May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make to-day?

As regards the international situation, the Prime Minister will be coming down to the House later in the sitting, and will himself make a statement which cannot be made at this moment. It probably will be convenient to inform the House now what proposals we make for the present sitting. We propose to ask the House to give leave to bring in the six Bills of which notice has been given. The first four Bills we desire to take: as far as the Second Reading, the other two through all stages. It will be necessary for the House to sit to-morrow (Sunday) and we shall propose a meeting at 12 noon. We shall then consider Money Resolutions relating to the National Service, Personal Injuries, Pensions and National Health Insurance Bills, and the Committee and remaining stages of those Bills. Any other necessary business will be brought forward.

I beg to move,

" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for securing and controlling the enlistment of men for service in the armed forces of the Crown; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid."

The object of the Bill to which the Motion refers is to render all fit male British subjects of the ages of 18 to 40 inclusive liable to be called up for service in the armed forces of the Crown during the war emergency. The Bill itself does not in general directly place a liability on these our fellow-citizens to be called up for service, but it provides for a Pro- clamation to be issued from time to time. By this means it will be possible to issue Proclamations as and when required making the various age groups liable to be called up for service. It is not intended at the outset that any considerable number of men other than those already liable shall be called up. Steps will be taken to ensure that the man-power essentially required by industry shall not be taken away. I do not propose to discuss at large the issues underlying the Bill. They were discussed at great length when we discussed the Military Training Act earlier in the year, and I think I shall be best serving the interests of the House and the country if I point out two things.

The first is that this Bill follows very closely the provisions of the Military Training Act, and where there are differences I propose to point out where they are. I should like to add that they arise, of course, from the fact that this is not a Bill to deal with one group of citizens for training but is a Bill to deal with the enlistment for service of all those from 18 to 40. Therefore, there are arrangements in the Military Training Act which are inappropriate to the Bill which is the subject of this Motion. Will the House, therefore, allow me to make an observation or two about the structure of the Bill? Men liable to be called up for service will be required to register. They will be medically examined; they will receive their enlistment notice. The procedure for these purposes will be similar to that which has been applied in respect of militiamen under the Military Training Act. I believe that whatever arguments there may have been about that Act, it is agreed that the machinery of it has worked wonderfully well. The classes exempted from liability are similar to those under the Military Training Act, except that a new class has been added; namely, any citizen who is in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination is also exempt. The Bill, like the Act, does not apply to Northern Ireland or to the Isle of Man, but there is power in it to extend it to the Isle of Man by Order-in-Council.

The provisions of the Military Training Act regarding anticipation and postponement of liability to register are not wholly applicable to men liable to be called up for service under this Bill. There is, however, provision for the postponement of liability to serve in the Forces on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the provisions of the Military Training Act with regard to hardship committees and appeals to the umpire have been maintained in the present Bill. Similarly, in respect of conscientious objectors, the Clause in the Bill is almost identical with the corresponding Section of the Military Training Act. Under the Bill, as under the Military Training Act, a person with conscientious scruples may either finally be registered on the register of conscientious objectors, conditionally registered on that register, or registered as a person liable to be employed only on non-combatant duties. The only alteration from the provisions of the Military Training Act is in respect of those who are conditionally registered, and that arises from the fact that it would be quite inappropriate when we are discussing a Bill for the duration of a war merely to have proposals for training. It is proposed, therefore, to add to that a proposal which will be found in the Bill about civilian work. There is another proposal which is not in the original Bill. It has been found that there are a very few conscientious objectors — at the moment I know of only three — who have refused to register for conscience, and the Bill provides in cases of this kind that the Minister may, if he has grounds for believing that the man has a conscientious objection, provisionally register him on the register of conscientious objectors and refer his case to the appropriate tribunal. This will avoid the present difficulty of such men being placed on the military training register.

I have one word to say about a Clause similar to Section 14 of the Military Training Act which is included in the Bill in order to deal with what is known as the "cat and mouse procedure," which is known to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). That, of course, is inappropriate in the circumstances, where we are dealing with service overseas and not with training in Great Britain, and it has been altered accordingly. The safeguard required by the House at that time is, of course, retained. The provisions of the Military Training Act with regard to reinstatement in civilian employment have been included in the Bill. Under the Military Training Act employers are required to take a man back if they can. It is recognised that in the circumstances envisaged by this Bill, which are entirely different from those under the Act, it may be much more difficult to include such a, provision. Nevertheless, it is felt that what has always been the practice of the good employer should continue to receive the sanction of this House, and, therefore, it is included in the Bill.

The Military Training Act gives power by Order in Council to make provision for consequential matters. This power was used exceptionally for the particular group of persons called up under the Military Training Act, but, of course, the situation now is quite different. A power of this kind for war time purposes is necessary, and the requisite provision has been made in a number of emergency Acts passed last night, such as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act and the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act. It is felt that these and other Acts ought to be sufficient for all the purposes we envisage, but if experience should show that that is not the case it is proposed in this Bill to give His Majesty power by Order in Council to make provision for such matters. I think I have explained every major difference between the Act and the Bill, and as the need now is for action I do not propose to add anything more to this explanation of the Bill, which does mark a major departure in our national policy and, backed as it will be by this House, will show the world what we mean in this emergency.

On the occasion when a similar Bill was before the House I spoke and voted against it. I am still an anti-conscriptionist at heart and I do not suppose that my attitude will ever change; but, since that last Act was passed, an entirely new situation has been created for us. We have agreed, therefore, in the event of a Division being challenged on the Second Reading — subject to those who are entitled to exercise their conscience rights — to support the Second Reading of the Bill in the Division Lobby. We are somewhat disturbed at the extension of the Bill to youths from 18 to 20 years of age. We should have preferred the Government to keep their original conscription age of 20 and work up, if need be, above the 41. From now, and on the Committee stage to-morrow, I hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to this point.

On these benches, I think we know more than hon. Members on the other side what a dictatorship victory would mean. I had many friends in the old Germany, up to 1933. I had many friends in Austria later than that. I had many friends in Czecho-Slovakia up to the middle of March this year. I know that the people who will feel to the fullest degree all that Nazism means here are the people for whom we speak, and we are clear, as I think has been shown to this House, that we must take all appropriate means to bring this war to a speedy and successful conclusion. My further reason for support of the Bill is that I believe it must be made clear to our allies, and more especially to Poland on whom the blow has fallen, and to all nations friendly and unfriendly, that the whole of our human and material resources will be thrown behind those who are the victims of aggression. This is not the time for cheap heroics and for talking about fighting to the last man and the last penny, but it must be made known to the world that we do not enter lightly upon great undertakings of this kind, and that when we do, we must do it fully and completely. It may be that we shall not need all the men who might be brought under the Bill; the essential thing is that our resources in men and material should be properly organised to secure the maximum effect. There may be — there will be — work at home as vital as there may be overseas. Work in dungarees will be as vital as in uniform.

