I need not, as a member of the Bar, apologise for speaking on this subject, because this will not really affect members of the Bar, but it will affect, in my submission, the smooth and orderly administration of justice, which, after all, is the concern of litigants, witnesses, and solicitors as well as of members of the Bar. The present position is that on the Northern circuit there are the clerk of assize, the associate and the clerk of indictments, all of whom are members of the Bar, who work as a team, and are well known locally, and two of them live locally. I submit that this system has worked extremely well. The duties of the associates are, first of all, to issue certificates or orders recording the decisions of the court. That is not always done immediately after a case has been disposed of, and if these are to be issued by clerks found from a central pool in London, it may be found that some point about the order or the certificate with regard to damages will not be raised until the assize is over. It may be that the clerk concerned may be in Truro, or in some remote part of the country, on another assize when the solicitor in Manchester, or wherever it may be, wishes to clear up some point about the certificate or decision of the court. It seems to me that unless there is the continuity which at present exists with the same official sitting on the same circuit continuously, considerable inconvenience will be imposed upon litigants. It will mean that all the correspondence will have to go through London, which I think will be a great burden, whereas now it is simply a question of fixing an appointment with the associate, and the matter is cleared up straight away.
  The second duty of the associate is to fix the lists. There can be no greater inconvenience to a litigant that to have an inefficient compilation of a list. It does not affect members of the Bar particularly, because they are probably there in any event, but if there are ten cases
  174
  in a list, and only one of them can be taken, it means that all the witnesses in the other nine cases have to spend the day hanging about. There is no doubt that the compiling of the lists is a matter which needs very nice judgment, and everything that has been said about the clerk of assize being a member of the circuit applies to the associate in relation to his task of the fixing of the list. It is of very great advantage if the associate has opportunities of getting in touch with the individual members of the Bar in order to gather the necessary information for fixing the lists. I repeat that everything that was said in another place with regard to the reasons for the clerk of the assize being a member of the Bar applies also to the associate. There is also the fact that, on the Northern circuit, the associate very frequently sits as an additional clerk of assize. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said, in criminal matters there is a very great responsibility on the clerk of the court, and there are very great advantages in the associate having a knowledge of criminal practice and being a member of the Bar.
  With regard to the clerk of indictments, his task is to draw indictments, to tax costs, and to sit occasionally as a deputy for the clerk of assize or associate. In the drawing of indictments there is great advantage in having continuity and in having a local person. If the indictments are wanted for a series of cases coming on in the near future, and the clerk of indictments is away in some other part of the country, it makes the whole business very much more difficult. In fact, it means that far more indictments would have to be settled by counsel than is at present the case. Therefore I am speaking against the interest of my own profession when I say that it would be much better to continue the present system of a permanent clerk of indictments who is a local person, who is well known, and in whose office there is continuity. As has already been mentioned, the taxation of costs should be performed by persons with knowledge of local matters. It is a small matter, but it affects the pockets of many people. If they do not get proper allowances for their expenses, or if their costs are not properly dealt with, there is a feeling of resentment against the administration of justice. Therefore, this

  175
  work should be done by people with a substantial degree of local knowledge. My last point on clerks of indictments is that on a large circuit a clerk of indictments may sit as a deputy clerk of assize or a deputy associate, for very often there happen to be three courts.
  In the case of the Northern circuit, there are weighty reasons for continuing the present system. The whole demand with regard to the administration of justice has been to get more decentralisation. That has been felt very strongly in Lancashire for a long time. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will, I think, agree that there are three criteria for a system of justice: first, that justice should be impartial; second, that it should be cheap—though I do not think we can pretend that this Measure has anything to do with those two matters—and, third, that it should be local. This Bill does affect that. I submit that instead of transferring this work to a centralised pool in London, it should be performed by local people who would do it much more efficiently. I would like to know whether there cannot be provided some loophole whereby the Northern circuit could "contract out" of this arrangement; in other words, that the present state of affairs which has worked well should be permitted to continue. I conclude by repeating that I wholeheartedly welcome the provisions to improve the conditions of employ-ment of these circuit officers
  12.12 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Most hon. Members, whether they are members of the legal profession or not, will welcome this useful, if minor, reform in the administration of justice. I take it as a happy and agreeable indication that the Law Officers of the Crown occasionally get to the head of the long ministerial queue for Parliamentary time and are thereby enabled to introduce reforms of this character. I hope it is the precursor of more important legal reforms which I trust the learned Solicitor-General will have the opportunity of introducing in the not too distant future, such as the implementation of the Rushcliffe Committee's report on legal aid, and other matters. The change which is the subject of discussion now is, in my view, long overdue. I do not share to quite the same extent as preceding speakers the
  176
  eulogies which have been pronounced upon the work carried out by clerks of assize. In my view, their somewhat dilatory methods have on some occasions tended to impede the course of justice rather than to assist it. I can think of cases where, for example, an applicant for a Service divorce has had his case held up for weeks simply because a communication addressed to a clerk of assize has not been answered.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If my hon. and gallant Friend would permit me, it is only fair to clerks of assize to say that divorce practice on circuit is in. the hands of the divorce registry in London. It is perfectly true that it is done locally, but some one is always sent down specially from the London Registry to deal with it. Therefore, to attribute any fault, if any, to the clerk of assize in that respect is not placing the fault where it lies.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If my hon. and learned Friend had waited one moment I would have clarified that point. It is not solely in respect of divorce practice that I am making this complaint. It arises from some such circumstances as these: A Service applicant under the Army legal aid scheme desires to institute divorce proceedings. In connection with those proceedings, it is necessary for him or his advisers to obtain a certificate of conviction relating, perhaps, to an offence of bigamy committed by another party to the proceedings. In such circumstances I know there has been considerable delay in obtaining a reply from the clerk of assize in which the particular conviction was made.
  I welcome, too, the fact that higher qualifications are to be expected from clerks of assize. They will now be required to be barristers of not less than five years' standing. Hitherto, it has been possible for a gentleman to occupy this important position if he has been either a barrister of not less than three years' standing, or a solicitor in actual practice of three years' standing, or some one who was neither a solicitor nor a barrister. I would be lacking in candour were I not to welcome this further extension of the "closed shop" principle, which I am pleased to see has the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). In that respect I think a considerable improvement has been made.

  177
  The other point I wish to make is in connection with the age of retirement. If this Bill goes through as it stands, it means that clerks of assize will retire at the age of 72, but may carry on to the age of 75 if the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable, with Treasury approval, to continue that appointment. It seems to me that the continuance in office of this category of civil servants, which they are now to become, to the age of 72 is, perhaps, not in accordance with modern ideas on the subject, and I would suggest that the Government might reconsider whether the provisions of Section 127, Subsection (I) of the Act of 1925 should be applied in this instance.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that this is in Order. Are we not discussing some other matter now?
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Lastly, I would like to support the suggestion which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) in the hope that some information may be given to the House as to what is intended shall be the salaries of full-time clerks of assize who are to be appointed, together with some indication of what they have been receiving in the past, so that the House and the public generally may have some idea of the importance which is attached by the Law Officers of the Crown to this kind of work.
  12.20 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: My claim to the attention of the House for a few minutes is based on the fact that for a year before the war, I was the junior of the South Eastern circuit, an exalted and unremunerative appointment which the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) also held. I should explain to lay Members of the House that the circuit junior is not merely the secretary to that fluid oligarchy, the wine committee, but he has to represent the circuit in its dealings with the Bar—
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Would the hon. Member say that he could be described as the shop steward of the closed shop?
  Mr. Renton: I am afraid I am one of those who agree that the modern conception of the closed shop can be applied in any profession in which years of study and training and the obtaining of qualifications are prerequisites. That is my reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cobb: It is still a closed shop.
  Mr. Renton: With regard to Clause I of this Bill, I should like to add my humble support to what has been said. I have, however, one comment to make about the provision that a clerk of assize should be a barrister of not less than five years' standing. It is a most significant fact that, although clerks of assize have been, in law, part time officers, once they have taken up the appointment they have generally made it a life career, and have reached positions of distinction in the legal profession. Perhaps, there is no more notable example in recent times than that of the appointment of the clerk of assize of the South Eastern circuit, Sir Arthur Denman. It seems almost incredible to some of us at the Bar that a barrister of the age of, perhaps, 27, with only five years' experience, which is not so very long in our profession, should be able to achieve the distinguished position of clerk of assize in so short a time. I am not going to move an Amendment, but I would ask the learned Solicitor-General to consider whether it might not be better to make the period 10 years. After all, as has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, judges are greatly obliged to the clerks of assize, and it would not be fair to the judges to allow anybody who is junior or inexperienced to be given that office.
  That is my only comment on Clause but I share the misgivings of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) with regard to Clause 2. From my experience of the working of the circuit, circuit officers have to work as a team. They have to deputise for each other; they sometimes have to help each other, if one is overloaded with work and one is available to help. It would be a very great pity to split up the team. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have already been so ably moved in support of that proposition, but I merely register my dissent.
  There is a special consideration, however, with regard to the South Eastern circuit, which is, I believe, the largest in the country, and which will suffer, I am afraid, under the proposed system, by the fact that the head offices of the Supreme Court lie within the territory of the circuit. The South Eastern circuit surrounds London, and I feel that there will be a very grave temptation

  179
  to try to run the circuit from London. If that were so, I feel that the solicitors, shall we say, on the more distant parts of the circuit like Norwich, Bury St. Edmunds, Cambridge, and Lewes, will not have that close liaison with those who are responsible for the smooth administration of justice on the circuit that has prevailed up to the present. I must say that I have not consulted the wine committee of the circuit—it is an executive committee, by the way—as to whether or not they would wish to contract out, and I have no power to ask that they should; but I do feel that my colleagues on the circuit—and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) would agree with me—would wish me to point out the possible danger, at any rate, that under this new system there may be grave temptation to try to run the circuit from London.
  12.25 p.m
  Mr. Rees-Williams: It so happens that all the previous speakers in this Debate have been members of that distinguished branch of the profession, the Bar.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The higher branch.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Well, that is a matter of opinion. I am a member of the solicitors' profession, and although my connection with it nowadays is rather tenuous—in fact, I am honorary vice-president of my local Law Society branch, and that is the only connection I have with it—I have yet a mild interest in the law, and a matter of this kind arouses that interest. Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said that this Bill arouses a little apprehension in his mind. Well, it arouses a good deal more in mine, because, while it all seems very innocuous and it all seems very desirable, and we hear that it is merely for the benefit of those officers who serve the public on circuit, I do see in it, in Clause I (I), an attempt, and a very successful attempt, as it seems, by the Bar to establish themselves in a position that they have not legally had before. In Clause I (I), as has already been noted, no one can be appointed a clerk of assize unless he is a barrister of not less
  180
  than five years' standing. This is a change, and it is only right that the House should realise that this is a change in the legal position. Previously, and at this moment, there is no actual legal requirement for a clerk of assize.
  Mr. Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is a change, it is a change which implements what has been the practice for a great many years?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: If the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech, I shall come to that point in due course. This is, of course, as has been said, an example of the closed shop. In fact, the door in this shop is not merely closed; it is bolted, barred and padlocked, and, as will be seen in a moment, all members of the profession, on both sides of the House—those at any rate, who have spoken—have agreed that this is a proper course of action. Last week we had passionate speeches, and irrelevant speeches, from learned Members on the other side on the Motion for the Fair Wages Clause. They all took up this question of the closed shop, but not one voice has been raised by those Members this morning on this point, where we have, as I say, a shop with a door padlocked and not merely closed. Looking across at the other side, and at the expressive face of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I expected to see him rise and to hear him exclaim in indignant passion on this point.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): As I do not follow the hon. Member's practice of speaking in every Debate in this House, I was not proposing to intervene; but to reassure him, may I say that I entirely agree with him that Subsection (I) of Clause I of this Bill, with its imposition of the closed shop provisions, is, to my mind, quite improper, and I, personally, am against it.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I never thought I should find myself of one mind with the hon. Member, but I am very glad I have one ally in the closed shop profession. I would say that the only argument that has been put up in favour of this proposal is, that it is much better to have the person who is going to carry out the duties of clerk of assize, a member of the circuit mess. Really, this brings down

  181
  the administration of justice to a canteen level, and if hon. Members who are members of the Bar had any experience of—they usually have none, and have no interest in—any other system of justice, they would know it is not found necessary in other countries. It is not found necessary in the Dominions, it is not found necessary in the United States of America, and it is not found necessary in the Colonies to have a wine committee to run the administration of justice. Nor is it necessary for officials who are concerned with the administration of justice to be members of a mess as is the practice at the Bar.
  I say it is an objectionable provision in the Bill for certain reasons. The first reason is that the solicitor is, by training and by practice, an administrative officer. The barrister, as a rule, chooses his profession, or is put into it by his parents because they think he has, to use a colloquialism, the gift of the gab. They think he is a talker, and they are usually right. He goes into the Bar because he has a certain fluency of diction combined with quickness of wit and nimbleness of mind, as we see so well exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston. They have, however, no experience and, as a general rule, barristers have no capacity, for administrative work, for the detailed work of every day.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman claim to include in that pithy summing-up the qualities of the learned Solicitor-General?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no idea what would be the aptitude of the learned Solicitor-General as a clerk of assize. He probably would not be a very good one.
  Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Member doubting the administrative capacity of the President of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I am talking about an administrative capacity as a clerk of assize, not as a Minister of the Crown. A Minister of the Crown has to take great policy decisions, as we know. The clerk of assize has to deal with the petty matters of daily routine in an office. That is the point, and very often the type of man who makes an excellent Minister of the Crown would make a very poor clerk of assize, and I am pretty well convinced that most of the clerks of assize I know would make very poor Ministers of the Crown.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Better than most of them.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I say that barristers are unfitted for this duty by their training. A clerk of assize performs the same duties for the judge of the High Court as the magistrates' clerk does for the magistrates, and many duties of a similar nature, such as those of masters and registrars in Chancery, are performed by solicitors in the High Court. My second objection is that this is a retrograde step. Our aim in this country should be to fuse the two professions and not separate them. The country cannot go on much longer supporting two expensive legal professions, both divided. It is the only country in the world where the two professions are divided in this way, that is horizontally instead of perpendicularly, and in fact in most countries there is only one legal profession.
  I see I am beginning to stray from the bounds of Order, so I come back to my third objection, and I think it is an important one, that normally one would only get a mediocre barrister applying for this post, whereas one would get a good solicitor. I have known many clerks of assize, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that not all of them deserve the bouquets they have had this morning by any means. I do not think—and I ask hon. Members who know this subject to search their consciences—that the normal barrister who is a good man would be content to serve as a clerk of assize. He is looking for something better. It is a dead end, and it is the mediocre man who would go in for it. It is, however, a type of practice, or office which would attract a very good solicitor, and I think the Solicitor-General is making a great mistake in not leaving a loophole so that the Lord Chief Justice could appoint a solicitor if he so desired.
  The only answer we have had is that it has not been the practice in the past. This Government are not confining themselves to the past. We are looking to the future, and we think that because a thing has not been done in the past is no reason why it should not be done in the future. I am not asking the learned Solicitor-General to say that solicitors shall be appointed in every case, I am merely asking him to provide that solicitors may be appointed, if the Lord Chief Justice so