That brings me to a further point of great importance and I take this, the first opportunity, of making it. Men are to be taken into the Army. At the moment large numbers are already under arms and at their stations, prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. In our view — and this is no new view, because it was expressed in the last great War — that spirit must be applied to all our activities and to all our people. I ask that profiteering should be stopped. He who seeks personal gain in these times is a traitor to his country. I speak strongly on this matter, but not in any controversial spirit when I say that on this side we will not tolerate the creation of war fortunes this time. I would rather that rot was stopped now than try to filch part of their ill-earned wealth. I know that it is not the Minister's province to reply to this point which I am making merely, as I say, in order to make our position clear, but I would go further and ask that as much as possible of the burden of expenditure should be borne now, and that we should, as far as practicable — it is not completely practicable — pay as we go, rather than leave a crushing and intolerable burden of debt to be borne by an impoverished people facing the biggest problems of reconstruction we have ever had to face in our history.

I have said hard and vindictive words in the past about the rich, but I am not being vindictive about the rich now. Nevertheless, we must conserve our resources as far as possible. We must, if need be, go short of many things now, in order that we may, when this dreadful catastrophe is over, grapple with economic and social problems the magnitude of which, at this time, we can hardly understand. It is important that our resources should be as strong as possible. I ask, also, in order that we should conserve our resources now, that every effort should be made to control the prices of the essential supplies. Any profiteering in the necessities of life falls most heavily upon the poor. There are many to-day wishful to evacuate themselves, but they have no resources. The well-to-do have already evacuated themselves in large numbers — and I am not complaining about that, because the fewer people in London who are not wanted the better, in these difficult times. I am merely saying that on the backs of the poor the heaviest burdens really fall. It would be unforgiveable, I think, if early and most effective steps were not taken to keep the cost of the necessaries of life at a reasonable level. I have said — and I said it with a very sad heart — that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill, in the conviction not merely that it may be needed at some future date, but that it may give great encouragement and new spirit to those who to-day are facing the bombs of the dictators.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that at a time when life is being conscripted, private individuals should not be allowed to exploit the national need. This is a very important Bill — one of the most important that we have considered during the last 20 years — but, with the enemy almost at our gates and the national safety threatened, normal procedure must be suspended, and this Bill must go through all its stages as rapidly as possible. I am glad that the Government are not demanding that the procedure adopted yesterday should be applied to this Bill. This Bill is far too important in its effect on the lives of the people not to be subjected to the closest scrutiny of the House of Commons. Most hon. Members had not seen the provisions of the Bill until the last few minutes. I have had it in my hands — and the fact that I had it then is largely why I am speaking for my party — only since one o'clock. This is not merely a Measure of the character of the Military Training Act. It goes far beyond that in its magnitude and aims. That is why I am glad that we are following this procedure, in order that the Bill may have a proper Committee stage and Report stage tomorrow, and that the Third Reading may be taken, if necessary, on Monday, although it may be found possible to take it to-morrow.

There is a fundamental difference between this Bill and the Military Training Act. This is a Military Service Bill. As I understand it, it makes people liable for military service not merely at home but abroad; liable not merely to be trained, but to take up arms wherever the Government may think fit. I have a very vivid recollection of the Act of 1916, which first introduced compulsory service into this country. It caused very bitter controversy, and, even in those exceptional times, prolonged debates and a number of divisions. I think the danger to-day is very much greater than it was then. It may be that we are more accustomed, perhaps owing to war conditions, to departures from the fundamental principles of the British people, but we have an instinctive antipathy to any form of compulsion. Yet we have to accept these provisions, in the abnormal circumstances which exist.

The fundamental difference between this Bill and the Act of 1916 is that in that Act provision was made for the calling up of categories in rotation. In this Measure all the power is concentrated in the Government to make regulations, though it is true that those regulations are to be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. In the 1916 Act provision was made that unmarried men and widowers should first become liable to service. I think we should have some indication as to the kind of regulations it is proposed to draw up under this Measure. Will there be distinctions of that kind? Will single men without dependants be a priority class under these regulations, or will all the sections be called up, according to age, as the needs of the country become clear?

Reference has been made to the important question of the lower age limit being fixed at 18 instead of 20. I remember that during the last War that was a point of considerable controversy. There was a strong feeling that, if possible, the age limit should be higher. The age suggested was 19. But if the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that this lower age is an emergency age, and that Regulations will be made on the principle that, unless it is necessary, that younger age group will not be called up, and, on the other hand, that the Regulations will give priority to single men over married men, that will do much, I think, to alay controversy. Parliament has a grave responsibility. Yesterday reference was made to the extraordinary calm, patience and good temper of the nation in the face of the tragic problems which confront us; but the people are looking to the House of Commons to discharge its historic duty of scrutinising all legislation, and we should be failing in our duty if, when we came to the Committee stage to-morrow, we did not put this Bill under the miscroscope. While it will be approached in a non-party spirit, with a desire to ease the task of the Government, I hope that every hon. Member, irrespective of where he sits, will endeavour to see that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will not unfairly distribute the responsibility which it places on every household in the country.

My hon. Friends and I still believe that the principles that justified us in opposing the Bill for compulsory military service a month or so ago and the reasons postulated in 1916 for the opposition to compulsory military service are still as cogent as they were at those times. There is no change in the principle, and, therefore, I have to inti- mate my opposition to this Measure. I am not quite clear about the procedure that the House proposes to adopt: whether the House is going to take all these First Reading Notices of Motion and then to take the Second Readings, or whether it is proposed to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill immediately after the First Reading is passed. [Interruption.] We are not on the Second Reading now.

The procedure that has been adopted is to discuss the principles of the Bill on the terms of the Motion, and to take the Second Reading formally.

I am only trying to find this out, because I do not want to put the House to any more inconvenience than is absolutely necessary, or to delay the proceedings. Therefore, we will record our vote against this Notice of Motion and will consider that that vote covers the Second Reading. On the details of the Measure, I want to associate myself with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and the spokesman of the Liberal party about the very young men, and to press the Government very strongly to give that their most earnest consideration between now and the Committee stage.

I want to associate myself, also, with the remarks which have been made about some corresponding provision dealing with private profit. I do not know that that is really within the scope of this Measure, but the Government would not be doing the right thing by the people of this country as a whole unless some corresponding Measure is very speedily introduced which will deal with property along parallel lines to the way in which it is proposed to deal with human life here. Further, if the House, as I hope, is going to remain in constant session, I do not see why there should be this demand for all these age groups from 18 to 41. If we are going to be engaged there is no difficulty in the way of the Government coming to the House and asking for further age groups as they are required. This seems to me to be asking for a very sweeping power.

I cannot blind my eyes to the fact that this is not merely military conscription, but is in essence industrial conscription also for every man from 18 to 41. This decides where he is to be and where he is to serve in a much more definite way than did the Military Training Act that we previously opposed. I am not here going into my basic reasons for opposing this Bill, but I enter my protest against the belief that war can achieve things. We are particularly against the view that any good can come to working class people in any of the countries in Europe as a result of armed force either in this country or any other. I have in my own feeble way had to propound that philosophy in this House on other occasions, and I am not going to repeat it now in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but simply intimate that our opposition to this Measure is maintained in keeping with our general political approach.

I hope the House will forgive me if I am a little old-fashioned, but I still believe that every country is best defended by the free spirit of its citizens, and I cannot welcome this Measure as wholeheartedly as some others do. But I was one of those who cheered the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition when he said that his party would stand behind the Government on this Bill. I shall certainly do so myself because, after all, inter arma silent leges when war is on we cannot tie ourselves closely to high principles and sincerely held doctrines. I would say to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who are now engaged seeing this country through a long war which we must win, that there is another thing upon which they may reflect. This war is likely to last a long time, it may be a decade. [Hon. Members: "Cheer up."] We cannot get at them nor they at us. So it will, perhaps, last a long time. Success will depend not solely on the organisation of force now, but upon the continuation of our financial soundness, of our export trade, and of our carrying trade and manufactures. These, in difficult circumstances must not be unduly hampered by Government interference. Remember the ordinary trade of the country. In the long run, our one advantage over the Germans is that we can, thanks to the British Fleet, carry on as usual. We can do, as we did in the Napoleonic wars, build up overseas trade in spite of the war; but if we are to do that, we must not have too much interference with normal production, and, just as at the beginning of the last War we were urged by the Government of that day to keep our heads up and carry on business as usual, it is far more important now, when we have not got a sudden call, but a prolonged struggle of endurance before us. We should be advised by the statesmen of Great Britain to carry on our business as usual with a firm upper lip and without too much sandbagging and A.R.P.

I agreed wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said when he demanded that there should not be sacrifices by one class of the community only. During these last few days we have seen the working-class kept in London at their jobs in the shops and in the market place, while the better-class people have fled to the country. I would here and now urge the better-class people of this country to remember that they occupy that position by setting a good example. The example that has to be shown now is to teach people courage and endurance and coolness; that it is not desirable to think only of themselves, but of all the vast mass of people who cannot, and who do not intend to, escape from London. War makes us all one family, and if we keep before us the fact that we must carry on business as usual we shall do a great deal to help those people who are undergoing great risks in trying to keep business going. It is pathetic now to go through the shops of London, even the banks, and to find them empty. Many businesses are being ruined to-day unnecessarily.

The situation, the crisis, is not really so dangerous as it has been painted. A week ago I betted the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that there will not be a bomb dropped on London in the next six months. Even now I do not wish to hedge that bet. It is desirable to remember that this Bill. and other Bills like it which will be introduced by the Government, must not be espoused solely with the desire to put everybody in their proper place. We must recollect the main thing, and that is to allow people to carry on their occupations, and support the prosperity of the country during the next six months as during the last six years. In that way we shall best face up to Hitler and to cure the people in this country who are unduly terrified of Hitler.

I hope the House will bear with me for a moment while I raise one specific point on the Bill. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War how this Measure will affect those whose service was postponed under the Military Training Act. He will remember that undergraduates at the universities were allowed to postpone their service. In fact, they were compelled to postpone their service. Now, those undergraduates who have had their service postponed until next year are unable to serve, although many of them are very anxious to serve. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether this new Act will abolish the postponement of the service which was granted under the Military Training Act?

This Bill at the present juncture, as the whole House must feel, is essential, first, for the successful prosecution of the conflict upon which we are about to embark, secondly, in order to ensure fairness between man and man; and, thirdly, as a gesture to our friends in other countries, a warning to our enemies, and a concrete indication of our determination to see this matter through. I do, however, want to make a very strong plea to the Government to take heed of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in regard to the question of age. There are three reasons which, I hope, may cause the Government to raise the age limit from 18 to 20. In the first place, it must be distasteful to the older men, as it is to me, that boys of 18 should be called up and have to fight and endure hardships and secrifices which we older ones know will be necessary. In the second place, I think that in the national interest, having in mind the great inroads that war must of necessity make on the youth of our nation, we should see to it that some of our youth are left to carry on in the future. The nation has suffered in the last 20 years through sending so many of its youth into the last War. Thirdly, there is no real utility in sending youths of from 18 to 20 into the armed Forces.

I speak from practical experience, as I am sure many others are able to do, in regard to this particular matter. I speak particularly of youths in the infantry. Many who were sent out in the dark days of March, April and May of 1918 were not, we must admit, fully trained. Their courage and determination, indeed their recklessness, was unexceptional, and none of us would for a moment cast .1 single stone at those who served at that age, but from practical experience we must know that these youths have not the strength and the experience which are really necessary. Particularly, may I say I do not think that man-power is going to count to the extent that it did in the last conflict. It will be a matter more of mechanics than of man-power. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will consider raising the age at the other end, from 40 or 41. I am not sure what the age was that we reached in the last War, but I am sure that the older men would prefer that the age was raised at their end rather than youths of 18 to 20 should be taken in this way. If the Government could see their way to make that alteration it would not only lighten many a mother's heart, but I am certain that they could do so without any real loss to our fighting efficiency.

I should like to say a few words in connection with this very important and far-reaching Measure. It is necessary that a few general observations should be made. Just as I was ready to make any sacrifice to save the peace of Europe and to save the people of this country from the horrors of war, so I will stick at no sacrifice to ensure the defeat of Nazi aggression, and to restore lasting peace to the world. In considering this Bill, however, we have not only to take into account the armed forces. The most important factor in the trial that lies before us is the unity of the working classes and the people of this country. That is the determining factor, and it is in the light of that factor that we must consider this Bill. I am certain that the working classes and the people of the country, faced with the situation that has been forced upon them, will be prepared to take what measures are necessary in order to ensure the end of the horror at the earliest possible moment. But if we are to have a Bill of this kind, and if we are going to have the man-power of this country placed at the disposal of the Government, then that Government must represent the truest and best interests of the people of the country.

Unless you have such a Government it is dangerous to the unity of the people to introduce such a Bill as this. It should be a Government composed of men of vision who are looking to the creation of a new and better world out of the shame and horror which have come upon us, and I say that if this Bill is to be applied to the people of this country, the Government must be drawn from the best forces in this House, and that the men of Munich must be excluded from that Government. I support the suggestion made by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition regarding Amendments to the Bill, but I cannot support a Government which has been responsible for so many tragic blunders carrying out the responsibilities which the Bill entails. Let us have a Government which will inspire confidence in the people at home. In that case the men who betrayed democracy a year ago will have to go.