  183
  desires. I think the House will agree that that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. If the learned Solicitor-General does not agree, I shall put down an Amendment in Committee. I suggest to him that the old phrase used in relation to people who petition his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, "Let right be done," should be applied in small things as well as in large.
  12.36 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again in this Debate, I should like to deal briefly with some of the arguments that have been adduced. When I say "briefly", I mean briefly, and that is not out of any disrespect to the speeches made by hon. Members, but because I think, if I may use an Irishism, that my best way of replying to their speeches is to listen to them. I mean by that that they have made very useful suggestions. All hon. Members who have spoken on this subject have spoken as experts, and have given their views from personal experience and knowledge of these matters. Therefore I think that my best and most useful course is to listen very carefully to their suggestions and bear them in mind, reminding the House that the object of this Bill is to provide the legislative machinery for the introduction and formulation of the scheme. For these reasons I do not propose to deal in detail with the arguments. I would however like to say a little about some of them. My hon. Friend who spoke last thought that the qualification should still apply in the case of solicitors. An hon. Member opposite took a very opposite view and thought that the period should be not five years but ten years. It is difficult to please everybody—
  Mr. Rees-Williams: May I interrupt? That has got nothing whatever to do with it. I want members of a different profession to be allowed. The hon. Member opposite had a perfectly good point about the period during which a member of a profession had served in his profession, but the two things are quite different and should not be confused.
  Mr. Renton: I would say that if solicitors were to be allowed, my case for a longer period would be even stronger, but I am not in favour of solicitors being allowed.
  The Solicitor-General: I would remind the House, that it has been possible for years for solicitors to be clerks of assize under the terms of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and I think I can say without fear of challenge, that no solicitor has been. I presume they never wanted to be; they have not been in fact. My hon. Friend said that barristers are not suitable for this appointment. But they have already held the appointment in large numbers for years and years, and there have been very few complaints, so far as I am aware. In that connection, I would take this opportunity of associating myself with the tribute paid to the officers of assize courts by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). I speak only from my own personal experience, but so far as it goes, it shows that they have enormously contributed to the smooth working of the business of assize, both from the point of view of those members of the legal profession engaged in the assize and also from the point of view of the litigant. It would have been very difficult to carry on the work of assize without the constant and unfailing help and cooperation of circuit assize officers. I was very sorry to hear what fell from the lips of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). I can only say that his experience has been different from mine, and I gather it has also been different from that of most hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate.
  I want to say a word with regard to the argument based on the necessity for continuity and careful training and selection. I entirely accept the view that continuity is important, and that careful selection and training are important. I will not, within the confines of this Debate, seek to expose the whole system which will be adopted for the purpose of seeing that associates are properly trained. I would however remind the House that I said that clerks of assizes will themselves take a hand in training associates. The House may well think, and I ask Members to accept the view, that it is an advantage for associates not merely to be able to work at assizes, but also to know the London end—he can combine the two, and his enriched knowledge will contribute towards efficiency in his work. It will, so far as it is possible, be arranged that a particular associate should be confined to

  185
  a particular circuit. I think that that will, in some measure, go to meet the argument based upon the desirability of a particular associate knowing the conditions of a particular circuit, knowing the people there, the type of litigation conducted there, and so on. He will be directed—I do not say that it will always be possible—to one circuit, and one circuit only, to get to know it well, and to become thoroughly acquainted with all those things in the circuit with which he should be familiar. I should like to leave the Bill at this stage with this brief remark. Hon. Members may wish to discuss Clause I (I) at a later stage, but so far as the Second Reading is concerned, I believe that the House is in possession of the arguments for and against the Bill. In these circumstances, I ask the House to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill which, in principle, is extremely useful.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Captain Snow.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CIRCUIT OFFICERS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to clerks of assize and certain other circuit officers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
  (a) salaries, pensions and allowances which, by virtue of the said Act, are payable to or in respect of clerks of assize under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925; and
  (b) remuneration payable to circuit bailiffs."—(King's recommendation signified)—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC NOTARIES (WAR SERVICE OF ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.44 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is designed to enable young men who desire to qualify as public notaries, to count the period, of time which they have spent in war service, for the purposes of their articles to qualify them for that position. There are some 550 public notaries practising in England and Wales, and about 100 are at the moment under articles. Hon. Members will know that the office of the public notary is a very ancient one. It is concerned with formally authenticating certain documents, particularly transactions overseas, in relation to foreign trade, voyages of ships, and so on. The Bill is designed to reproduce what was done in very similar wording after the last war. After the last war, it was found right and proper that clerks who were articled to notaries should be entitled to count towards the period of their articles the time they had expended on war service, and this Bill is designed to do precisely the same thing as was done then. A similar provision has been made by the Solicitors (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940, in the case of solicitors. The definition of "war service" follows the definition in that Act, but the wording is slightly different in the Act of 1919. Hon. Members will notice that Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Master of the Faculties to dispense with certain requirements in relation to certificates for aspirants to the office of public notary. The Master of the Faculties presides over the Court of Faculties. From 1534 faculties have been issued to public notaries to practise, and, therefore, the power of dispensing with the requirements in particular cases, is vested by the Bill in the Master of the Faculties.
  Clause 3 is a definition Clause, and the only comment I would make is that the emergency period is defined differently from the wording in the Act of 1919. In 1919, the expression used was "the period of the war". Hon. Members will see that the emergency period in the present Bill is from the beginning of 1st September, 1939, and ends at,—

  187
  "such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."
  Therefore, it can end at a period much more approximate to the actual circumstances of this Bill. I ask hon. Members to say that it is right and proper that young men who have given up time to fight for their country, or have served their country in some other capacity during the emergency, should be allowed, as articled clerks to solicitors are allowed under the terms of the Act of 1940, to count that period towards their articles. It is only right and proper that they should be able to do so, and in my submission, there cannot be any objection to it. It is consistent with the view taken as to the rightness and fairness of these matters, and with those remarks, I ask the House to accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We on these benches entirely agree that articled clerks who have been on war service should not suffer therefrom. We are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, and to assist in providing that this matter shall be rectified.
  12.49 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is a very important matter in connection with this Bill that I should like to raise. The Solicitor-General has said that the object of the Bill is to provide that young men who have had war service, either in the Forces or on work of national service, shall not suffer as a result of the time occupied in that service. There is a flaw in this Bill which prevents that intention being carried out. I should like the Solicitor-General to look at the Bill again, and to consider what is happening now in regard to the call up of these young men to see, whether, in fact, the Bill achieves what he wants.
  The articled clerk to a public notary is in exactly the same position as the articled clerk under the Solicitors (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1940. The provisions in this Bill are in almost identical terms, and the interpretation of "war service" in this Bill is exactly the same as the interpretation of "national service" used in the Solicitor's Act. A young man, who has just left school, may not be old enough to register, let alone to join the Army. It may so happen that the service which he wants to perform in
  188
  the meantime, to be useful to his country, is a reserved occupation, and if he wants to join up he is prevented from doing so because of that reserved occupation. He is in the national service or war service for say six years. At the end of that time, or when the war is over, he takes articles, either as an apprentice to a notary or to a solicitor. Having taken his articles he then receives a call-up notice. Although the statute in the case of the Solicitors' Act and in the case of this Bill is said to be specially designed in order that this young man may be exempt by reason of his national service, he is not exempt at all—and for this reason. Any articled clerk, whose period of service of articles is reduced by the Registrar of the Law Society, or by the Master of the Faculties in the case of a notary, has to serve two years with the solicitor or notary. That is to say, he has to he in the practice and in the office.
  Therefore, what is the good of saying that the young man can have the period of his service reduced to two years? He is called up, and those two years are reduced to a nullity, and the Bill becomes ludicrous. The two years which he serves in the Army prevent him from geting the benefit of the two years to which his articles have been reduced. In other words, if he wants to qualify he has to come back and do another two years. I do not think this aspect of the matter has been seen; it certainly was not seen in another place. The whole basis of this Bill will go unless it applies to someone who has been in the Armed Forces, or someone within the age of calling-up, and it does not include a large body of young men who, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, ought not to be prejudiced because of their national service. I ask the learned Solicitor-General to put this flaw right, and to ensure that the purpose for which this Bill stands will not be frustrated by the defect to which I have referred.
  12.55 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I rise to ask the learned Solicitor-General if he will be good enough, before the Committee stage, to look at two points. First, with reference to the definition of "emergency period." In the Bill, as it stands, that is defined as from 1st September, 1939. The learned Solicitor-General will recollect that prior to that date, during the anticipated emer-

  189
  gency of the summer of 1939, a considerable number of young men of the Territorial Army were embodied for whole-time service in connection with the antiaircraft defences. I am certain that the principle of this Bill should be extended to cover that appreciable number of young men. The other point arises on the definition of "war service." I appreciate that the Master of the Faculties has a right to include forms of service not specified otherwise in the Bill, but it would seem desirable that certain of the more conspicuous forms of war service, such as service in the Mercantile Marine, and, possibly, the service of young men directed to the pits, should be put in the Bill and not left to the discretion of the Master of the Faculties. I am certain that the learned Solicitor-General is sympathetic to these considerations, and I should be very grateful if, before the Committee stage, he would consider the possibility of dealing with both those matters, possibly by way of minor Amendments.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committeed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Captain Snow.]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31st March, 1947, which was presented on 5th June, be approved."—[Mr. John Dugdale.]
  12.57 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I think that the accounts this year seem to have taken their normal course. There are two questions, however, which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. One arises on page 2 of the accounts halfway down the expenditure list, with regard to "Greenwich Hospital Pensions to Seamen and Marines." The estimate for 1946 is £32,391, as compared with the estimate for 1945 of £71,191. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is probably in a position to account for that, and the House would be grateful for an explanation.
  190
  My second question relates to page 5 of the accounts with regard to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. I hope that the wearer of its old school tie on the other side of the House who I suspect has much to say, will forgive me for asking two questions. The accounts give us the average number of boys borne at the school up to the year 1944–45. Has the Parliamentary Secretary the figure for the year 1945–46? And in view of the fact that this is the first school year of peace, the House might like to know, now that the dangers which surrounded Holbrook during the war are withdrawn, how the school has progressed in this year. I should be grateful if, at the end of the Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary would give an answer.
  12.59 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would like to say a word or two about this school. In the last Debate the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) called it a "first-class charitable ramp" and the Financial Secretary said that it was "a very good example of national control." These two descriptions are not easy to reconcile coming from Members of the same party but that is a minor matter. I am worried about the position of the school. It ought to be doing valuable work but it seems to be having a rather stormy passage. Two years ago my predecessor in the representation of the Combined English Universities—Mr. T. E. Harvey—and I both stressed the importance of an advisory committee. The advisory committee is now formed with the Headmaster of Harrow and several other friends of mine like the Director of Education for East Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, all very experienced men. The headmaster was advertised for about two years ago. A very good man was secured, with the proper knowledge to run a big secondary boarding school, and he built it up in accordance with the new Act; in other words, he wanted to bring the school into line with the general education of the country.
  The new Minister came along, succeeding the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), and there was apparently a change of policy. The first question, therefore, is, Has there been a change of policy? There was a lot of talk about not wanting to make a "posh"

  191
  school of it. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) mentioned this matter several times. The Financial Secretary said that he did not want a school of that kind but a school to suit this particular class of boy. Who are these boys? They are an average cross-section of the country. They want the best school possible, a comprehensive secondary school, with grammar, technical, and every other side. The new head-master was the man to do the job.
  Now, I understand, he is going to leave at the end of this year, that he has got notice to quit on the last day of this year. Is that true? Is that because the policy has changed or because the headmaster himself is not the right man? Is this a "good example of national control," which were the words used by the Financial Secretary? It is very dangerous if, when schools come under Government, every time the Government changes and the policy changes there has to be change of headmaster. I am strongly in favour of the individual freedom of the school, with a proper governing body. When you have a man of this high experience, whom we asked should be put in, I think his advice might well have been taken. Now, I understand, there has been an inspection of the school by the Ministry of Education. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the results of the inspection will be made known, and what the policy will be?
  At this moment, the country is worried about children who are deprived, as it is called, of a normal home life. I hope that the Financial Secretary will see this school is the best answer possible to the criticisms. I do not know how far he himself is responsible for the school, but as he is the Minister I must direct my criticism to him. It seems to me that the school has not had a very good passage in the last year or two, but the school should not be judged by its numbers. I do not believe that there should be 8o boys in one house under one master or that that is in accordance with modern practice. I would much sooner see, on balance, a slightly smaller number, properly looked after. After all, this is a boarding school and some of these boys are orphans. They cannot go to any other home; this school is their only home. I should be very grateful if the Financial Secretary would answer some of these
  192
  questions. Some of us expect from the present Government a lead on educational policy. Although this school is but a small section of the larger whole, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give us a thoroughly satisfactory answer to the questions, and if any of my facts are wrong or inaccurate I hope he will tell us so.
  1.4 p.m.
  Commander Pursey: I think the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) Will approve if I take his points in the course of my speech rather than deal with them separately. This is the annual opportunity of referring to Greenwich Hospital Estimates, and in particular to the school to which reference has been made from the other side. I have a special interest in the school, having been educated there myself and knowing its history and vicissitudes over the last 3o years. The school cost £I million to build and equip, which was quite fantastic, and the expenditure has gone on upon that scale since, throwing charitable money away ad lib on bricks and mortar, staff and so on, instead of upon the orphans. Yet, it has been open for only a matter of 13 years in the new premises.
  This year, the cost is £101,600, an increase of £7,500. I ask the Financial Secretary why. Then there is the question of the number of boys accommodated. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities is in favour of low numbers. May I remind the House and him, that this school was intended to accommodate 1000 and that it did so upon its old site? The premises now occupied limit the number to 860. In answer to a Question I was told that the number was 516 on 1st April, so the school at the moment caters for only half the number it ought. I ask, therefore, why the full 86o are not being entered and educated there. In point of fact, there has been no increase during the four years since 1941, when the numbers were reduced for air-raid precautions. Tying up with the low numbers of boys is the high cost per boy. This year that cost is £145, and I would ask why that is so. I know that this year's figures are not comparable with those of 1939, but we had 785 boys in 1939, and the average cost was £97.

  193
  Much charitable money, given by a generous benefactor, is available. Why should there be any question of fees? An illustrated pamphlet about the school, entitled "Your Boy's Career," says:
  "Fees ranging from £3 to £6 per term are normally payable according to the means of the parents. In the case of boys who are fatherless no fees whatever are charged."
  I say, in view of the money available, that no fees whatever should be charged.
  I come to the question of buildings. The school was only opened 13 years ago, but it seems as though almost anyone with authority has wanted to knock it about and rebuild this part or that part. Before the school was completed there was a change of policy; it went from a company system to a house system, and there was a lot of rebuilding and expense. Now we are told, in answer to a Question, that the full number cannot be accommodated without further alterations. There is a new idea, put up presumably by the new headmaster, that, in addition to having one resident headmaster and matron for each hostel, there should be a second one. I understand that estimates have been got out to instal another master in each house. Accommodation can be taken only at the expense of accommodation for boys. We therefore get another example of the boys' accommodation being reduced.
  Then we get smaller items such as the new headmaster bringing a woman secretary into the place for the first time to do a job that has always been performed previously by naval pensioners. Then came the question of her accommodation and, it having been decided to provide her with rather sumptuous accommodation, of again altering a building. Then came the question of somebody to look after her.
  The information that I received on quite reliable authority was that the chauffeur and his wife were going to be provided with accommodation in order to look after the secretary. When I raised the question in the House, the answer was given that this accommodation was not being altered for that purpose but in order to provide accommodation for parents and guardians visiting their sons. That is an idea with which I agree, but these are examples of wasteful expenditure on continuous alterations to what is, in fact, practically a new school. Presumably, as the Admiralty built it, it was built with the
  194
  best information and architectural advice available 13 to 15 years ago.
  Then there is the question of the headmaster's salary. The hon. Member for the English Universities referred to the getting of a new headmaster. I have here the advertisement from "The Times Educational Supplement" of 8th April, 1944, in which the post was advertised as being one for a school with a complement of 860 reduced to 615 as a wartime measure. Therefore the headmaster was appointed on the understanding that he ought to be taking charge of 860 boys, but that the number was down to 615. In point of fact, his policy has been—it is a wrong one—to keep the numbers down. He advocates that the number should be in the region of 500 or 600, which is not the terms of the agreement on which he was engaged. That is only by the by, and I have only dealt with it because of the reference which has been made.
  The school was referred to as a technical and secondary school. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. I am concerned here with the question of salary. It was advertised at £1,250–£1,500 according to qualifications and experience, a rent-free residence and certain minor perquisites. That was quite a good salary. At the time there was a superintendent there who was getting £865 plus an entertainments allowance of £75, a total of £940. The then headmaster, who had run the school well and had produced very good results with his boys, was getting goo and a war allowance of £52. The total for the two was £1,792. We find that in this year's and last year's estimates the headmaster's salary is £1,650, with an official residence, presumably of the value of the order of £200. In addition, he is allowed £250 entertainment allowance, which gives him in cash £1,900. That is more than the total salary of the other two officials, and it is no answer to that argument to say that he has replaced them. I would like to ask why, as the captain superintendent, who was a naval officer and, because of the school's proximity to certain naval establishments, had to do a considerable amount of entertaining, was able to do it with an allowance of £75, the headmaster, who has nothing to do with the Navy and, on my information, does very little entertaining at all, has £250.