I am aware that the House does not want to listen to speeches, but I should like to support the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and ask the Government if it is possible to hold back boys under 20 and not send them to the front. I do not say that from any point of view of my own, because my sons are all over 20, but war service has a psychological effect on boys which affects them for life. I remember the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) talking about the matter to me. Really we cannot afford it. I am leaving out the question of mothers. No matter what age your son is, it is the same. I am thinking about the good of the country, and I hope it will be possible to keep boys under 20 at home. I am sure that that is the wish of the House and of the country.

I hope the House will grant me a little indulgence. I am not one who makes long speeches although it may be that I speak quite often. I rise to correct the impression which was left on my mind by the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). If at this time, when the Poles are facing their aggressors with determination and bravery, we are going to enter into war in the spirit which the right hon. and gallant Member showed, then we have partly lost the war before we enter it. This is not a time for speeches like that which the right hon. and gallant Member made. I suggest that the spirit of the people of this country is that they will see the matter through whatever it costs. When the right hon. and gallant Member talks about a 10 years' war he may be right. I do not know, although I do not think it will last as long as that. If the people of this country go into it with the right spirit it will not last as long as that. At any rate, we do not want our people to listen to mournful speeches like that of the right hon. and gallant Member. Although we cannot hide from them for one moment the effect of war — they will know it without any attempt on our part to hide it — we must endeavour to elevate their spirit. The right hon. and gallant Member is old-fashioned in his outlook. I admire it sometimes, and I hope he will still display the old spirit and courage he showed in the last War:

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I believe that this war has got to be won, and it will be won by the free spirit of our people. I want them to understand that they are not going to be killed by imaginary bombs from imaginary aeroplanes.

I much prefer that speech to the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made. That is all I want to say. As far as the 18– 20 men are concerned, whether we are going to have large masses of men engaged or not I do not know, but it might be a gesture which, I think, it can well afford at this time.

Very few words are called for by way of reply, but I will try to answer the three questions which have been put to the Government. The first was whether we intend to proceed by calling up classes in age groups; it was a question put by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris): It is the intention of the Government to call up the classes of age groups in an orderly manner. The next question was whether we intended to begin with the 18 age group, and some apprehensions were expressed upon the point. We have taken note of the observations which have fallen from hon. Members. We have selected the range of ages between 18 and 41 as representing the most vigorous manhood of the nation, but it does not in the least follow from the fact that we have begun at the age of 18 for the purposes of the Bill, that we intend to call up that class as the initial class. I think that matter can be safely left in the hands of the Government. [Hon. Members: "No."] At any rate, I can say that the Government have been impressed by what has been said, and there is nothing in the Bill to compel us to take the 18 age group first.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

We do not know how long the struggle will last.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that boys of 18 and 20 are not yet citizens, and that they are, therefore, in a somewhat different category altogether from other people. Would it not be an excellent gesture to say that that category should not be the first called upon to serve?

I do not think there is any need for the hon. Member to impress the point upon the Government and I think I have gathered the feeling of those who have made the point. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) asked a question about young men who had obtained postponement under the Military Training Act, whether they would come within the ambit of this Bill. Most certainly. For all intents and purposes the Military Training Act falls to the ground and is replaced by this Bill, and they will fall within their age groups. They will be entitled to seek postponement in the way provided in the Bill.

The postponement allowed under the Act automatically ceases?

If his age group is proclaimed he will have to make another application, but he can be exempted from the necessity of re-registering. It is a matter of machinery. I think I have answered the points that have been made —

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)?

That is exactly what I began by doing.

I am referring to my hon. Friend's question as to whether there would be any differentiation between married and single men?

No, Sir; unless exceptional hardship would occur, it is intended to proceed by age groups, as in all other countries. We all share the

I beg to move,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision as respects certain personal injuries sustained during the period of the present emergency."

The object of the Bill, in brief, is to provide for grants to be made in respect of personal injuries or death caused by air raids or other operations of war to the civil population. The House will remember that in January last my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in a statement to the House that personal injury from war ought not to be treated as merely the concern of those who suffered directly but must be regarded as an affair of the community as a whole. Let me quote from his speech on that occasion. My right hon. Friend said:

" As regards individuals, the Government have had under consideration arrangements for giving compensation from public funds in respect of death or of injury involving serious disablement caused by air raids or other warlike action. A scheme is being worked out to cover casualties to civilians, its purport being that, in addition to persons enrolled as volunteers in air raid or other such services who might be injured or killed while on duty, the scheme would apply to casualties among civilians wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood upon their employment or occupation. Provision will also have to be made in the scheme for other cases where need arises. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1939; col. 28, Vol. 343.]

The Bill is an enabling Bill. It will give me power to lay before the House a scheme worked out on the lines of that promise. It will, of course, have to lie on the Table of the House for a given number of days. I hope the Bill will not prove to be controversial. If hon. Members will turn to the Bill they will find that in Clause 2 the procedure as to schemes is laid out. The working out of the scheme to comply with these condi- tions has been entrusted to my Department. The Bill is designed to give the Minister of Pensions Parliamentary authority to formulate a scheme in agreement with the Treasury and to make the various grants under it. The scheme has already been prepared and in accordance with Clause 2 (3) it will be laid with the least possible delay on the Table of the House. Members will then have an opportunity of scrutinising the scheme and will know what it is proposed to do.

If Members will allow me I shall refer briefly to the Clauses. Clause 1 is to implement the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me deal first of all with Civil Defence volunteers. These are defined in the Bill as certified members of an organisation established for Civil Defence purposes. The functions and purposes of Civil Defence are indicated broadly in the Civil Defence Acts recently passed. Persons thus engaged in Civil Defence will be protected from the consequences not only of war operations, that is physical injury resulting directly from enemy acts while on duty, but also from other injuries, for example, accidental injuries sustained in the course of their duties and termed by the Bill war service injuries. That is as regards Civil Defence volunteers.

Provision is also made for persons engaged in employment or business, and this of course opens up a much wider sphere. I believe it is in the national interest that many people should remain at their work. We all agree as to that. The Government feel that some provision should be made in the case of those who are carrying on national service, even if they are following their own occupations, and certainly in the case of those who are engaged in services which are essential to the life of the community. The Government feel that those people must be protected from the consequences of war risk. Accordingly, they are included in the Bill, and this class comprises all persons who are ordinarily dependent for their living on their work, though they may be temporarily unemployed. I submit that that is a reasonable and, indeed, a necessary provision.

If hon. Members examine the Bill they will see that there are to be allowances known as injury allowances. For these, two kinds of grants are available. In the first place, where an injured person is certified to be incapacitated for work by a war injury, or, in the case of a Civil Defence volunteer, by a war service injury, he will be enabled to draw a temporary allowance termed in the Bill an injury allowance. If he has to go into hospital his wife will be able to claim. The injury allowances will be definitely on a flat rate basis dependent only on such plain facts as the number of the person's immediate family dependants in the household, and whether or not he is in hospital. It will not be in way determined by means or need. There will be no means test in this case. Everyone is to be treated alike. The injury allowances are designed to be immediate emergency payments. There will be no delay, and we hope that if our scheme is accepted by the House, there will be no occasion for hon. Members to come forward with complaints of injuries having occurred and of the injured people not being able to get their compensation at once.

Then it will be different from the last War.

I never like to be associated with anything that is not different from what has gone before. I think we should always learn from experience and improve these arrangements in the light of what has happened before, and if I am able to satisfy the hon. Member then, indeed, I shall feel that I have accomplished something worth while. As I say, the injury allowances are designed to be immediate emergency payments to tide a man over the first results of an injury. Treatment will also be given immediately, under Ministry of Health arrangements, at local hospitals or by private practitioners if the case is not sufficiently serious to go to hospital. After sufficient time has elapsed to judge the conditions, if it is found that the case involves serious and prolonged disablement, then the Bill provides that a pension may be granted for a period or permanently, as may be required by the circumstances. Pensions will be awarded on Service lines, that is to say, in accordance with the medically certified degree of physical disablement. Again, wages or earnings will not ordinarily enter into consideration except in the case of part-time workers where it may be necessary to determine to what extent the injured person was dependent on his earnings.

I would specially invite the attention of hon. Members to Clauses 3 and 4, which are important. I would like to give as clear an explanation of them as possible, and if I occupy some time in trying to do so, it may save time: later on. Clause 3 follows the plan already adopted by the House in the Civil Defence Act. It suspends the exercise of rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or rights at Common Law or under contract in the case of incapacity for work caused by war injuries or war service injuries. The grant of injury allowances and pensions which I have outlined will take the place of any compensation which a man might otherwise be able to obtain by an action at law. When this provision comes into operation, if the House approves of it, I think it will be found to be far less drastic than it appears to be at first sight. The cases in which war injury would entitle an employ é to workmen's compensation, would, the Government are advised, probably be very few. In such a case, it would have to be shown that the injury resulting from enemy attack arose out of or in the course of the man's employment, and if the injured person were left to pursue his claim at law, the only result, I submit, would be a volume of litigation, which, during war-time, would be a hindrance to the work of national defence.

I think the most conclusive argument, however, in favour of the course which has been adopted in the Bill, is the simple fact that incapacity as a result of war injury was never contemplated when the Workmen's Compensation Acts were framed and passed. Nor have employers or insurance companies calculated their liabilities on the assumption that the war risks of their employ é s were contemplated by those Acts. Those Acts were designed to cover industrial risks only. The Government have given very careful consideration to this matter. They took advice in various quarters, and it was decided that in the circumstances it was best for the Government to assume a national responsibility for all war injuries, instead of leaving it to employ é s and others to take their chances at law. I feel that the House will agree with the proposition that this should be a national responsibility. There should not be any difficulties about litigation, and people should not be left in doubt as to whether they are to get compensation or not.

Hon. Members will see that Clause 4 is framed on much the same principle as Clause 3. This Clause has in view more particularly those employers who have been granted certificates of exemption under the National Health Insurance Acts on the ground that the terms of their employment guarantee their workpeople benefits not less favourable than those provided by the National Health Insurance scheme. Obviously in this case, and, indeed, in the health insurance scheme generally, war risks were never contemplated, and employers have an equitable claim to be relieved of these unforeseen liabilities, to the extent, at any rate, of the injury allowances which the Government propose under this scheme to pay out of public funds. I submit, therefore, that that is a provision which should be included in the scheme, and I am satisfied that the House will accept it as a fair arrangement.

I think I have now dealt with the main features of the Bill. I have indicated the primary classes concerned, namely, Civil Defence volunteers and persons engaged in occupations, employments or businesses of the kind I have mentioned. The scheme will provide for certain other classes in cases of war injury causing serious disablement as a result of which they themselves, or those who are dependent on them, may suffer material economic losses. The details will be in the scheme when it is submitted to the House. In those cases, where it is shown that a pension or other grant should be made, it will be made under the scheme. Indeed, the Government have designed the whole scheme with the object of ensuring that those who suffer from war disabilities, whether they are following an essential occupation in an area which is likely to be bombed or giving valuable services in the Defence Forces of the country, shall be treated as generously as it is possible for the National Exchequer to treat them, and not left to private charity, or to their own resources.

I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the members of my staff who, ever since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in January last made that promise to the House which I quoted earlier, have devoted many long hours to working out this scheme. Many consultations have had to take place with various other Government Departments, and great consideration has had to be given to representations made from all quarters. It was felt, and I think rightly so, that we must present to this House, if the occasion arose, as it has arisen, a Measure that would meet with the approval of Members of all parties in the House, one which was felt by Members generally to be generous without in any way being an imposition upon the taxpayers of the country. Because I believe that they have achieved, by framing this scheme, these objects, I beg to move.

The Minister of Pensions said, quite correctly, that this was not in any way a controversial Bill, and I do not think the discussion on it need occupy any very great length of time. I think he is justified in claiming that it is a very carefully drawn-up Bill, and the discussion now need not be very long, because, as would appear from his own statement, it is at present rather a skeleton Bill, and the real kernel of the Bill will be the scheme when it is produced, whereas this is merely a Bill which empowers the Minister to bring that scheme before the House. It is about that particular procedure that I wish to make some suggestions. The unfortunate thing is that the scheme, when it comes before the House, will do so under the same kind of procedure as an ordinary Order-in-Council, and I gather that the House would not be in a position to amend it and would have either to accept or reject it in its entirety. I think that that method of dealing with a scheme of this kind, which will be full of details, is not suitable. I should therefore like the Minister to give us an assurance that when the scheme is brought up, he will listen to the Debate and, if points are raised which show that it could be amended with improvement, use his power, which he has by an Order made with the consent of the Treasury, to amend the scheme.

I would also say that I listened to the Minister's explanation of the part which was played in the scheme by the general ideas of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the part played by the general ideas of the War Pensions Act. I did not follow it very closely, but I think it was clear to the whole House that this is much more similar and suitable to the War Pensions Act than to the other one, and that on the whole the War Pensions Act gives far more generous treatment than do the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which are indeed a cause of considerable grumbling, complaint, and controversy throughout the country. I hope, therefore, that it may be the War Pensions Act which will be the model upon which the Minister will act, but I would ask him to tell the House that when the scheme comes before us, at a time when, after all, we shall have plenty of leisure to discuss it, he will give opportunity for a full discussion. Let us begin the day with it, and not take it after 11 at night, and let us have an opportunity for a full discussion. Let it last as long as we like, and then let him, if he considers that the suggestions made in the Debate are good, exercise his power to amend the scheme accordingly.