  195
  In addition to the headmaster's salary, the change from captain superintendent plus headmaster to headmaster alone resulted, I am informed, in a new second master being introduced, as well as the secretary to whom I have referred. The second master's salary is £700. On this change we have a total increase in salaries of £800. I see no justification for the second master being introduced when there are these low numbers. If the school was running to capacity with 860, it might well be. Neither can I see any necessity for the headmaster to have a woman secretary requiring additional accommodation in a school out in the country and isolated, in a job previously well done by naval pensioners.
  I now come to the question of the present headmaster. Quite frankly, I had no intention whatever of dealing with the present occupant of the office as an individual. I would have dealt simply with the question of salary and accommodation but for the remarks which have already been made. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities spoke of the headmaster's high qualifications. My information is to the contrary. The headmaster ran only a small school—which I know, as I have been to the place—and he had no experience of large scale boarding schools of this nature. In fact, to those who knew him it was a complete surprise that he ever got the job. I have no knowledge of the reasons, for his dismissal, and that is obviously a matter for the Financial Secretary to deal with, but as the hon. Member wanted to justify the apparent—
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I must make this clear. I have no wish either to justify it or not justify it. All I am asking is, why he was dismissed. Is there a change of policy? I am not standing up for him. The post was advertised and he was appointed, presumably, by the Admiralty. They must justify his being sacked after two years. I do not wish to take any sides.
  Commander Pursey: Surely the hon. Member does not object to my dealing with the points he raised as regards the individual. The hon. Member said that the headmaster was a man of high qualifications. I am not in a position to judge his qualifications, and presumably they were checked, but as far as experience is concerned, he had no experience of this
  196
  type of school and his previous school was a small school down in the country with considerably fewer numbers. I repeat that it was a surprise to the educational world and the people who knew him when he got this job. Moreover, one of the qualifications in the advertisement was naval experience, and his naval experience was very limited. There is no question at all that his main interest is in educational examination results and not the interests of this institution, which is primarily intended to be an orphanage, and the interests of orphans. Having said that, I will say no more about the individual as such.
  I now pass to the question of the policy of the school. Two of the original main objects were one, the care and maintenance and education of children of seamen, naval and mercantile, especially orphans and sons of poor parents, and that dates back two centuries. The second object was to train them for the sea, either the Navy or the Merchant Service. It is now no longer a stipulation that each entry must be prepared to go into the Navy. In other words, entrants are being taken and trained in the school and then they go into other walks of life. I would like to know why boys should be sent to this institution instead of being educated in the normal schools of the country if they are not going to adopt a seafaring life, either in the Navy or the Mercantile Marine. Moreover, from the point of view of the staffing and running of the school, this situation of a double objective of tuition must be wasteful. There I take the point of the hon. Member opposite in advocating that boys from this school should go to Dartmouth. He has obviously got the wrong idea, because the entries to the two establishments are practically coincident. The entry age to the Royal Hospital School is 11–13 and for Dartmouth 13. It is, therefore, impracticable to go from Holbrook to Dartmouth. What the hon. Member may have had in mind was to go from Holbrook into the special entry scheme, but even so there is a gap of years which Holbrook cannot fill.
  Here we reach another point. Reference was made to them going into high grade schools and so on. This orphanage should be for the orphans of poor persons for training for the Navy for entry on the lower deck, and the individuals who are coming into Holbrook for entry as special

  197
  entry cadets are not the type for which the school was originally intended. We are therefore getting the wrong type of boy entry—the cream of certain types of boys being educated up to a high standard with the idea of producing examination results. And that is where the argument arises that it is too "posh" a school. It should be for the poorer type who cannot get a fair crack of the whip in ordinary life.
  I now come to the advisory committee, which consists of seven members. Naturally, one would expect to find some Admiralty officials there. Taking them in reverse order, there are the Director of Greenwich Hospital, the Director of the Education Department, and the Director of Naval Training. Then we get four educationists, the Director of Education for Cambridge, the Secretary to East Suffolk Education Committee, of whom I have no complaint to make. The last two are the Headmaster of Berkhampstead, and the Chairman, the Headmaster of Harrow, to whom reference has been made. I am not so much concerned with the Headmaster of Berkhampstead, although I cannot see what his knowledge and experience of a school of this character are, or what contributions he can make on this committee, as the boys are not going from Holbrook to his type of school. But the individual I am considerably concerned about is the Headmaster of Harrow, and why he should be the Chairman of this advisory committee. So far as I know, the Headmaster of Harrow has had no experience of this type of school. It does not tie up with Harrow. The whole thing is completely out of proportion. The Headmaster of Harrow ought never to have been appointed. It ought to have been someone with experience of secondary and technical school education, who could advise the Admiralty on the school as such, not one with experience and knowledge completely removed from it. The main criticism I make of the advisory committee, however, is that there is no one to represent the interests of the orphans. That is an omission which ought to be rectified forthwith.
  The shortage of candidates for entry is a special problem, which requires investigation. Before 1914, this school accommodated and educated 1,000, and had a long waiting list. But today they cannot get more than 500, yet we have just had a second world war. If we cannot get orphans from the Navy and the Mercantile
  198
  Marine just after a world war, what is going to be the position in 12 years' time, when the last war orphan has passed the entry age? In 12 years' time there must automatically be a further reduction in numbers. Is it the case that with the increased orphans' allowances and the attitude throughout the country that, instead of putting boys into institutions, parents and guardians wish to keep them at home? That is the policy of the country, not to put them into institutions. Is it the case that the parents and guardians of these orphans prefer to keep them at home and have them educated in the schools of the country? If so, this is fundamental to the future of the school, certainly when there are no more orphans for whom they can cater.
  The Admiralty have two means of educating these orphans. One is at this Royal Hospital school and the other is in schools and institutions at the expense of Greenwich Hospital funds. The question I would ask the Financial Secretary is what factors decide where a boy should be educated? Why should "A" go to Holbrook, and "B" remain at home and be educated at one of the schools of the country at Greenwich Hospital expense? Why not educate all these boys at schools in the country at Greenwich Hospital expense? Then all this money, at present spent on buildings and staff, could be devoted to education. That is a matter which requires thorough investigation. On my present knowledge arid information I would advocate that, unless the school can accommodate the full numbers of the proper type, the Admiralty should give serious consideration to closing this school down, in order to educate these boys in the schools of the country. There is a shortage of buildings of this type for various things such as T.B. hospitals, and so on. The Minister of Health may be keenly interested in a building of this nature, particularly as it has a home farm. It may be a far better T.B. hospital than an orphanage at 'his stage in our national development.
  To sum up: I would advocate that the Admiralty should seriously consider the reconstitution of the advisory committee, in particular the question of getting a chairman who has knowledge of a school of this type, and someone to represent the orphans. As we have been informed that the present headmaster is to go and a new one will be selected, he

  199
  should be a man of far greater vision with an interest in the boys as boys, rather than in examination results as such. Given the right man, it may be possible to carry the school on for another decade or so, even if it then has to close down, and during that period it may do good work. Then there is the question of getting the right entries and, in particular, there should be an investigation into the running of the school as regards the large staff employed, and the high cost. The reason for shortage of candidates for what appears to be a good school with a good education, if it were properly run, should be considered.
  1.27 p.m.
  Major Bruce: There are one or two questions I would like to put to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. On turning to page two of the Statement of Income and Expenditure, one finds with considerable pleasure that the estimates for the year under review show that there will be an estimated balance of income over expenditure to the tune of £15,002 as compared with a £146 deficit for last year. I am sure that is extremely welcome, as one likes to see a fund of this kind on a sound financial basis. But, on looking through the reasons for this, one observes that Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen and marines, including Greenwich Hospital, Canada, pensions, pensions to widows, and education of children, has declined from £71,191 last year to a figure for this year of £32,391. It appears on the face of it—I shall be glad to be corrected if the Financial Secretary has other figures available—that the amount payable to Greenwich Hospital pensioners is due for a decline during the year we are now considering.
  The amount of pensions which have been payable to seamen and marines under this scheme has always been on the small side. In fact, from my own city of Portsmouth, which contains a large number of Greenwich Hospital pensioners, I often receive representations, many of which are considerably justified, for an increase in the rate of some of the pensions that have already been granted. We are living in a time when, quite rightly, some of the pension rates which have been in force up to the present are being revised owing to the increase in the cost of living. It appears that some of the pensions
  200
  granted to seamen and marines are also due for up-grading. I observe that when we come to pensions to officers and grants towards the education of children, the expenditure for the current year is to be £700 more than in the last year. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would give some reasons for this. The statement we have before us is, of course, a statement of estimated income and expenditure. But it would be useful to the House to know, if possible, exactly how the capital position of the Fund stands. It would be useful to know what accummulated balance of income does, in fact, remain in the Fund at the present time, because it may well be that we shall have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to increase the benefits payable under the Greenwich Hospital Pensions Scheme in order that the outgoings may more adequately absorb the income it has accumulated.
  I am pleased to note that interest on British Government securities is due for a rise, according to the estimates, of no less than £10,000 during the year. With the national credit standing as high as it does now, we may anticipate that that figure may increase even further under a Labour Administration. If that is so, one requires some information as to how such increases in the future are likely to be utilised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some information as to whether it will be possible for him to increase some of the pensions now being paid at the moment, and as to what he intends to do with the balance available in the Fund, if it is not, in fact, possible for him to do so.
  I would ask him how long it is intended to maintain the rule that people in receipt of public assistance relief are not eligible to receive a Greenwich Hospital pension. Many people who have served our country very well, and who have sufficient length of service and all the other qualifications to entitle them to come under the Greenwich Hospital Pensions Scheme, are, I am informed, ineligible for pensions once they come under public assistance relief. I should be grateful if I could be corrected on that point. Though no responsibility can attach to this Government for that state of affairs, I feel that if any measure of relief could be afforded to those people who, I repeat, have served their country well, it will be much appreciated. I hope that my hon. Friend

  201
  may be able to give an answer to some of these questions.
  1.33 p.m
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The last time this subject came up for discussion it was also one o'clock, but then it was one o'clock in the morning; fortunately it is now one o'clock in the afternoon. I have a number of points to answer, and I shall be as brief as possible, but not as brief as I should have liked to be, since there are a large number of questions. Before dealing with the school, let me first take the question of accounts, starting with the questions raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). The total capital account is roughly £7 million.
  With regard to his other point, which overlaps that made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), Greenwich Hospital pensions have dropped from £71,000 to £32,000—not for a bad but for an excellent reason. It is because my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has taken over a large part of the work we are doing. Roughly £40,000 which was previously contributed by us, is now being contributed by the Treasury and that does not mean a reduced pension. As to what will be done with the money that is available, I should be anticipating future events were I to talk on that subject, so I say no more about it. As regards receipts, about which the hon. Member for Hereford asked, the interest on loans this year fell by £21,000. As hon. Members know, interest rates generally are tending to fall, and Greenwich Hospital Fund reflected that tendency. Further, last year, Greenwich Hospital had a windfall of £14,000 from the Mayfair Estate, who were apparently in arrears with their payments for a considerable number of years. That windfall has, of course, not been repeated this year.
  I now turn to the question of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay). He asked what had happened about the headmaster. What happened was that some months ago the headmaster expressed a wish to the Admiralty to seek another appointment. The Admiralty said that they had no objection to this, but after careful consideration they felt that it was necessary to fix a terminating date to his appoint-
  202
  ment of 31st December, 1946, as we could not be in the position of having the headmaster seeking another appointment, not knowing when he might get it, and finding ourselves unable to take steps until he had got it.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) raised a large number of points, with which I shall try to deal as best I can. He has great knowledge of this school, and many of his suggestions were of a most constructive nature. First, with regard to the cost of the school, I admit it is high, though this year's increases are due to facts that can easily be explained, namely, the increases in prices and wages which have been taking place in large parts of the country quite outside Holbrook. Already, we have set up a committee to inquire into the financial position of the school. That action was taken some time ago, and the Director of Greenwich Hospital will be the chairman of this committee. I hope we shall be able to get some useful results from the inquiry. It is a difficult school to run, from a financial point of view. As my hon. and gallant Friend rightly said, it is a school which was built on a very lavish scale. Neither this Government, nor indeed the previous Government, were responsible for that. For reasons, which seemed best to those who built it, it was built on this scale, and there it is; we have it. But we have not, as my hon. and gallant Friend maintained, thrown money away on bricks and mortar in recent years. Since 1935 there have been two exceptions, namely, a water tower, which had to be constructed, as otherwise there was no adequate water supply, and air raid precautions, which were naturally necessary in view of the war. Apart from those exceptions, the total expenditure since 1935 has been 1,034. I think that that sum on bricks and mortar since 1935 is not excessive.
  I will take some other points. First, there is the question of the cost per pupil. It is true that there are not as many pupils as we should like; we want to get more. It is true to say that not more than 60 or 7o boys can be properly supervised in a house, and the opinion of the advisory committee is that it should be 60. The number in each house is 52, and it is rising. The hon. Member for Hereford asked what was the number of boys this year. The average number for the year is 540. During the war numbers

  203
  were reduced for air raid precautions purposes. We now want to see them increased as rapidly as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull asked about fees. I am glad to inform him that no fees are payable. I am sorry if the particular document he has in his hands has not been altered accordingly, but it is a fact that no fees are now payable: I can state that that is so because I gave instructions myself that no fees should be paid. I think hon. Members will agree that it would be bad to have too high a standard of education in a school to which we must be certain that all the people for whom we are bound to provide by the charity—that is, all the orphans—are going. We do not want to start running the school as a secondary school of such a standard that the boys whom we must look after cannot go there. Many of them are very able and can reach a high standard of secondary education, but we want to be certain that the boys can go, and if it is found that the standard is too high, it must be adapted to these boys, because they are our primary responsibility.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? This is crucial. Is there any change in policy? Is the fact that the headmaster is going connected with the change of policy? What does the hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean that these children are not capable of absorbing the best possible education in the country? If he does, that is a strange doctrine.
  Mr. Dugdale: I do not think that it is an altogether strange doctrine. I think there are some children who are not capable of passing all the examinations necessary to reach the highest secondary schools. I think that is a point with which the hon. Member will agree. If there are such children, some may be orphans for whom we have to provide. Therefore, we must be quite certain that we do not exclude those children by having a standard which is too high. That is all I mean and I think it is very important. There has not been a change in policy but I will say that there is, if the hon. Gentleman likes, a slight change in bias to the extent that we do now attach more importance, perhaps, to the question of being quite certain that we take all the orphans. By experience we have dis
  204
  coverd if the standard was raised too high we would not be able to take so many of them, and we may find it necessary to have a standard of education which is rather lower than before. When I say "lower," I mean it will be a very good standard, an admirable standard. After all, there are a large number of modern schools in the country, and also technical schools, which are admirable. We hope to have a combination of modern and secondary education more on the lines of the multilateral school. However, we have not made a final decision upon that point. I wish to make that perfectly clear. H.M. Inspectors have visited the school and while that is the direction in which our minds are tending to move, naturally if the report of the Inspectors is of a different character—I have not yet seen it—we may alter our views. We await that report and until we get it I cannot say precisely what future policy will be.
  Mr. Lindsay: Then it is still an open question? My hon. Friend will not be prejudiced towards the view that orphans necessarily have a lower intelligence quota?
  Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I have not said so. I wish to make it clear. For example, take Members of Parliament. It may be that an examination might be fixed which certain Members of Parliament might not pass. It may be that if we wanted all Members to pass that examination we should have to lower the standard. I am not casting any aspersion whatever upon orphans.
  Mr. Guy: It would not be true to say that by reason of the fact that the headmasters of Harrow and Berkhamsted are members of the advisory committee, the standard is regarded as being much higher?
  Mr. Dugdale: No. It cannot be said that the standard is higher because the headmaster of Harrow is a member of the advisory committee. That has nothing whatever to do with the point. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull made some very strong criticism of the advisory committee. I would say that advisory committees can be very useful. They can give expert advice and this committee from time to time has given very useful advice indeed. It is a matter for consideration, which has not yet been decided, whether it might not be better to

  205
  have a committee which had limited powers more on the lines of the management committee of an aided school. If that were done there would have to be a complete reorganisation of the committee which would be put on a different basis. There again, we await the inspectors' report. I cannot say what will be done, because I think it would be wrong to make a cut and dried decision here and now, in view of the fact that the inspectors are just about to present their report.
  Commander Pursey: Will the hon. Gentleman consider adding a representative who would have the interests of the orphans in mind, in addition to the present Members?
  Mr. Dugdale: I will bear that in mind, if there is to be any reorganisation of the committee but, as we have not yet decided that there will be reorganisation, I think it is a little premature to decide who the Members should be. I agree that much needs to be done. We have already started. I cannot possibly agree that the school should be scrapped. It may be that the cost is high and that the buildings are too grand but, in conclusion, I would like to contrast this with another type of education for orphans which we have had described recently in the Curtis Report. Here is a school for orphans where the criticism is not that they are ill-used, ill-clothed and ill-fed but that the school is on a scale which is too grand. Frankly, I would rather have criticism of this kind than the other.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31rst March, 1947, which was presented on 5th June, be approved."

  PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS) (METAL CLOTHES LOCKERS)
  Resolved:
  "That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1481), dated 4th September, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 194o, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th October, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

  PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS) (MEDAL RIBBONS, &c.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 5) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1482), dated 4th September, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 194o, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th October. be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  1.48 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: When this exemption was requested during the Report stage of the Finance Bill, I mentioned that the Purchase Tax on the miniature of the Victoria Cross was over 8s., on the miniature of a Distinguished Service Order £2, and on the miniature of a Campaign Star 6s. That is a substantial burden on a multi-medalled ex-Serviceman. These miniatures are increasingly being worn, largely owing to the initiative of the London County Council and other Socialist councils in putting on their invitations "Evening dress and decorations." That initiative I very cordially welcome. I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having accepted my proposal that those who have served their country in the field, and especially those who have distinguished themselves, should be exempted from Purchase Tax on the miniatures of the emblems of that service.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  IMPORT DUTIES (ADDITIONAL) (PAPER AND BOARD ARTICLES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946, No. 1637), dated 12th October, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which Order was presented on 15th October, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  Mr. Osbert Peake: Perhaps the Financial Secretary would tell us if this Order imposes any new or additional Duties, or is merely a re-definition of Duties previously imposed?
  1.50 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that the Order simply tries to clear up an ambiguity in the original Order. It had been hoped to make this new Order as far back as 1939, when the ambiguity was first discovered. The war intervened, and this is

  207
  an attempt, and we think a successful one, to put the matter right now and to put the purpose of the Order beyond any doubt. It does not impose any new duties, and it is our view that, as a result of the change of wording and of the clarification of the original Order by the substitution of these new paragraphs, something like £10,000 more will come in. There is no change in the imposition of the original Duty.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Chesterfield, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Great Yarmouth, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th October, be approved."— [Mr. Oliver.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Daventry, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th October, be approved. "—[Mr. Oliver.]
  1.54 p.m.
  Mr. Walker: I would like to ask a question on this matter. I take it that, in each of these cases, there has been an appeal to the people in these communities for their approval to the opening of these cinemas. I think that is required according to the Act. I am looking on the cinemas as an industry and as constituting a large commercialised concern, and, while there may be a demand on the part of the general public for some kind of entertainment on Sunday evening, I still think that the interest displayed by the industry itself in these matters, and the active part taken in influencing public opinion on the question whether cinemas should be open or not, shows that they are intensely interested in the amount of money which they are going to make as a result of opening—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): Is the hon. Gentleman applying his remarks to the case of Daventry alone, because he cannot go beyond the case of Daventry?
  Mr. Walker: That is the last one?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he is applying his remarks to Daventry, because he cannot discuss the others.
  Mr. Walker: I am sorry, but I was under a misapprehension. I waited until the last Question was put under the impression that I might raise the whole matter, but, as that is not so, I do not propose to say anything further at this stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (DENTISTS' FEES)
  1.56 p.m.
  Mr. Baird: I want to raise the question of the unfortunate dispute which has arisen between members of the dental profession and the Government, and, at the outset, I think it is only fair that I should disclose my active interest in this problem. As a practising dentist I want to point out to hon. Members that, during the negotiations and discussions on the National Health Service Bill between the representatives of the dental profession and the Government, and during the Committee stage of the Bill itself, a large amount of good will was evident on the side of the dentists in their attitude to the Government.
  As a result of those negotiations and discussions, which have taken place over the last 12 months, I think I am right in saving that dentists have become more and more confident in the attitude of the Minister of Health to the future health services, and, indeed, the Minister himself recognised the good will approach of dentists on the question and actually paid a compliment to the profession on the Third Reading of the Bill. Therefore, it is most unfortunate that this dispute should have arisen at the present time, because it may, if allowed to continue,

  209
  become a canker and destroy the confidence which at present exists.
  First, I should like to deal with the question of dental benefits, and would point out that these are rather different from medical benefits. Medical benefit is compulsory, but dental benefit is paid only by those insurance societies which have surplus profits. Their only obligation is that, if they have any surplus profits, they should pay dental benefit, which must amount to 5o per cent., so that not more than 5o per cent. is to be paid by the patient. The scale of fees—the method by which we pay dentists for their work—has always been accepted reluctantly by the profession as inadequate for the work they are doing. Dental benefit commenced, I think, in 1926, and sometime later, because of the disgruntlement, national negotiating machinery was set up under a Dental Benefit Council, on which there are representatives of the insurance companies and of the dentists, with officials of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of National Insurance holding a watching brief.
  That Dental Benefit Council was set up, I think, in 1929, and it has functioned very well since then, always bearing in mind that there has been reluctance to accept the findings, but they have been accepted, and there has been, on the whole, a very good relationship between the insurance companies and the dental profession. During the war, the Dental Benefit Council itself was in abeyance, and an emergency committee functioned to negotiate between the profession and the Ministry. In 1944, a new scale of fees was agreed on, again reluctantly by the dentists, and became the scale of fees under which dental treatment was carried out. However, during 1945, when the war was drawing to a close, there was a large amount of uneasiness in certain areas of the country among dental surgeons, and unfortunately; in my opinion, in the South of England especially, a large number of dentists withheld their services in regard to National Health Insurance dentistry. As a result of this strike—I will call it a strike—negotiations took place between the Ministry of Health, who were then responsible, and the leaders of the dental profession. The strike was called off, and the Minister gave an undertaking that he would reconstitute the Dental Benefit Council and would set up
  210
  the Spens Committee to inquire into the future remuneration of dentists.
  The Dental Benefit Council was, therefore, reconstituted, with representatives of the Government, the insurance companies, and the dentists, and immediately the dentists submitted an application for an increased scale of fees. The procedure was that the Dental Benefit Council then set up what was called a Scale of Fees Committee to draw up what they considered to be a proper scale of fees. On that Scale of Fees Committee there were representatives of the insurance companies and the dentists, with a Ministry official as chairman. The Scale of Fees Committee met, considered the matter for a very long period, and then reported on a scale of fees. I should point out that the Government officials did not take any part in the voting, and were there as neutral observers, but that, as far as the representatives of the insurance companies and the dentists were concerned, they were unanimous. I would, however, point out that, in drafting the new scale of fees, the Committee had simply to consider what was a just scale of payment to the dentists, and had not the function of finding out from where the money was to come. I would point out also—and I think this is rather important—that while the Ministry officials on the Committee took no part in the voting, they sat in the Committee, and they did not give any hint during the discussions that this scale of fees would be turned down by the Government as being too high.
  The Scale of Fees Committee reported to the Dental Benefit Council as a whole. Then, of course, the question was not simply what was to be the scale of fees, but from where the money was to come. There the insurance companies' representatives had a different line of approach. They said that if the higher scale of fees was accepted, the insurance companies could no longer afford to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of dental treatment. However, the question of the scale of fees went to a vote, the twelve dentists voting for the new scale of fees, nine insurance company representatives voting against it and the three representatives of the insurance companies who had been on the Scale of Fees Committee abstaining from voting. The recommendation then went to the Ministry, and, in my opinion very unfortunately, the Minister turned down the recommendations.

  211
  The point at issue at the present time is not chiefly the scale of fees, but the method of negotiation between the profession and the Government. Here we have a long established machinery of negotiation being turned down by the Minister and the Minister imposing on the profession, without consultation, a scale of fees which he considers to be adequate. The issue is whether we are to have some established machinery, or whether something is simply to be imposed. I want briefly to deal with the Government's arguments, as I see them. The Minister enforced a scale which was considerably lower than that suggested by the Dental Benefit Council. One of the main arguments was that the scale of fees for which the Dental Benefit Council asked showed an increase of 116 per cent. over the 1939 figures. That may be so, but throughout the negotiations the dentists have pointed out that the suggested increase of 116 per cent. is purely an actuarial figure. Many hon. Members will realise that one can prove almost anything from figures. I do not want to go into the details, but as a practising dentist and a Socialist I cannot possibly accept the suggestion that the increase was 116 per cent. The actuarial calculations were made on dental letters submitted way back in 1935. Between 1935 and the present time, the type of treatment has changed considerably. There is much more conservative dentistry, fillings and so on, done today than there was in 1935, and in various ways the type of treatment which people expect is considerably different from what it was in 1935. I make that point in order to show one way in which an actuarial calculation can very often be considerably wrong.
  Mr. Messer: The hon. Gentleman means that there is not merely extraction now?
  Mr. Baird: That is right. I would like to see some further calculation made on a more equitable basis. Secondly, we are told, at any rate by some Members of the Government, that one of the reasons the high scale asked for by the Council could not be accepted, was that it would influence the Spens Committee. It may be that the Minister thinks the scale is so high that it would force the Spens Committee to suggest a higher scale than is proper. In my opinion, when the Spens Committee makes its report we shall find
  212
  that many dentists have been working for very low rates.
  However, the point I want to make is that at one time the Minister tells us that the Spens Committee will be influenced by high scales, and then, when the dentists went on strike and refused their service, they were told it was wrong to do so because the Spens Committee had nothing to do with the present dispute. The Minister cannot have it both ways. I believe there is some relationship between the two, although, in practice, not as much as some people would think. The third argument which may be used is that this is only a temporary dispute, and that when the Spens Committee reports the Government will accept the findings and a new scale will be drawn up. In discussions with the Ministry we were told that the Spens Committee expected to report by Christmas of this year. We know now that the Spens Committee cannot possibly report before the summer at the earliest. Therefore, while I, for one, thought that if this dispute were carried on only until Christmas we might be able to tide things over, I think that if we allow it to continue until the summer we shall have a running sore which it will be very difficult to remove.
  Sir William Darling: Who are "we"?
  Mr. Baird: In my opening remarks I said that I was a practising dentist, and declared my interest. If the hon. Gentleman would rather that I referred to "the dentists"—
  Sir W. Darling: "We" are the dentists?
  Mr. Baird: In a Debate such as this, on a technical matter, we have to try to think as professional men, as well as supporters of the Government. I hope that in the end my remarks will show that the two are consistent.
  Another point that is sometimes made is that some people feel that, because there is a tremendous shortage of dentists at the present time, the dentists are using that position to hold the Government to ransom; in other words, that they are exploiting the shortage. I think that is an unfair accusation to make. During the discussions on the National Health Service Bill, while the doctors' supporters time and again moved Amendments of a

  213
  nuisance value, and throughout the country tried to make as much capital against the Government as possible, the dental profession were very conciliatory and moved only Amendments which were helpful, and many of which the Government accepted. They could have exploited their shortage value, but they did not do so. These points may be made against the point of view of the dental profession.
  I want to give my views as a Socialist and a dentist. First of all, I believe that under a Socialist Government, when we are discussing the terms of service of professional men in the public service, we have to see to it that they are paid adequately for the work they do. As Socialists, that is one principle which we on this side of the House have always advocated. In discussing terms of service, I am not referring merely to dentists or doctors but all health workers, including dental mechanics and nurses. If we are to have an efficient health service we must pay our health workers adequately and see that they are contented in their jobs.
  Secondly, I say to the Government that we must try to establish negotiating machinery in which both sides can have confidence. Any imposed scale of remuneration will always be looked upon with suspicion by the people on whom it is imposed. The dentists have always said that the National Insurance scale of fees was a charity scale, in other words, that it was too low, and the dentists who do nothing but insurance dentistry cannot get a proper income. The result is that there has been a large disparity in fees paid by private patients and fees paid through National Health Insurance, and the private patient has been subsidising the insured patient. That is wrong. The dentist who has not subsidised his insured patient from his private patient sometimes did fairly shoddy work. We must have a service by which the poorest of the community have the same dental treatment as the wealthy classes, and the scale of fees must be balanced in such a way that that is possible. It has not been possible in the past under National Health Insurance.
  I want to raise also the question of the cost of dentures. I am not suggesting that we should depart from what we call the balanced scale. There is a danger that one type of dental treatment subsidises another. We have to encourage
  214
  the public to conserve their teeth, to have fillings and preserve them rather than have them out and have dentures instead. While that is what we are trying to achieve, unfortunately because of the lack of education and lack of finance a large proportion of the people have neglected their teeth, so that the only type of treatment which is suitable for them is extraction and the fitting of dentures. That type of treatment, of course, will continue for some years to come. In my opinion, it is impossible for a dentist who provides dentures under National Health Insurance to get a reasonable margin of profit. One of the main reasons for this, which will commend itself to hon. Members on this side of the House, is that before the war the wages paid to dental mechanics in this country were ridiculously low. The average wage was about £2 10s. or £3 10s. a week, and I am proud to think that even though I am a dentist, I was one of the foundation members of the Dental Mechanics' branch of N.U.D.A.W. During the war years we have, at least, put a bottom into dental mechanics' wages, and I think they have gone up by something like 75 per cent. during the war. A point which must be borne in mind is the increased labour cost to the dentist as the result of the trade union activities of dental mechanics.
  As a result of the war and the calling up of dental mechanics, more and more dental mechanics' work has been sent out to the dental mechanics' profession, so that one dental mechanic works for a number of dentists, and their charges have increased considerably. Where before the war the cost of processing a vulcanite denture, which was a reasonable standard insurance denture, was six or eight shillings, it is now 25s. or 3os. for an acrilic base. I suggest to the Minister that if he wants further proof he should go to any telephone directory, look up the list of dental mechanics to the profession, telephone any one of them and ask what he will charge for doing the mechanical work for a full upper and lower denture. His reply will be that it will cost at least between £5 and £6. All the dentist receives under the National Health Insurance is £7 15s., so that the balance which is left to the dentist to cover all the work he does in the surgery, including his overhead expenses, is between 3os. and £2. That may not influence the scales to any great ex-

  215
  tent, but it is a point which must be borne in mind. The most important argument from the dentists' point of view is the fact that the dentists want some negotiating machinery in which they can have confidence.
  Therefore, I hope something will be done in that direction as a result of this Debate. I am appealing to the Minister as one of his greatest supporters and admirers. All that the dentists want are the same rights as any other group of workers. Many people feel that because a man is a member of a profession instead of in a trade, he has no right to trade union machinery. I think that once we have our National Health Insurance plans we must have trade unions for the professional men, because they have every right to put their case in the trade union manner. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am in contact with a lot of the leaders of the dental profession, and although there may seem to be 100 per cent. opposition at the moment, I am confident that if my right hon. Friend takes a lead this afternoon to open negotiations in whatever way he thinks best, it will be welcomed by the leaders of the dental profession. I am confident of that, and though there may be some reactionaries, the rank and file and the leaders will welcome any approach he may make.
  To the dentists I would say that if we are to rebuild the good will between the dental profession and the Government it is necessary that the dentists themselves should control their own reactionaries, I have noticed that in some areas at least, the dentists—not the leaders, but some of the rank and file with a Tory outlook—are cock-a-hoop because this dispute has arisen, and it is essential for those who lead the dental profession to settle these reactionaries and place before us the reasonable point of view of what I believe is the mass of the dental profession. If this dispute continues much longer, there is a great danger, not from the Government's point of view but from the standpoint of the dentists. For too long have dentists been looked upon not as professional men or doctors to whom one goes for advice, but rather as grocers or someone with whom one haggles over the price. Only recently have we built up confidence in dentistry as a respectable branch of the medical profession. It is essential that nothing is done to undermine that growing confidence of the public in the dentist. If
  216
  this dispute continues much longer that confidence may be destroyed.
  I would also point out—and I think this will be agreed even by supporters of the Conservative Party—that this Government has shown much more sympathy for the professional outlook than any previous Government, and especially as regards the dental profession. During the Committee stage of the National Health Bill, the dental case was listened to and treated sympathetically by the Minister. At the same time, I may mention as well that the Government have already paid in university grants a large payment—I think of 100,000—for re-equipping our dental hospitals. Last week the Minister of Health, replying to me, told us how he intends, in the very near future, to implement the findings of the Teviot Committee for dentistry. In many ways this Government has shown sympathy with the aspirations of the dental profession. I ask the Minister of National Insurance to follow in that tradition, and to be generous this afternoon.
  I do not want to make too many concrete suggestions. Perhaps he knows better than I do the best method of approach. But I do feel that there are one or two ways in which he could reopen negotiations. For instance, we believe we could let the dentists charge a higher scale and reduce the insurance companies' proportion still further to something like 3o per cent., at hand, until the Spens Committee reports. Even if the Minister cannot do that, I suggest that he might, at least, give an undertaking that, when the Spens Committee does report, if it shows the present scale is inadequate, he will agree to make retrospective payments from the time of the dispute. It will be difficult to do that, I know, but it may be possible on a compensating scale. I believe it could be done. I am not, personally, tied to any one method of solving the dispute. All I want is to open the door just a little, because I believe that once the handle has been turned both sides will jump in as fast as they can, to get together to resolve this unfortunate trouble. That is my sole reason for raising this matter this afternoon. I have no intention of trying to embarass the Government or of trying to embarass the Minister in any way, but I do believe that this discussion this afternoon will just start the ball rolling a little. If that is done the two sides will come together again,

  217
  and then we shall be able to look forward to the coming dental service with the good will of the dentists, and we shall have an opportunity, in the years that lie ahead, to build up the status of the dental profession, and to do a very good job in this very important branch of preventative medicine.
  2.22 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: In accordance with the practice of this House, I should also declare my interest in the subject under Debate. I have had and still have relatives in the dental profession as qualified dental surgeons. But I do not think that this would amount to any very substantial interest in expectancy. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) has covered practically the whole of the ground, but I should like to touch, first, on the point he made relating to the scale of fees. He referred to the anomaly in the price of dentures in the new scale of fees. The price which the Joint Advisory Dental Council is asking for, in this particular item, is nine guineas, compared with the price of £7 15s. which is in the new regulations just issued, which came into force on 3oth September. In 1926 the price for upper and lower dentures was £6. In 1931, however, there was negotiated a reduced price of £5, and it was only in 1944 that the price was again raised to £6 7s. 6d., and the new scale has now increased the amount to £7 15s.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned the costs of making the dentures. I believe that a very large number of the dental surgeons do send the work out to dental laboratories, and do not do the work in their own workrooms. The price charged by the dental mechanics, as has been mentioned, is between £5 and £6. At the new rate of £715s., it leaves only £215s. for the dental surgeon. Now, the work he has to perform for this very small margin, I suggest, is really quite extensive. He has to get his patient to the surgery and has to keep his surgery open long hours, particularly in industrial areas, where people often cannot get along to the surgery until after normal working hours. He has to take an impression. He then takes a bite. That is followed by a try in —it may be one or more—and the work has to be finished with adjustments which may mean further visits from the patient. He undertakes all that work and, at the end of it, there may he, perhaps, a risk
  218
  of the dentures not being satisfactory, so he may have to make them entirely afresh. He does all that with a margin of only £215s. I suggest that nobody going for a prewar seven guinea suit to some very average tailor, would find that the tailor would expect to get only £215s. for his work. And here are men highly qualified, and expected to do very highly skilled work, for, as I see it, a very small remuneration.
  The whole scale of fees is, to some extent, under dispute, but I should just like to emphasise one point. When the dispute took place, the Minister, as has already been said, did agree to a small sub-committee, the Fees Sub-Committee, being set up, with a view to overcoming the disagreement. Since the Minister agreed to that committee being set up, and he did, in point of fact, have on it a representative of the Ministry, surely, both sides to the dispute would be entitled to expect that a decision or, rather the recommendations of this Committee would be acceptable? It was hardly to be thought, surely, that at the end of these negotiations, which extended from January of this year until June, should, at the end of that time, be thrown to the wind? It has, furthermore, been said that the recommendations of this Fees Sub-Committee were accepted by a majority vote of the Dental Benefit Council. Yet when the recommendation was placed before the Minister, he overruled what was, to all intents and purpose's, his own committee's decision. It is the principle that has been raised which is chiefly in dispute—the principle that, when negotiating machinery acceptable to both sides has been used, that then it is cast aside. There, I think is the real point of discontent at the moment. That is the point of discontent, rather than the feeling that the present fees only are inadequate.
  These regulations, when they were published, bore the imprint of the Dental Benefit Council. Furthermore, at the back of the regulations the words were given "Published by the Dental Benefit Council," their address was given. Admittedly, these regulations were sent out with a covering letter which did show that there was some disagreement, but, nevertheless, the impression has been created that the fees contained in these regulations were, in fact, supported by the Dental Benefit Council. Many

  219
  members of the profession feel that that is misleading. They feel that if the regulations with the scale of fees are issued by the Ministry and imposed on the profession, that that should be made perfectly clear to the profession in a way which, because of the imprint on the regulations, it is not clear at the present time. They feel that, in other words, it has rather been "slipped across" them. There is that feeling of suspicion, which, I think, in all the circumstances should have been avoided.
  The argument may be used by my right hon. Friend that, since the Spens Committee, which has been appointed to go into the whole question of dental fees, is sitting at the present time, an increase in the scale now may prejudice the findings of the Spens Committee. After all, the reverse argument could also be used, that if a scale of fees materially lower than they should reasonably be is allowed to stand, that again might prejudice the Spens findings in a way which would show some inequality to the dental profession.
  Finally, I would ask my right hon. Friend if he would bear this most important point in mind. The National Health Service will in due time come into effect, and it will include dental treatment for the public of this country. The success of the health service obviously depends upon the complete goodwill of the medical and dental professions, so surely this is a time above all others when we should avoid antagonising any sections of those professions. I ask my right hon. Friend if he will take any step that seems possible to allay the suspicions of the dental profession. He has, I understand, received very excellent support from the profession during the time his Bill was being debated. They endeavoured to concede points whenever it seemed necessary, and have in fact given a much more unanimous support to the part they will have to play in the new health service than the medical profession, which has done a considerable amount of lobbying and has tried to stir up public antagonism to the new service. Therein, as I see it, the dental profession have justified, and deserve, fair consideration and fair treatment. Would my right hon. Friend therefore consider the possibility of opening negotiations at the present time to see if the dental profession
  220
  could not be satisfied in their just claims and at least do everything that can be done to eliminate the sort of suspicion which they seem to be justified in feeling because of the way in which these negotiations have been handled?
  2.33 p.m.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I, as a member of a closely allied profession, add my appeal to the Minister to open negotiations, if it is in any way possible, with the dental profession? I agree fully that they have not been too helpful in the past. That only about one-third of them gave the information which was asked for does not suggest a very helpful attitude, but for all that I think that they have been badly paid in the past and have a just claim to some increase in remuneration. The only question is, to what extent should that increase be granted? As one hon. Member has already said, the increase demanded will be 116 per cent. over prewar figures, or, and I should like to put it another way, 109 per cent. over the 1944 figures; that is to say, 109 per cent. above what it was about two years ago. At first that seems, and actually is, a very large increase, but that figure is obtained by taking account of the expenses as well. Let me show what I mean by an example. At present the maximum fee for a set of upper and lower dentures is £67s. 6d. What is claimed is 9 gns. At first that does not seem to be a very considerable increase; we must remember that in that £67s. 6d. a good deal of the cost is made up of fees to mechanics and the cost of materials and so on which have not materially increased since 1944, so this is really a very material increase in the dentists' profits, or in other words, in the money received for actual work done by the dentist himself.
  The hon. Member who opened this discussion talked of the balanced scale, by which fees which were rather low in one branch, stopping teeth for instance, were made up by rather higher fees in another branch, as for instance the preparation of dentures. I want to suggest that that is highly undesirable. Whatever he is paid the dentist ought to be paid for the work undertaken without any consideration of anything else. I know the dentist is a professional man and I know he does his very best for his patients, but if one branch of his work, for instance the extraction of teeth and the making of den-

  221
  tures, is to be relatively better paid than, say, the stopping of teeth, a tendency is created for the professional man concerned to undertake what is perhaps easier and simpler, and certainly less fiddling and fatiguing, namely, extractions and the preparation of dentures.
  Finally, I feel—I do not know whether you will rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—but all this business is unfortunate and seems to show how very much better this service would be if the dentists were on a salary and were not paid by piece work. Here I have a list of prices for extractions—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): The question which is now being raised by the hon. Member would require legislation. It is therefore not in Order.
  Mr. Hastings: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The figures of fees I have here are very variable and indicate, I think, that very great care should be taken in the consideration of these scales. They show that it would be a very good thing if the dentists could be induced to take a reasonable point of view, if some slight concession could be granted and if negotiations could be undertaken once more between the dental surgeon and the Minister
  2.38 p.m.
  Mr. Skinnard: It is very valuable in this House to have, on all technical and professional questions, the advice of specialists who are Members of the House, but we are all interested in this subject, no matter what profession or trade we belong to, or even if we belong to none at all We all represent potential dental patients, and even those of us who possess dentures already, and are no longer, perhaps, ourselves personally interested in the fees charged by the dental profession, have, most of us, dependants who are more fortunate and who still possess their natural teeth, and therefore must look forward—if look forward is the right expression—to regular visits to a dentist. The dental surgeon differs from the medical practitioner in that he is paid only on work done. That, I think, is a very important distinction; he has to live on the actual visits of patients to his surgery. The Dental Benefit Council is very rightly concerned, as far as the dental panel is concerned, with the remuneration dentists receive from their practice.
  222
  The approved society representatives, on the other hand, are naturally very thoughtful about the funds at their disposal. In the middle, like Mr. Pickwick, between the rival editors, are the unfortunate patients, and many of these patients at the moment are suffering pain and anxiety because of this unfortunate dispute. I have received letters, and no doubt other hon. Members have been badgered by their constituents, and quite rightly so, complaining that people have insured themselves according to law, and have paid what they can afford as a regular part of their budget for safeguarding their health and that of their families, and now, when they go to a dentist to receive dental benefits, they are informed that they must pay fees of which they had no idea. According to a circular sent by the Joint Advisory Dental Council to all dentists—
  "You are therefore advised to tell your dental benefit patients forthwith, if you have not already done so, that their dental letters cannot be accepted, but that you are willing to undertake treatment at the costs in accordance with the scale rejected by the Minister."
  The patients are in the dark about this dispute, and I submit that it is the business of this House to think, and think quickly, on this matter. It is not just a question of professional remuneration, but it is a question of a vital service.
  Having listened carefully to the argument presented, I feel that there is a very strong case to be made out for the recommendations of the Dental Council, although the rise in the general prices seems to be very large. As has been said, it is a very large increase due to the introduction of a new principle into dental treatment, and that is allowing dentists to make a charge for examination and report. Examination and report is remedial. I have suffered in my youth from visits to a dentist who was frightfully disappointed if he could find nothing to do. If my teeth were sound, he reported to my father "He has unusually healthy teeth. I am sorry that there is nothing that I can do for him." Jubilantly we left the surgery, for this was a visit for which we had nothing to pay; if it was a waste of time for the dentist, it was no waste of time for us. I belong to the teaching profession, and we have been trying for a long time to make it a general practice that everyone who is still in possession of his teeth shall go regu-

  223
  larly every six months to the dentist to see whether his teeth need attention. I am sure that this is very much in the mind of the Minister as an important part of the general health service. We want to encourage visits to the dentist, not in a sense of dread and wonder whether anything horrible is going to happen, but with a feeling that the visit is an insurance and that one's teeth will be safeguarded. This can only be done by allowing a fee for examination and report. It has put up the general costs very considerably.
  I do not think that the dentists would want to make unnecessary extractions and provide dentures, if there was a rational scheme of fees which the dental profession considered adequate. I think the overall cost of dental treatment would tend to lessen, because the habit of regular visits would lessen the expenditure on dentures and extractions, and dentists would increasingly provide treatment, such as scaling and other treatments designed to preserve the teeth, which are largely practised in America, rather than exchange them for beautiful gold or other artificial teeth. I observed that when I was in the United States, in the schools and among all classes of society of all ages, to possess dentures was regarded as a disgrace and not as an adornment, and persons were accounted wise who preserved their natural teeth to the greatest age. I should like to see, by the cooperation of the dental profession, properly remunerated for preserving teeth, Britain adopting the American attitude. Patients are now waiting, and many of them are in pain, because of this unfortunate dispute. I add my appeal to the Minister to see if he cannot very quickly resolve the difficulties, and try at least to meet the dental profession half way.
  2.46 p.m.
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who has raised this subject, and to my other hon. Friends who have spoken on this matter. They have raised it in a temperate manner, in contrast to some of the things which have been said outside this House. They have obviously been seeking a way out of this unfortunate dispute. I hope that anything I shall say will not in any way prejudice whatever
  224
  settlement is possible. I am bound to put the episode in its proper perspective, because it has been represented that the Labour Government are now refusing to pay the scale of fees which has been adopted by trade union machinery.
  It is very essential that the position of the Minister and of the Government should be explained. In order to do that, I must explain what these additional benefits are, the people who are entitled to them, and under what conditions they are entitled to them. Additional benefits which include dental benefit are not statutory or standard benefits provided by the National Health Insurance Acts, and let me make it perfectly clear at the beginning, are only available to a proportion of persons who pay insurance.
  The House has heard during past weeks and months my views on the system whereby unequal benefits are paid to insured persons. The system is going, and it ought to go. What it means is that for many years the State and employers have made equal contributions for insured men and women, but all have not been provided with equal benefits. Dental benefit is one of the unequal benefits. It is not available to all insured persons, although they pay the same contributions. It is available only to those who are lucky enough to get into a society which has available surpluses. I happen to be one of those unfortunate people who have been outside. Dental benefits are provided if the approved societies have disposable surpluses, and if they set aside part of their surplus to provide additional benefits.
  So far as our figures go, dental benefits are available to about 13 million insured persons, and when provided they consist of cash contributions towards the cost of treatment, at fees not exceeding the scale of payments laid down. The insured person himself has to meet the rest of the cost. The position generally, until this difference arose, was that the approved society provided at least 5o per cent. of the cost, and the insured person the rest. Therefore, no insured person in the country is provided with free dental benefit as such. All that he is provided with is a contribution from his approved society, if they are able to make a contribution, of not less than half the cost of the treatment. This system of providing dental