The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) has pointed out that this is not a controversial Measure and that it is very necessary at the present time, but I hope that when we reach the Committee stage to-morrow the Minister will be able to give us a little more information as to his intentions under Clause 1. He has not indicated to the House what kind of scale of allowances he contemplates under that Clause. I do not know whether the Ministry have yet arrived at a decision on that matter, but if they have, I think it would be of assistance to the House — or to the Committee to-morrow — to be informed as to the sort of level of payment which is contemplated under the schemes to be made, because, as the right hon. Member for Keighley has pointed out, we are in a considerable difficulty in that we are unable to amend any of the schemes which will come before the House.

There is one further observation that I should like to make on Clause 1. The machinery is that the Minister makes a scheme, and the right of the claimant will, of course, be determined by the provisions of the scheme. Not only does the Minister make the scheme, but the Minister himself is the sole judge in the last resort as to whether anybody is entitled to benefit under the scheme. I would put forward this suggestion to the Minister, and I hope he will consider it before to-morrow. I do not ask him to reply now. I suggest that at the end of Subsection (4) in Clause 1 a proviso should be added in terms somewhat like these:

" Provided that the Minister may, and shall if so directed by the High Court, state in the form of a special case the opinion of the High Court on any question of law arising Out of any such decision."

That would not lead to the endless litigation which the Minister has envisaged, but it would enable test cases to be taken up from time to time. After all, we are dealing with something which may affect intimately the lives of very large numbers of people, and even at times like this it is the business of the House to see that every possible safeguard of individual rights is inserted in our legislation.

The Minister was at some pains to justify the provisions of Clause 3, because he drew a picture, as is customary on these occasions, of the perils of litigation. Of course, you have to supplement the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employers' Liability Act, and the provisions of the Common Law, by a scheme of this kind, because there are a great many people who would be injured who would not be able to get redress in those other ways, but that is no reason why you should in every case deprive a man of his Common Law rights, because — I am speaking now, not of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but about the Common Law — broadly speaking, a man will not have a claim at Common Law unless somebody has been negligent or guilty of a breach of duty. Why should we go out of our way to deprive those who fail to carry out some Common Law duty of the consequences of their neglect? It is not a question of having to choose between the two. There is no reason why there should not be a provision here, as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, by which a man could elect to go to Common Law or come under this scheme, and there could be a provision such as there is in the Workmen's Compensation Act, whereby, if a man failed to get damages claimed at Common Law, the court could assess what was due to him under this scheme.

There is one other matter which arises out of that, and I do not think the Minister had very much to say about it in his opening remarks. I would ask hon. Members to look at the definition at the bottom of page 6:

"' war service injury ' in relation to a civil defence volunteer, means any physical injury which the Minister certifies to have been shown to his satisfaction to have arisen out of and in the course of the performance by the volunteer of his duties as a member of the civil defence organisation to which he belonged at the time when the injury was sustained, and (except in the case of a war injury) not to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment in any other capacity."

Hon. Members will observe that the words used, "out of and in the course of," are precisely the same words as occur in the Workmen's Compensation Act. We all know that those words have given rise to more litigation, to more differences as to interpretation than any other phrase in our Statute Law. It is almost bound to happen that when we try to draw a line of that kind we get a large number of borderline cases, and it is very difficult to say, as we know from experience, whether certain cases fall on one side of the line or on the other. There is the sort of case where a man may be on his way to work. In this case he may be on his way to perform his voluntary duties. It is necessary that he should go there, but at what point of time does he begin to discharge his voluntary duties? It is always a difficult question to decide, and it has given rise to thousands of cases in the courts. It is to be determined under this Bill, not by the court, but by the Minister of Pensions.

That gives rise to certain difficulties. We have no reason to suppose that the Minister will be more competent to discharge this duty than the courts, and how are we to know that he will use even the same criteria and judge this phrase in the same way as the courts would do? Suppose they do not and they apply some departmental canon of interpretation different from that which prevails in the ordinary courts of law. An obvious hiatus then appears in this Bill. A man may be injured on his way to perform his duties or when he is working in a factory, and the Minister determines that his injury did not arise "out of and in the course of" the performance of his voluntary duties. The man may fancy, having been refused by the Minister, that he has a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act or at Common Law. Suppose it is under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he has then to go to the court, which may judge the matter by different standards. It seems to me that, not in a great number of cases but in a certain number, the man may fall between two stools in that way. This is a matter which ought to be considered by the House and the Minister. We shall have until to-morrow to consider it, and I hope the Minister will consider whether it will be possible to have some possibility of proceeding by way of case statement, or something of that kind, so that the ordinary canons of interpretation can be applied. Otherwise we shall get different interpretations by the courts on the one hand, and by Government Departments on the other.

Much of what I wanted to say has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). The judicial body which is to decide under this scheme whether a payment is to be made or not is to be the Minister, which means, of course, Civil servants. I have an unfailing admiration for Civil servants, but they are not judges and they have not had judicial training. I have said a good many hard things about the courts in my time, but I will say in favour of them that when they do work as courts they are better than anyone else, and certainly better than any amateur arrangement. I imagine that the anxiety of the Government is that if this is left to the county courts, which in this sort of thing are very often very good indeed by reason of their experience, the courts may be flooded and there may be delay and expense. I sympathise with those feelings. I would suggest that the Minister might consider a half-way house which works fairly well in the immense body of industrial litigation, and have some form of tribunal of three people rather like those who deal with unemployment payment claims.

The second matter on which I want to say a word is that under Clause 3 people are being deprived of their rights to claim damages at Common Law. I am not so concerned about the Workmen's Compensation Act, because, after all, if what people are to get under this Bill is worse than they get under the Compensation Act, there will be a revolution and we need not worry, so that in all probability the exclusion of rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act will not matter. The exclusion of rights at Common Law, however, may be very important indeed. The Minister says that there will not be a great many cases. The fact that it will not very often happen is no excuse. I can think of many sets of circumstances in which it will happen. Then, says the Minister, you do, at any rate, get people away from the hazards of litigation by telling them, "Do not go trying to get a couple of thousand pounds; be content with the £ 250 which the Minister will give you."

That is the way in which it may work out. The hazards of litigation are hazards which people undertake because their lawyers, honestly we hope, tell them that, although the hazards are there, it is better to run the risk, because the probable result of running such a risk is that they will get a good deal more money than if they accepted the inadequate statutory benefit. People are advised all day long to take the hazards of litigation at Common Law in proper circumstances rather than rest content with an inadequate payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I should think there are thousands of people living above the starvation line because they took these hazards, and who would be living below the starvation line if they had not taken them. There is no reason and no right, just because there is a war, to deprive thousands of people who have suffered serious injury as a result of warlike operations of the rights which the ordinary Common Law has given them for centuries.