  225
  benefit is completely unlike the panel system. For example, medical benefit is provided for insured persons under the National Health Insurance Act, and the patient selects his own panel doctor. There is then a contract between the doctor and the Government, by which the doctor provides medical service, within the prescribed rules, to the patient. That is a public service.
  Even when a scale of fees is accepted, there is nothing, under the existing arrangement, by which a dentist must provide treatment. If an insured person wants dental treatment he goes to the secretary of his approved society and he gets a dental letter. He takes the letter. to the dentist. Under the present arrangement, there is nothing to compel the dentist to give him treatment. The dentist may say, "No, I do not want to give you treatment." I do not say that dentists may do that, but I want to make clear that that is the position. If the dentist accepts the patient, he undertakes to provide him with the best treatment and materials possible in accordance with the regulations. The fact that the Dental Benefit Council has accepted certain scales, does not mean that every dentist will accept them. When a scale was adopted on the recommendation of the Dental Benefit Council, there were some dentists who refused to operate it, and they were perfectly within their rights in doing so
  Mr. Baird: Is it not the case that, over the whole period of existence of the Dental Benefit Council, only a small number of dentists have not accepted it?
  Mr. Griffiths: I agree, but it is possible for them not to do so.
  Major Guy Lloyd: I hope that the Minister is not trying to give the impression that there ought to be a closed shop in the dental profession?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am not discussing the closed shop question now, but I shall be glad to discuss it with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at some other time. I have a lot of experience of employers making a closed shop against my union, but I will not go into that now. It is essential to remember two things: First, that the approved society system is going very soon. As soon as the National Insurance scheme comes into operation—at the most in 18 months' time—it goes. Whatever settlement is made now can
  226
  only be for a short time. When the new national health service comes into operation, dental benefit will be provided for everyone, and not a few lucky people, as part of that service. Let me say on behalf of the Government, the supporters of the Government, and, I believe, the nation, that we shall be beginning an entirely new chapter in this field when this scheme comes into operation. As one who has the greatest possible respect for the medical and dental profession, may I say that when the Government's scheme comes into operation, it will give its members a new place in the national life, a new opportunity for service, and a service which is far better than anything we have ever seen before. I approach this matter without prejudice of any kind, but with a desire to see that members of the profession shall have a proper prestige and an opportunity of serving everyone in the nation who needs their service. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I have had to decide was the action to be taken in this temporary period during which the approved societies are still in existence, and during which time they will have to provide these services out of their surplus funds.
  Approved societies are not entitled to provide this service out of any other funds but the funds earmarked for the purpose. It is essential to remember that. My right hon. Friend and I have to decide not what we, as a Government, think the dentist ought to have, but the scale of fees which the approved societies can meet. If they cannot meet it, there is no service; and if there is no service, it is no good trying to make an agreement. When the negotiating committee approached this problem, they did not consider at all—if I understand correctly what the hon. Member said—as being relevant to their purpose, where the money came from. But if there is not the money to meet 5o per cent. of the cost, then there can be no service. There is no purpose in an insured contributor going to his approved society and obtaining a letter for his dentist, if he has to meet the cost himself. He might just as well go direct to the dentist without a letter. I have to take into account what the approved societies can pay and bear in mind that they have only a limited amount of money for this purpose.
  Sir W. Darling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this limited sum is?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, it depends on the society.
  Sir W. Darling: The Minister must have an aggregate. There is a limited number of societies with surpluses for this purpose. How many societies are there, and what is the total amount of money during the next 18 months for dental benefit?
  Mr. Griffiths: All I can say is, that there are about 13 million insured persons who belong to approved societies which have provided, in the past, this additional benefit.
  Mr. Cooper: Will the societies which provide these benefits publish their figures, so that they can be checked; and will these figures be available to the dental profession?
  Mr. Griffiths: There is a most careful check and audit of the accounts of every approved society in the country. It is possible, from the society or, indeed, from the Ministry, to obtain particulars of what disposable surplus any society has and how it is used. The surplus is actually money which is part of the National Insurance Fund. Every society is kept under careful watch and guard, and its accounts are audited, and there has been no suggestion that there is anything wrong with them.
  I now come to the question of how this present dispute has arisen. The scale of fees in force before 3oth September, was introduced in March, 1944 This is not a very long time ago. The 1944 settlement allowed an increase of 17 per cent. over the prewar scale. Moreover it contained two new features requested by the dental representatives on the Dental Benefit Council, namely a relative improvement in the fees for conservative treatment and the introduction of a fee for examinations and reports on treatment needed.
  That was in 1944. The dental organisations undertook to recommend that scale for acceptance by their members. By and large, the members accepted it loyally but, as I have said already, there were some who refused to operate it. During 1945 some dissatisfaction developed but no responsible suggestion was made until February of this year, when the matter
  228
  was raised through the Dental Benefit Council that the fees were inadequate. As a result of a demand for a review of the scale that council set up a subcommittee of three dentists and three representatives of the approved societies, to undertake a review of the scale in the light of the existing conditions, and "to make recommendations to the council." My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) referred to the fact that there were representatives of the Ministry on the Dental Benefit Council and on the sub-committees. I am sure he will agree that those representatives were completely impartial. They did not take part in discussions, or in voting, or in arriving at decisions.
  The sub-committee submitted a report which recommended a scale which, in the words of the report itself, was calculated, on the committee's assumption that expenses were 52½per cent. higher than in prewar days, to yield the dentists an increase of 116 per cent. in net remuneration over the prewar scale, and of 109 per cent. over the then existing scale.
  Mr. Baird: Is it not a fact that the calculations, according to the point of view of the dentists, were based upon the position in 1935?
  Mr. Griffiths: It may be, but I think it was accepted at the meetings that the net increase was 116 per cent. The subcommittee's report was considered by the Dental Benefit Council, which is composed of an equal number of representatives of the approved societies, not only of insurance societies and insurance companies but of approved societies generally, and of the dental profession. After discussion the matter was put to a vote. I want to make this point quite clearly, because it is very important. The impression has been created—I am not saying that my hon. Friend who raised this matter was responsible for it—that what was presented to my hon. Friends and myself was a unanimous recommendation from the Dental Benefit Council. It was nothing of the kind. This is what happened. The reference back of the subcommittee's report was moved by representatives of the approved societies on the Dental Benefit Council. Acceptance was urged by the dentists. There was a definite cleavage between the two sides. When the vote was taken, 12 representatives of the dentists voted for it and nine repre-

  229
  sentatives of the approved societies voted against it. The voting would have been 12 on each side, but three of the approved society representatives had been members of the sub-committee, and they thought that they ought to remain neutral in the voting. The approved societies were solid on one side, while the dental representatives stood solid on the other. That was the kind of recommendation that was made to us.
  What we had then to decide, and remember it relates only to the next 18 months, was whether the scale suggested could be operated by the approved societies. The approved societies made it perfectly clear that the scale should be rejected. There were three reasons. The first is most important. It is that funds were not available to meet the cost of the proposed scale. I put it to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) that if the approved societies came to me, and said that if we approved the new scale they would not have the funds with which to meet it, would he expect me to make a regulation prescribing that scale? What would be the purpose of that? It would cheat the insured people of this country if I approved a scale giving the dentists an increase in remuneration of 116 per cent. over prewar scales if the approved societies could not meet their obligations. Dental benefit is not a statutory benefit. I cannot compel approved societies to provide it. It is on a sort of voluntary basis, and nothing can compel them—
  Mr. Baird: Time after time in past years when negotiations have taken place between the dentists and the insurance companies, the insurance companies have used the lever that if a higher scale were paid, the funds to meet it would not be available, but they have always found the money. Can they not find the money for the proposed scale?
  Sir W. Darling: Not the insurance companies.
  Mr. Baird: No, the approved societies.
  Mr. Griffiths: The approved societies told me they could not pay the new scale which was recommended. It would be very easy for my right hon. Friends and I to approve the scale, but the insured contributors would be unable to go to their dentists for treatment because the
  230
  approved societies could not meet the cost.
  Until 3oth September the proportion which the insured contributor had to pay was not more than half. The approved societies told me they could not meet the proposed new scale. My hon. Friend suggested that we might accept a scale whereby the proportion payable by the societies reduced from 5o per cent. to 3o per cent. That would mean that the insured contributor would pay 7o per cent. My information is that most of the societies could not pay anything like 5o per cent. on the new scale. They are limited all the time by the money they can provide for the purpose. It must be remembered that there will be a new scale of remuneration for dentists under the new health service which comes into force, not in several years' time, but 18 months hence. The matter of fees is therefore one in which the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are also concerned because they have to provide the new service. In connection with the scheme they have proposed—and the dentists and all have accepted the view—that a Committee should be set up to examine the whole of the problem and report upon what should be the level of remuneration of dentists under the new service. We have, therefore, taken the view—we were entitled to—that apart from the fact that the scale provided would have meant a breakdown of the system and a failure by the approved societies to provide a service, the scale was such a radical departure from the old scale, far more so than any improvements made before, that it would prejudge the very issues the Spens Committee had been appointed to investigate. We therefore suggested that, for these reasons, we could not accept the scale.
  I met the dentists and suggested to them that for the interim period a new scale calculated to give an increase of 50 cent. in the net remuneration above prewar figures should be brought into operation. I realised, and I also made it clear to the dentists, that in agreeing to a scale which would give a net remuneration increase of 50 per cent., I would still have to explain the increase to the approved societies and suggest that the proportion they had to pay should be reduced from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. This meant

  231
  that the proportion the patient would have to pay could be increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., in order to make it possible for a scale of 50 per cent. above prewar to come into operation. In short, in order to operate a scale 50 per cent. above prewar levels I would have to make the man pay proportionately more, and the society less. What would be the effect if I accepted the present proposal of my hon. Friend to make it a great deal more? I made that proposal of a 50 per cent. increase accompanied with a suggestion. I asked that this should be accepted for the moment, and that the allocation of the increase amongst the various forms of treatment could be worked out. In the meantime, there was the Spens Committee which we believed would be able to report with the turn of the year, round about Christmas. It would report upon what should be the level of remuneration in the service in the future. I said, without any committal on either side, bearing in mind the fact that I was limited all the time by what the approved societies could pay, that we should be quite prepared to look at the scales again in the light of the Spens Committee Report. Unfortunately, the work of the Spens Committee, which could very well get on with its task, has now been held up, because the dentists have refused to serve on the Committee because of this unfortunate dispute.
  Mr. Baird: I have a letter from Sir Will Spens, and its contents are rather different from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The dentists are at present collecting evidence for the Spens Committee, and in this letter Sir Will Spens tells us that the work of that Committee will not be held back, because it will take two or three months to collect the evidence. So this will not finally hold back the Spens Committee Report.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is no good the Committee collecting evidence, unless the Committee is constituted, and the dentists are represented on the Committee. I appeal to them to reconsider the matter. Whatever happens about the dispute, there is no question of anybody winning or losing. Whatever happens, in 18 months the whole system goes. I shall be glad to be one who pushes it out. The new health service, with a new place and opportunity for dentists and everyone else, is a permanent scheme, and the Spens Commit-
  232
  tee's big job is to investigate and report on what ought to be the level of remuneration in the new public service. I appeal to the dentists to reconsider their decision not to sit on the Committee, and to rejoin it, for it is in their interests, and in the interests of the whole community, that the Spens Committee should be able to go on with its work, and report quickly.
  I have met the approved societies, and gone into this matter very carefully with them. For the next 18 months I have the responsibility of seeing that the system of the approved societies is carried on. I am in the unfortunate position of standing between two sides. I do not want to see the approved societies break down. They have to be absorbed into the new national insurance service, and their personnel has to be absorbed. In the next 18 months I do not want to see the breakdown in the provision of the dental benefits, but I want to see them carried on and sustained. I know perfectly well, and this is beyond any question, that, if I accepted this new scale, and imposed it on the approved societies, they would tell me, "We cannot meet it out of the funds we have at our disposal." Therefore, I believe it would be dishonest for me to approve and impose a scale under which the approved societies would not be able to provide the benefit required of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton is a very temperate man, and in his constructive speech he asked, "Is there a way out?" I hope there is. Perhaps he knows that when I met the dentists I appealed to them not to push their suggested scale. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was with us. I said, "Do not push this scale because, quite honestly, I cannot accept it," for the reasons I have made clear to the House and on which I believe I have carried the House with me. I urged them, "Do not insist on that scale. Let us get together." I still say that if the dentists and their representatives have any suggestions to make, I am prepared to consider them. I wish to make it clear beyond any question of doubt that anything I accept is of no value unless the approved societies can work it. If a useful suggestion is made, if it appeals to me and I accept it, and if the approved societies accept it, and can work it, and it is reasonably fair to the insured contributor, then all will be

  233
  well. If it places the whole burden on the insured contributor I cannot accept it, as it would be unjust and dishonest. If there is another way out, I am prepared to consider it. If my hon. Friend's approach is an olive branch of the profession, if they come to me with any suggestions for breaking the deadlock, and arriving at a settlement to carry on the service for this next 18 months, and which will maintain the best relationship between the Government and the dental profession, I am, as I say, prepared to consider it. I can only consider it in the light of the fact that the service has to be provided by the approved societies in the way I have described. I hope that this afternoon's discussion will not have created any more bitterness, but that it will have swept away some of the misunderstandings. If there is a new approach, I, speaking for my right hon. Friends as well as myself, subject to the reservation I am bound to make, am quite prepared to consider it.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  3.18 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I am given an opportunity this afternoon which, I am afraid by my own negligence, I missed last week, of raising the question of prisoners of war who are still held in this country and by this country. A proposal for a scheme of release has been mentioned, but I feel that that scheme, at the moment, at any rate, lacks the certainty which such a scheme should have. The success of the Bevin scheme in the Forces depended largely on the fact that everybody understood it. The ordinary man in the Forces, if he knew nothing else, knew what his group was. That is not at all the case with these prisoners. I have talked to a good many of them, and I have not yet found one who has any idea what his place is in the release scheme and whether he is anti-Fascist or not. I think it is important that they should know that.
  Most of them do not know whether they are anti-Fascist or not. I have not been able to tell them, because I do not know what the release category of anti-Fascism is. I do not think that anyone has given us any definition of it. We have been told that there is a system of screening,
  234
  for blacks, whites and greys, but what are the terms of reference of the screeners? Are these people being judged on their opinions or their records? Is the anti-Fascist group which is to have this special privilege to be confined to those who did something active before they were taken prisoner? Is it those who were members of anti-Fascist groups and took part in the underground, or something like that? Is it to be open to those who changed over while they were prisoners, those who may be looked at without disparagement but, from a slightly different angle, as treacherous prisoners?
  Finally, is it to include those who since the war, since they have seen it, have become converted to the virtues of democracy, those who, when Hitler's armies were marching, perhaps doubted the virtues of a democratic system but since they have seen how the democratic nations, casting all mere questions of national advantage aside, cooperated together to usher in the century of the common man; that democracy casts down tyrants and replaces them with men like Marshal Tito and King George of Greece, that democracy even when it is armed with so formidable a weapon as an atomic bomb only uses it for what can be described, broadly speaking, as lifesaving purposes? Now that they have seen and experienced in their own person that democracy hates forced labour and is jealous of the liberty of others, in a word does it refer to those who have seen democracy working, and are now convinced of democratic virtue? Are those people to be included in this anti-Fascist class?
  Again, are there to be priorities in this anti-Fascist group? Are the latest arrivals in the democratic vineyard to go out with the earlier corners? Are some people to be released rather sooner because they are rather more anti-Fascist, and are some who are less anti-Fascist to be given a rather longer opportunity to learn to love democracy? I do not know, and I am sure the prisoners do not know. What is it that these "screeners" are being asked to look for? What are the definitions as to the groups in which they are to be put? Are the prisoners to be told whether they are in the anti-Fascist group? If they think that they are anti-Fascist and somebody tells them that they are not, are they to be allowed to appeal against that decision? If so, what is to be the appeal tribunal, how is it to be constituted

  235
  and brought into operation? I ask the Minister to deal with these questions. I think the matter is extremely important and I ask him to give us some indication of the number who it is expected will receive priority on anti-Fascist grounds.
  The next group consists of those who are to be released on compassionate grounds, but we have not as yet been given any indication of what will be regarded as compassionate grounds for this purpose. I am not asking for any precise definition. That is never possible in a case of this sort. In the Army, however, one has a general idea of the sort of grounds which will be regarded as grounds for compassionate release. For instance, a number of grounds which occur to me concern men whose families have been driven out of Czechoslovakia and Poland and who are homeless and destitute. Are deportation, destitution and homelessness of prisoners' families regarded as compassionate grounds? Again, is the illness of a near relative, and if so what near relative, a qualification?
  Again, what about the one-man business, with which we are fully familiar in our forces? If a man cannot save his means of livelihood in his own home unless he is allowed to return, or because the person looking after his business is ill or dead, will he be released? Is "compassionate" to be regarded as a group? Is there a limit to the number of people to be compassionately released, and, if it is to be a group, how will it rank with the anti-Fascist group? Does an anti-Fascist, who is also a compassionate case, get a double priority? Do the two groups work inside each other, or are they separate, and, if separate, what allocation is there for each group? I would like the answer to these questions.
  How is the machine for compassionate release to be put into operation? Does the man apply himself; if so, what sort of evidence is he required to produce? If that is the machinery, what steps have been taken to inform the men of the position so that they know what to do? If, on the other hand, the application has to come from Germany, who applies in Germany, to whom does he apply, what evidence is he required to produce and what is the channel by which the application comes to England? How is it dealt with at this end? Finally, and I think this,
  236
  perhaps, is most important if the application has to come from Germany, what are the steps taken to publicise the scheme in Germany, so that the German dependents may know if they come within the compassionate release category and what steps they ought to take about it?
  Next, there is the age-and-service group, and among the prisoners there seems to be a good deal of confusion of mind whether it is age-and-service or age-and-captivity, and there is complete vagueness on how this group works, whether it works by itself or whether the other two groups, anti-Fascist and compassionate, are released on the basis of age-and-captivity, or whatever it may be, or whether there are special priorities for those groups.
  With regard to the conditions of captivity, I think we ought to face up to this matter. Some of us do not feel very happy about these people being here at all. I think it is very hard to get away from the fact that this is slave labour, but, on the other hand, whatever we may feel about it, I do feel that we should face up to this question. These men are here to help us because we need their help, and, in those circumstances, we ought, within reason, to do what we can to make life as reasonably pleasant for them as we can. I have in mind here the sort of privileges which were granted to the Italian cooperators. Is there any real reason why these men should not be allowed to go into homes where they are invited? I should have thought that that would have been the very best opportunity of re-education, and that is what we have in mind.
  Secondly, is there any real reason why they should not be allowed to go to an occasional cinema during the afternoon or to go to shops and things of that sort? I do recognise, immediately, the difficulties of the matter, and the fact that there would be a great deal of trouble if they were allowed to go out with girls, and, for that sort of reason, it is extremely important that they should be in at night. On the other hand, within this sort of limitation, cannot something be done to give them a little less captive life here in England while they are here for our convenience?
  There is one other thing. I have met a good many of these men who came from America, and they were told, when coming from America, that they were going home to Germany. Then they were

  237
  diverted here, and some of them are naturally very bitter about it. On the other hand, there is one thing on which I have found them quite unanimous, and that is that they much prefer their treatment here to their treatment in America. In America, they were given parties, cigarettes and a great deal of privileges, and lived a far more luxurious life than they do in England. But, on the other hand, they never knew when any guard was going to pet them or strike them. Over here, they say that they can rely upon being treated kindly and humanly by the guards and the people in the camps, and they do value that, and I should like to bring that point out, because I think it is a great credit to the people in charge of these camps.
  There is one other matter, which I think is more a question for the Home Office. In view of the economic situation, I believe that, for a long time to come, we shall require foreign assistance to do the work which is essential in this country, and, therefore, at some point, we shall have to accept voluntary labour from abroad. I hope that a scheme of volunteers whereby the prisoners, on certain conditions, can agree to stay here on contract to work for a certain period, will be evolved. I think we should get a very large number indeed of these prisoners who were prepared to stay here on a voluntary basis under a reasonable scheme of this kind. Both from the economic and humanitarian points of view, I feel that the sooner we get away from forced labour and get back to free labour the better, and the question of turning these people from convict labourers into free labourers should have a high priority in the consideration of the Government, and that something on these lines ought to be worked out as soon as possible.
  My next question is with regard to the use to which the prisoners are put, and it is in this connection that I want to say a few words about food. I do not think calories are a very satisfactory guide in this matter. When you have a working horse, you give him a maintenance ration and a working ration, and, if you do not give him an adequate working ration, you are wasting your money, because you waste your maintenance ration, and I think that is what is happening to some extent with the prisoners. I do not think the criticism that they are ill-fed from the health point
  238
  of view holds water at all, but, on the other hand, I do not think that the sort of diet they receive is adequate to produce the best results in terms of work. For instance, the sort of menus which I have come across, and I hope they may be improved, is a breakfast consisting of bread and tea, sometimes with some jam on the bread, but no butter. Then they go out to work, and they take two very thick sandwiches consisting almost entirely of bread and a little very thin meat or fish in it, but no butter or margarine. Later, in the evening, when they get back, they get a meal of stew. That may all add up to a great deal of calories, but one is struck by the tremendous shortage of fats, and I think that there are a good many of us who would feel that the hope of a good meal in the evening would not really assist one through a day's work in which one had had inadequate food for breakfast or lunch. That is an aspect which merits consideration.
  Another point is the question of inducements. On the whole—and I do not think Germans are any exception—people do not like work unless they can get some reward. I think we should try to increase the reward available to prisoners. A bonus scheme has been devised. I will not go into the details, but I feel it is very inadequate. Further, these men are now allowed to send some money to Germany, but that is no good at all because nearly all the families of which these men are the supporters are on relief in Germany, so that all they are doing is sending money to Germany to subsidise the local authorities there. It does not do their families any good. They are getting to know this, and that inducement is losing its effect. If, on the other hand, they could send to their relatives in Germany parcels of the articles which they are allowed to buy in their canteens, so that their bonus would be in the terms of the type of goods which are urgently required there, instead of in money which does not amount to anything because it cancels out when it gets there, that would be a very considerable additional inducement. At present their pay works out in many instances at 1½d. an hour, they may get 1½d. an hour, but when they spend that money on cigarettes in their canteens the Government takes 80 per cent. of it back, because they have to pay the full taxation on the cigarettes. Therefore, the

  239
  reward which they are given is very trivial.
  Wing-Commander Millington: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the kind of inducement which would get more work out of these men is tax free cigarettes?
  Mr. Paget: Yes. What I am saying is that the remuneration which is given to them in the form of money which they are confined to spending in a canteen in England, or which if sent to Germany does not do any good, means that neither at the English end nor the German end is there any inducement, and it would be both more honest and beneficial if the Government faced the fact that payment in kind is most desirable in the circumstances. I think that is certainly the experience of farmers. The way in which the regulations are circumvented is that the farmer who is supposed to pay the full agricultural rate, not to the prisoner but to the Government, does not make any return on overtime worked by the prisoner, but pays the prisoner in kind for the overtime with cigarettes, beer and that sort of thing. That is the sort of arrangement that is worked on almost every farm in the country where these prisoners are boarded, and it seems to work very happily.
  My other point is that there are believed to be limitations on the sort of work which the prisoners are allowed to do. For instance, farmers complain that prisoners who may be very expert motorists cannot get a driving licence and, therefore, cannot deliver the milk. They cannot take a cow to market, and they cannot even take a tractor down the road. These are all matters which I do feel should definitely be cleared up.
  Finally, in regard to priorities. The local authorities are finding great difficulty in getting prisoner of war labour for clearing sites, and that sort of thing. I do feel that, though that priority is too low, on the other hand, agriculture is a very high priority, indeed. It is, of course, absolutely essential in harvest time, but 1 very much doubt whether the gangs available for agricultural work are really worth while. I think it would be a much more efficient organisation if, instead of having a gang available for various farms for
  240
  threshing, a certain number of prisoners of war were allotted to threshing contractors, so that they could specialise in a particular job, and go round with them. Then others, out of harvest time, could be made available to local authorities. I have raised these various points because I do feel that the publicity which the answers will receive if circulated to the prisoners, will help them a lot to understand just where they stand on these points, and I think it is important that they should know where they stand.
  3.43 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, and, quite frankly, I do not know what he is driving at. When he started off, and pleaded for some orderly scheme of release for German prisoners, I had a good deal of sympathy with him. When he went on to talk about anti-Fascism I had less sympathy with him, and when he finished up on grounds of sloppy sentimentality I had no sympathy at all.
  I think it is time we gave up using these ridiculous expressions about Fascism and anti-Fascism. They have ceased to have any meaning at all, and have become terms of abuse like the hissing of a soda water bottle. If the hon. Gentleman goes to Germany, as I have had the good fortune to go, he will discover there are no Nazis in Germany and, so far as one can gather, never have been. The Germans are talking about the Nazis as though they were foreigners, as though they had no responsibility whatever for all the horrors they have inflicted on the world in the last six years. The most damning thing about Germany today is that the Germans do not accept any responsibility for their leaders in this war or the last war, and the most serious thing they say about the Nazis is that they lost the war, and not that they committed atrocities on mankind. I am not impressed by all these ad misericordiam appeals to release Germans because they are not Nazis or anti-Nazis. I think it is most dangerous—
  Mr. Paget: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? I do not agree with most of his demands. I have today, and on previous occasions, expressed strong disapproval of the idea that we should have political priorities for release. I think it is absolutely wrong. But what I have

  241
  been urging is, that if we are to have political priorities, let us define them, let us be precise about them, let us know what they are, so that the men will understand them.
  Mr. Gammans: If that is the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint, all I can say is that he must have put it very badly, because if that is his viewpoint we are, possibly for the first time, sharing the same views on this subject. But nothing is more dangerous than that we should fall for this German blarney which has already started to go round the world. If the hon. Gentleman has read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" he will understand what Hitler said, that had he been Chancellor of Germany after the last war what he would have done would have been to organise sympathy for Germany. The Germans are on that job already, and we are now finding a lot of gullible people in this country who are prepared to swallow all that, hook, line and sinker. To my mind there should be only one criterion about the release of the German prisoners.
  The criterion should be that we can now do without them. I cannot have very much sympathy for German prisoners in this country. I have far more sympathy for our own boys who are still thousands of miles across the sea, and who have been away from home for four or five years, because the Germans started this war. The German prisoners have only been here two years. By all means let us send them back when it suits us to do so, but before we make any widespread appeals for getting rid of the German prisoners we had better explain how we are to do without them. The whole of our agricultural production today very largely depends on German labour, and if we got rid of the prisoners this year, it would be a pretty poor solace for people doing without their food the year after next to read the hon. Gentleman's speech in this House today.
  In dealing with the German prisoners the hon. Gentleman asked why they did not come here as paid labour. I imagine he was suggesting a wider proposition, namely, that we should employ other foreigners who are prepared to work for us. Perhaps it is a pity that he did not go down to Brighton this week and urge that view on the T.U.C. when they were considering the employment of Poles. If he is logical in what he said, he would
  242
  urge that we should employ anybody who is prepared to work here. Only if he is prepared to do that, would it be quite logical for him to urge the Government to expedite the release of the German prisoners. I sincerely hope that whoever is to reply for the Government will take the view very strongly that, while we do by all means want to get rid of these German prisoners—they are no asset to this country, and if they enjoyed some of the social advantages proposed by the hon. Gentleman most undesirable repercussions might result—we should get rid of them only when it suits us to do so.
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me just one moment to intervene in this Debate. Like everyone else who has spoken, I want to express satisfaction that the Government have decided to push forward the release of German prisoners. It must be borne in mind that the Americans have sent back, as I understand it, every prisoner from their country, and the Soviet Union has recently liberated 120,000 at one go. We have still about half a million, and there are something under 400,000 in this country. At the present rate of 15,000 a month it will take until the end of 1948 before they are all gone. It therefore follows—and this view which I adopt is quite contrary to that expressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans)—that it is absolutely vital that priority should be given to the proved anti-Nazis among the prisoners here. What I am urging is, not that they should have social amenities in England, although that has been urged, but something else—something that may be additional; that they should have a further chance of establishing their status as anti-Nazis, because I should have thought that no one is really satisfied with the screening that has taken place either in this country or, above all, in the Middle East.
  We have all heard of the appalling tragedy of the 999 Division. These men were forced straight from the concentration camps into a division which was called a punitive division. They were given not only the dirty work, the foul work, but the dangerous work in every field in which they were forced to serve, and some of their number when opportunity offered deserted straight into our ranks as whole units. At the same time, others were

  243
  liberated when they were captured, but liberated in circumstances which put them immediately into British concentration camps where they have now been for two or more years.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the hon. Member say how many anti-Nazis there were before the war?
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Does that mean how many there were in Germany, or in the whole world, or in the German Forces?
  Mr. Taylor: In Germany.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Nobody knows the answer to that question, but anyone who was languishing in a concentration camp, having been screened by Hitler, was, we are certain, a confirmed anti-Nazi, whom not all the terrors of the Nazi concentration camps could turn. These are the men of the 999 Division. It is not the name for some cure as might be thought. On the contrary,. it is an awful curse which rests on the lives of these men because of their staunch and gallant stand against Nazi terror in their own country. What is the difficulty? The difficulty is that they were screened mainly on the reports of the N.C.Os., camp attendants and the like, who were Nazis captured with them. It was done on their reports, and on the decisions of British officers, some of whom had already forgotten when the war was barely over that it was fought against Nazism, and who, as we now know, are very often obsessed with the idea that there will be another war against Bolshevism. They feel that if a man was an anti-Nazi, as like as not he was tainted in some way or other. They have the view of the average hon. Member opposite at the time of Munich. It is such officers who have dealt with these people in the 999 Division. They are still kept in the Middle East, and the Minister has told the House of the great difficulty that the Government have in getting any accurate figures about these men at short notice. They should be given first priority, and should be immediately released when their situation is known. We need these men in the Western zones. Germany needs them throughout its social, political and, above all, its industrial life. We know that the tragedy in our zone and in the American zone is that the morale of the people has not been restored. No one can play a better part in
  244
  restoring this morale than those who stood against Hitler throughout those evil days in Germany. The people in the 999 Division can play a leading role if only we will let them.
  3.53 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Millington: I intervene for only a few moments to follow the argument put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) and to repudiate the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). The hon. Member for Hornsey tries to give a practical and realistic turn to every Debate in which he takes part. He speaks as a business man, giving a business interpretation to the facts which have been presented.
  Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is supposed to be insulting me by calling me a business man, but in fact I am not a business man.
  Wing-Commander Millington: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Member. It is no part of my purpose to insult him, nor does it concern me in what way he earns his living. What concerns me is the attitude of mind he brings to bear upon these problems. It would seem, from his observations, that he is trying to be a practical man and cut through what he calls "sloppy mentality" on the part of Members on this side of the House who are concerned with things other than immediate practical day-to-day matters, which are of the utmost concern to the Conservative Members. I challenge the statement he has made from the fair and practical point of view he has introduced into this Debate. He has said that unless we keep incarcerated in these islands, without any amelioration of their position, these 400,000 German prisoners of war, we are unlikely to have a labour force sufficiently large for agriculture. I challenge the hon. Gentleman on that statement alone. I know that he represents an urban constituency. I wonder to what extent, during the last six months or so, he has been acquainted with the way in which this application of prisoner-of-war labour upon the farms is working out in this country. One of the biggest problems is to get any kind of a reasonable day's work from them, whether they are engaged in agriculture, public works, or any of the jobs