While I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee that the words "out of and in the course of" have caused a lot of trouble in their time and have caused a good deal of the hazards of litigation, it does sometimes happen that an appallingly bad phrase, by reason of being ground at by generations of lawyers, becomes more definite than a new phrase which lawyers will have to grind at again.

I should like to ask whether the class of case in which primary injury may be very trivial but the final injury may be very serious will be adequately looked after. Let me instance what is likely to happen, particularly under war conditions. There are many cases where an injury to the head appears at first to be nothing much more serious than a scalp wound, followed in a little time by headache, after which the man may be told he is "all right now," but finally there may be found an actual effusion of blood below the skull, causing pressure on the brain and giving rise to very serious nervous conditions afterwards, or there are even cases recorded of sudden death. Unless a preliminary injury is very carefully diagnosed and recorded those cases may be very difficult to deal with, because there will not be adequate evidence of how the injury occurred. There is another class of injuries which are likely to occur to an extent under war conditions psychic injuries, apart from the purely physical nervous apparatus, in which people will suffer an upheaval of some kind and, as a result, after a considerable period, perhaps a number of months, suffer from a nervous condition directly attributable to that injury, although the injury may have been at the beginning a very small thing. I put these points because it occurs to me that omission to pay adequate compensation to the individual may be safeguarded against if provision is made that all war injuries, especially those likely to lead to nervous or psychic disturbances, are very carefully recorded at the time they take place, so that there will be no doubt and no argument about the matter in the future. The right hon. Gentleman knows what a very large number of cases there are of that kind arising out of ordinary war service, and in this war there are likely to be more.

I am in agreement with others in welcoming the Bill, but I regret the necessity of having to put it through so quickly without a proper opportunity for examination.

The Committee stage is to be taken to-morrow.

I know that but, with all the other Bills that we have, that gives very little time for those put down to-day to be considered to-morrow. Manuscript Amendments might be accepted but, even then, it does not give an opportunity for examination of a Bill like this, which may become of great importance afterwards. Since I came into Parliament in 1922 my experience of the working of the War Pensions Act has been so deplorable that I view with a very great deal of misgiving the possibilities that may result from this Measure. The hon. Member who spoke last spoke from the medical point of view about what might appear to be a simple scalp injury but which might turn out to be something greater than had been anticipated. I have had many cases like that in my experience. I have had experience of a great many Ministers of Pensions and I have always found them very sympathetic, but they seemed to have behind them medical advisers who took the line that, unless a case could be proved 100 per cent., no pension should be given. The Minister was always an easy man to deal with. I should not like to say which was the best, but I have never dealt with a bad Minister of Pensions. The medical advisers, however, seemed to work on a wrong principle altogether, that if they could find anything at all that might cast doubt as to whether this really resulted from a wound incurred during the war, nothing should be done.

I am in correspondence with the Minister at present on cases which seem to me absolutely disgraceful from the point of the decisions that have been come to by the medical advisers. I can get the Minister to see sense, but the medical men somehow or other seem to think it is their function to out-Treasury the Treasury, to be stiffer even than the Treasury, in the hope of saving money for the nation, and they save it at the expense of most unfortunate people who have suffered severely as the result of their war experience. I do not want that to happen after the passing of this Bill. The Ministry is going to prepare a scheme which will be laid on the Table. It will not be amended, but it might be withdrawn if there was a sufficient blast of indignation with regard to it, but naturally so many Members must always take the point of view that the Government representatives have really done the best that is possible, and it is difficult to get Government supporters to take a different point of view. There is the case in connection with the means test, when the over-whelming majority in the last Parliament supported the Minister, and then the whole scheme had to go by the board when Members found out what it really was.

I am asking the Minister whether he does not think it worth while to make his scheme such that, when he puts it forward, the House will have an opportunity of moving Amendments on particular points. I know that the Minister and his advisers might take the view that that would lead to endless argument and discussion, and that time is of the essence of the contract in a period like this, but the Government got 16 Bills yesterday through all their stages without any of those difficulties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving the House a fuller opportunity than is provided for at present, when by means of a Prayer we might have a discussion after eleven o'clock, which would not be a very suitable way of dealing with legislation affecting tens of thousands of people who will be in comparatively poor circumstances and who will be prejudiced thereby.

I am also in full agreement with my hon. and learned Friend who pointed to the difficulties arising out of Clause 3. As I see it, there is a possibility of individuals falling between two stools. The Minister will decide that they are not to get anything, and then they will try to take another remedy in the courts, which will decide that they are not to get anything and that they should have got it from the Ministry. Under past legislation we have had the Unemployment Assistance Board and public assistance committees charged with the care of various people, and I have had the experience of knowing of the Unemployment Assistance Board saying to a man "Go to the public assistance committee" and when he went to the public assistance committee being told, "You are a case for the Unemployment Assistance Board." The man was left between the two. There have been cases where people have been unable to get allowances from either body, and have suffered extremely. Under Clause 3 as it stands the same thing may happen again. I think the Minister ought to go further in clearing up the position.

I suggest that if the Minister has decided, then a Clause should be introduced providing that the person will be eligible to seek all other remedies that he may have under Common Law or even under workmen's compensation legislation. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said that if the Minister's scheme was as poor as workmen's compensation there would be a revolution and — well, we need not bother. I have been a revolutionary for a good many years, but nowadays I am not so optimistic as the hon. and learned Member. We have had experience of workmen's compensation for a long time, and we have not got the revolution. At the moment I am being bombarded with resolutions from every section of the trade union movement insisting upon the necessity for the amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act because it is so bad, but I am not so sanguine as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith that in a time of patriotic fervour and calls for national unity we shall be able to get adequate justice for these people if this scheme is not satisfactory. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Minister should seek to give us better opportunities than there are under the Bill for bringing cases to the House and also for advancing general criticism if it is thought that the scheme is unsatisfactory.

Everyone realises the necessity of passing this legislation with a speed that at other times would not be thought proper, but we have to remember that in this Bill we are parting with the rights of a good many people for good, and I do not want it to be said afterwards by the present or any Minister, "Well, the House was content to give me these powers of interpretation and I exercised them, and Members cannot complain." Powers have been taken, particularly under Clause 1, which might very well mean that the Ministry has been put into the same position as the Legislature, which lays down the rules, and of the courts of law, which interpret them. That is a very dangerous position in which to put any authority, however much one may normally have confidence in it. To some extent it makes the scheme of comparatively little value if those who draw it up are also to interpret it. The Minister might take to himself the power to say in any individual case, "You, John Jones, come within the scheme and you, Tom Smith, do not; I have said so and that is all that matters." I am not suggesting that decisions will be reduced to such bare bones as that, but that is the logical outcome of giving to the same authority both the preparation of the scheme and its entire interpretation.