  245
  to which they have been applied. Unless we can get from the War Office, and from the most severe and practical point of view, an amelioration of their conditions, these prisoners are of very little economic value to us.
  I remember Questions being put in this House three or four months ago in which an hon. Member sitting on the Conservative benches accused, as it were, the then Secretary of State for War of trying to make a profit out of the prisoners of war. The Minister made it clear, and substantiated his statement by statistics, that the cost of administering the prisoner of war scheme in this country amounted to a considerable charge. We therefore must look for some other reasons why we must keep the prisoners of war and why we must make them contribute far more to the welfare of the country which is now looking after them. I believe we have in those 400,000 people a potential labour force which, if we treated the people in a more humane way—looking at the matter not in a sentimental fashion at all —gave them a chance to live some kind of social life and an opportunity to send part of the reward for their work to help their relatives in Germany, we should get what we want from all workpeople in this country at the moment, a better day's work. Then we should have economic advantage to the country for keeping them here. We have to keep them here for a little while longer. I share the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury to the new plan for sending some of them back, but as we have to keep them we must work out some sensible scheme for them.
  I would return to what was said by the hon. Member for Hornsey. He seems to forget that we fought the war primarily against Nazism and Fascism. There are some people, including the 999 Division in the Middle East and in this country, who were fighting that war against Fascism in their own country before we entered the struggle. In fact, they were fighting that war in their own country when some hon. Members in this House at the moment were encouraging Fascism through the policy of the party then ruling this country. I submit that there is no case against every effort being made by the War Office to find the men who have a prewar anti-Fascist record, and giving them immediate release. As
  246
  my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury said, there is an urgent need of these men to carry out the work of social and political re-education in their own country at this time.
  3.58 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): When we debated this subject on 8th October, I had occasion to differ in opinion from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who raised it again today. He is, of course, fully entitled to come back at me with a series of searching questions, as he has done, to see if he could establish the points which he was seeking to make. I should like to apologise to the House that, unfortunately, through no fault of my hon. Friend. I only heard about this Debate Io minutes before it started, and, as a result, I gathered up a handful of assorted papers which have some bearing on the problem; but I must apologise in advance if any incautious remark which I make is guilty of a slight inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is possible in these circumstances, because my hon. Friend addressed to me a lengthy and very searching list of questions.
  He spoke, first of all, about the method of screening prisoners of war in this country, and the method of passing on to them the information about their political grade. I made some remarks on this subject when we previously debated it. I am satisfied that, although there may have been a lack of information in the past, every prisoner of war—
  It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bing.]
  Mr. Freeman: Every prisoner of war now screened is being informed perfectly clearly what his grade is. He has ample opportunity to appeal against his grading if he thinks fit. I would elaborate that point by saying that there have been already numerous appeals against the original grading, which have succeeded. In the same way, if the camp staff, who are responsible for the prisoner, come to the conclusion that he has been inaccurately graded, they themselves may initiate such an appeal. I think that I can say quite reasonably that if any hon.

  247
  Member of this House, having special information, forms the opinion that an injustice had been done in the way in which a prisoner of war had been graded, and he will communicate with my right hon. Friend or myself, we will undertake to look once again at the man's political grading.
  I was asked a series of detailed questions about the exact method used to establish these grades; but I do not propose to answer them in detail. The Control Commission, which is responsible for the screening of prisoners of war, employ the most expert people they can find for the purpose. They are trained security officers, and trained in the whole history and background of the Nazi movement. I am not prepared to answer the question which was put to me: "Is it a man's record or is it his future prospects which grade him either white, black or grey?" His whole record and his personal behaviour, views and opinions are taken into account, and the men who do the screening are, in our belief, fully qualified to make a fair assessment. If there is any reason to believe that they have made a mistake, then an appeal is possible.
  My hon. Friend next asked what sort of priority existed for repatriation inside any particular grade. Perhaps with that question, I can answer a question which he asked me later on, which was whether age and length of service or age and length of captivity were the basic factors in determining the repatriation date of a prisoner who had no particular priority. The answer to both those questions is the same. It is not age and anything"; it is purely length of captivity. We are working on the prisoners graded white to begin with, and their priorities are established by length of captivity. On the whole, we believe that is the most satisfactory method.
  My hon. Friend then referred to compassionate grounds for repatriation. Once again, he asked a series of detailed questions about what constitutes compassionate grounds. If he thinks for one moment, he will realise that it is quite impossible to tell him, while I am standing at the Despatch Box, what constitutes compassionate grounds for repatriation. We are allowing every month a certain quota of compassionate cases, and I will describe to the House the method by
  248
  which we are selecting them. The families in Germany of any prisoners of war who are in such circumstances that they consider compassionate treatment of the husband or father is desirable are empowered to apply through their own German local authority to the Control Commission in order to have the wage earner repatriated with priority on compassionate grounds, and the Control Commission on the spot in Germany, with the advice of the German local authorities, compiles these lists for us within the quota which we allow.
  All the considerations and factors which my hon. Friend mentioned will be given due weight, but to say that one aspect of distress has a higher priority than another is, as he will understand, unreal and impossible. He particularly asked about Sudetens and refugees in general who have no homes in Germany. The answer again is that the Control Commission will estimate the degree of compassion which should be applied to their cases so long as they make the original application. In that connection I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the point of making quite certain that Sudeten German families who have perhaps not got quite such good contacts with the German local authority in their own home town, shall not be overlooked if and when they make application for the husband or father to have compassionate repatriation. The prisoner of war in this country cannot initiate his own compassionate repatriation.
  Mr. Paget: What steps are being taken in Germany to publicise this? Do families in Germany really know about it?
  Mr. Freeman: I am informed by the Control Office that during this month, or at any rate quite recently, posters have been put up all over Germany within the British zone explaining this method of repatriation.
  Mr. Paget: I am very much obliged.
  Mr. Freeman: Remarks have been made on the general conditions of captivity in which we are keeping the prisoners of war in this country, and I was asked why they should not be given the privileges of the Italian cooperators and allowed to make visits and to go to cinemas and shops. I have thought carefully about

  249
  this since my hon. Friend first addressed the question to me privately some time ago, and the answer is that the Government are not at this moment prepared to do that. We consider that there is a clear distinction between German prisoners held in this country and Italian cooperators who started to cooperate with us during the war and who, in many cases, performed quite valuable services for the war effort of our own people. On the other hand, we are not anxious that captivity for these prisoners should be more oppressive than it need be, and we have managed in one or two limited respects to increase their freedom to move about. For instance, a large proportion of prisoners go out to work on farms or housing sites and so on, and establish contacts with the outside world. There are equally large numbers of them who, as camp staffs doing administrative jobs and so on, have not got any opportunity of making contact with the outside world. In the case of these people we are making arrangements within certain limited restrictions for them to go for walks and generally see the world outside their camps, which we think will be a slight amelioration of their condition.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether any facilities for recreation and education are available for the prisoners in these camps?
  Mr. Freeman: There are both educational and entertainment facilities available, though not, of course, in the quantity some of us would like, but I am in 3 position to tell the House that we have managed to provide some mobile cinemas which will go round the camps and, I hope, give the prisoners a feeling that they are not quite so cut off from the rest of the world. There is a widespread desire both in the War Office and among the guards themselves, on grounds both moral and strictly practical, to ameliorate as far as we reasonably and possibly can the conditions under which we are keeping these men. In that connection, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure it will be noted, for his reference to the quality of the British prisoner-of-war guards, compared with other guards
  In this long catechism addressed to me, my hon. Friend next spoke about the possibility of allowing prisoners of war to stay here permanently. With some force,
  250
  I think, he said it would be much better to develop free voluntary labour than convict labour. That is a matter upon which I cannot make any statement this afternoon, and my hon. Friend will very readily realise that it is not within my Department to do so. But I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what my hon. Friend has said, and perhaps the matter could be pursued through other channels. On the subject of rations, we are on very delicate ground. No one is going to suggest that at this moment we should make further sacrifices in the limited rations we have at present in order to make more attractive and tasty for prisoners the diet which in itself is adequate. We have been recently looking very carefully into the matter of rations, and have found that, by making certain administrative changes within the total volume of rations already being issued, it is possible to give slightly more variety to the average prisoner. Particularly, we have found a way of distributing the fat ration which will make it go a little further than it has seemed to go in the past. I can, however, hold out no prospect what ever that there will be an overall increase of rations for prisoners at present.
  On the subject of inducements to work, as my hon. Friend said, we are paying a small money bonus to prisoners. I do not entirely accept the view he expressed that this does not provide a real inducement. Our experience is that it does provide quite substantial inducements, but I recognise the point he made that the difficult economic circumstances in Germany at the moment invalidate to some extent sending money home to one's family in Germany. However, I am satisfied that that is an inducement, and is working as an inducement. We are considering very carefully whether it will not be possible to add a bonus of tobacco as a reward for good workmanship among the prisoners of war. I am not at present in a position to make a final statement about it. The tobacco situation, as we all realise, is far from easy for everybody in this country. But it seems to us, on strictly practical grounds, in order to get the best value out of these men, that we should give them the greatest inducements we can to work well. I am hopeful that we may be able to devise a way in the near future of allowing a tobacco bonus to be added. Perhaps if my hon. Friend will address a Question to my right hon. Friend, or

  251
  to myself, in a couple of months or so, or even in one month, it might be possible to take the matter a step further.
  On the question of driving trucks, and the type of work prisoners of war are allowed to do, I can only say that my hon. Friend has been entirely misinformed about the situation. We test German prisoners who claim to be able to drive, and give them a permit which qualifies them to drive vehicles on duty on farms, and so on. If he has on his own farm, and he has been speaking a good deal about his personal experience in this matter, had any particular difficulty in this respect, I feel sure that he and I could clear it up together in private conversation.
  Lastly, my hon. Friend referred to the priority of labour among prisoners of war, and he suggested that local authorities were not getting quite a high enough priority. I have consulted with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, whose is the responsibility on this point, and he authorises me to say what I think is well known to the House already, that these prisoners are allocated to work of national importance for which British labour is not at present available. Priority is given to agriculture and the provision of housing sites. During the period just ended the needs of agriculture have had special attention directed to them. With the end of the harvest considerable numbers will become available for other work, including housing and civil engineering. That covers the point my hon. Friend made that the greatest value of the agricultural workers was at harvest time. So much for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) made some remarks of a rather different nature. He accused my hon. Friend of muddled thinking. In doing so, he put one or two perfectly valid points to the House. We must, I think, keep a balance in this matter of the treatment of prisoners of war. We must decide whether we are putting things forward because they are good business, or because they are good morals, or perhaps because they happen to be both. I entirely agree with him that it is necessary to make these distinctions and to be quite clear what we are b working for. What I cannot agree with him upon, so
  252
  far as we on this side of the House are concerned, is the general line of his remarks that the distinctions between Fascists and anti-Fascists have now become invalid—terms of abuse, I think he said. I can understand his saying that, because I do not think these distinctions were ever very valid to the hon. Gentleman. To us they are valid, and it is a fact of history which should go on record that many of these anti-Nazi prisoners of war, whom we have screened as whites, in the jargon we use, were fighting actively on the same side in the same war in which this country subsequently took part, at a time when the hon. Gentleman and many of his friends were fighting on the opposite side.
  Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we on this side of the House were fighting for Fascism and fighting for Germany?
  Mr. Freeman: I should not like, on an occasion like this, to end the afternoon in a feeling of too great rancour with the hon. Gentleman, who has, after all, been courteous enough to stay and hear what I have to say. But in effect I do say just that. He asked whether we on this side of the House have read "Mein Kampf." The answer is "We have"—and we have also read" Tory M.P."
  Mr. Gammans: Some of you wrote it.
  Mr. Freeman: Some of us, I agree. These distinctions are valid. They mean something to us. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to reject them if he wishes, but while this Government are in power, we shall give priority to anti-Fascists and anti-Nazis rather than to Fascists and Nazis. Having said that, I would ask the hon. Gentleman, even though there may be political disagreement between us here, to look at the matter, as I am sure he does, from a moral point of view. This "wishy-washy sentimentality" that he talks about, this desire to keep down the underdog—is this really the right line for an hon. Member to take who belongs to a party which puts as the first plank in its electoral programme the defence of the Christian religion?
  In considering the delicate balance between morals and expediency, in this matter of dealing with prisoners of war, I think we must take our stand on what we believe to be right and moral
  Mr. Gammans: I would not like the Minister to misquote me. All I said was that if we have to choose between keeping the German prisoners of war here for the benefit of our own harvest, and releasing them, remembering that our own men have been overseas for many years, then I said we should keep them here. I did not say I would keep them here if it was not necessary to do so.
  Mr. Freeman: If that hypothesis were correct, I might agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we are concerned with is not only the fair administration of these prisoners, and relieving ourselves of a considerable burden; we are also seeking to build up a democratic way of life in Germany and Central Europe which, surely the hon. Gentleman will agree, is of the greatest importance to our own future. These people are needed in Germany far more urgently than they are needed in this country, and the Government are determined to get them back there as quickly as possible, taking account of all the circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) addressed to me some questions about the 999 Division. There has been no difficulty about getting this information about the 999 Division in the sense that that Division was neglected and that the information could not be obtained. The difficulty has been that we are stretched to the utmost in the staffs which are administering these prisoners of war, and the trouble which is involved in finding out detailed information is disproportionate. The reply which I gave on 8th October seemed to me to be cogent
  254
  and to obviate the need for more detailed information about the individuals who comprise the 999 Division. However, in response to what was obviously a genuine desire on the part of many hon. Members, I have gone into this matter again and this afternoon I am prepared to divulge a certain amount of more detailed information.
  Among the German prisoners of war in the Middle East so far screened, we have found 2,600 who are classified as "white," and of that number 1,200 are ex-members of the 999 Division. The screening is not yet complete and there is no doubt that as we proceed other members of the 999 Division will come to light. As I told the House on 8th October, the repatriation of all "whites" in the Middle East will take place in the near future. In the first batch of 2,000 which will go from the Middle East, the 1,200 members of the 999 Division so tar located will be included. Others will go as screening is carried out. I sincerely think the House should not press me to say that members of the 999 Division necessarily will go with a higher priority than other people who are screened "white." After all, it is difficult enough to become screened "white." If a man is "white" it does not seem to me to matter very much whether or not he comes from 999 Division. With those remarks on that subject, which contain considerably more information than the House had before, I trust my hon. Friend will not press me further.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Four o' Clock.

  ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS (EXPORTS)
  ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS (EXPORTS)
  MOTORCAR HIRE (PETROL)
  MOTORCAR HIRE (PETROL)
  CORN GROWING, SEVERN VALLEY
  CORN GROWING, SEVERN VALLEY
GERMANY
  Political Intelligence Department
  Political Intelligence Department
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Prisoners of War (Re-education)
  Prisoners of War (Re-education)
  MYELOID LEUKEMIA (SERVICE DEATHS)
  MYELOID LEUKEMIA (SERVICE DEATHS)
  N.F.S. (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
  N.F.S. (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
  BRITISH SUBJECTS, RUSSIA (INQUIRIES)
  BRITISH SUBJECTS, RUSSIA (INQUIRIES)
  SCHOOLS, BRECONSHIRE (WATER)
  SCHOOLS, BRECONSHIRE (WATER)
  FAMILY ALLOWANCES
  FAMILY ALLOWANCES
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Cesspools (Cleansing)
  Cesspools (Cleansing)
  Diphtheria Immunisation
  Diphtheria Immunisation