Whatever the House may think of any individual Minister of Pensions there may be a change, and with a new Minister a different line of interpretation may be taken. I know of a recent case in which one Minister of Pensions took one view of it, and when he was called to another and perhaps higher sphere of office, his successor took an entirely different view. If one trusts to those who are under the Minister and in the permanent service, in that very case, as the Minister must be aware, three quite different reasons for denying the man what he asked were successively adopted by the Minister of Pensions, not contemporaneously but one after the other, covering a long period of years. The experience of that case does not incline me to wish to put the decisions both as to the interpretation of this scheme and the framing of it in the hands of the same authority. Although I know that it is the proud motto of the Ministry of Pensions that it should always give the man the benefit of the doubt, I am not convinced that it always does, and therefore I should prefer that there was some other procedure.

I come now to a point which was taken up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) with regard to Clause 3 (b), the abolition of common law rights. The Minister appeared to be a little nervous about this, because beforehand he dealt with it in his speech and said, '' What we are doing is that we are saving these poor fellows from the hazards of litigation." I have heard that argument again and again, but invariably it has been an excuse for taking away from people rights they would otherwise have had. They say to the man "Poor fellow, we are your benefactors, we are saving you from the greedy clutches of the law." Hon. Members will recall how that argument was used when we tried to get rid of the doctrine of common employment. The argument was not applicable, because we were not seeking to substitute one remedy for another, but to allow both remedies to exist contemporaneously.

I should be very sorry if it were afterwards found that on account of the enormous stresses which this House is undergoing at the moment, we had inadvertently deprived men of rights in a way which, although it may look perfectly all right when we are considering the matter at large and in general, will bear another aspect when one has to consider the individual hardships of a man one knows. It will make us say, "Why on earth did we pass this Act in this form? What a hurry we must have been in." I hope that these words will be given due consideration and that when we deal with the Bill in Committee to-morrow we may find that Amendments are accepted, or at any rate assurances are given, which will relieve the anxieties which I think must be very deeply felt by anyone who gives to this Bill the attention which it deserves.

I wish to associate myself with every word said regarding allowances and pensions in respect of war service. I have not been satisfied with the administration of the present Pensions Acts by any Minister of Pensions. I want to emphasise that, because I went through the records when a certain Minister was holding office and the result was far from satisfactory. Every Member who takes an interest in his constituents, particularly Members representing industrial areas, must agree that there has been something wrong with the administration of the Pensions Acts. A Minister of Pensions, no matter who he is, has to accept responsibility for the decisions taken by the permanent officials. Therefore, the final responsibility is here and is not upon the permanent officials. I would plead with every Member to be good enough between now and the Committee stage to read this Debate in order that during the Committee stage we shall see to it that there will not be a repetition of what happened under the administration of the present Acts.

I notice that on the Order Paper to-day one of the most Conservative Members of this House is so concerned about a case that he has put a question to the Minister of Pensions. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) is asking the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of such-and-such a case. Cases of that kind can be multiplied by scores throughout the country. The number of people whom I have had to interview in my own and in other constituencies has brought case after case to the attention of myself and of my hon. Friends. The House of Commons would be lacking in its duty, having re- gard to these experiences since 1919, if it did not insist that between now and the Committee stage a different atmosphere should prevail after this Bill becomes an Act and is being administered.

As to the benefit of the doubt, my experience is that the benefit of the doubt is seldom given to an applicant for a pension. I have one case in mind and it brought tears to my eyes to see that man stripped in his house and with his neighbours looking at him. X-ray photographs were produced while the man stripped himself in order to show his wounds, and yet he has not been able to get justice because of the various interpretations put upon his case by the medical advisers to the Ministry of Pensions. My final plea is that every hon. Member knows that we are not over-stating but rather understating the case, and that between now and to-morrow afternoon there should be a different kind of approach. I see on the other side of the House some hon. Members who have been associated with the pleas that have been made from time to time. Now we face a new situation, and we are appealing again to the cream of our manhood to rise to the nation's call. We should insist upon guarantees being given by the spokesmen of the Government that in no circumstances shall our people have experiences like those of the men who served in the last War.

I would like to say a word or two on this question because I understand that the Minister proposes to reply. Roughly speaking, the Bill is intended to bring within its ambit all persons who are serving, in much the same way as was done under the Pensions Act during the last War. In the last War the whole matter was discussed in this House. I would like to know what is now in the Minister's mind on this subject. You would think that those who govern us had taken reasonable precautions to safeguard the soldiers, but what happened in actual practice last time was different from what the legislators thought would happen. As far as I can gather, one of the objects of the Bill is that the regular soldier is treated differently from the men who will be called up under the compulsory powers.

That is under the next Bill.

Surely the two Bills cover practically the same ground. In this House we may argue about phrases, but under the old procedure of having a committee of an ex-service man, a medical man and usually what was called a neutral chairman, there were only two things wrong. One was that the decision of the tribunal was final and only the Minister could, if new evidence came along, set the decision aside and ask for the case to be re-examined. No decision of a pensions committee ought to be final. One of the things which hon. Members should face is that after a tribunal has come to a decision, and hon. Members have evidence put before them, the case ought to be reheard, as of right, before the tribunal. The Minister should put into this legislation something to safeguard us from the terrible injustices of the past.

When the War was over the men were glad to get back home and back to their work, and they did not bother about pensions. A man's one desire was to get back, if he were married, or at any rate back to his job. He was given a form to sign in which it stated that he was all right and he always signed it because it was quicker to sign it and get out. That evidence was not used against him in the meantime, but nevertheless it was often held at some of the tribunals that the document was against the man and that the Minister could not take any steps in the matter. No document like that ought to be put to a man to sign. We have never taken the view that Ministers of Pensions were bad in the main, but that they were hedged with regulations.

Now the Minister is making Regulations with all that experience behind him. We are rushing this Bill through, hoping it will pass to-morrow. The Regulations will be far reaching in their effect because they are going a terrible distance, and I would like to do something like consulting with or drawing upon the experience of Members of this House before we make any Regulations. I think that is the best method in this House of using the whole force of our experience. Before the Minister makes any Regulations, 20 or 30 Members of this House, not drawn from any particular party, would be able to give him evidence of great force to keep him right, on the Regulations. I trust that in this Bill, which will have such terribly far-reaching consequences, we shall profit from the experience of the past. I have no quarrel with the medical profession, but do not let us make them the kings of all men, and allow them to do whatever they think fit with our poor people. The Minister has the chance to make a reputation, not perhaps as the man who wins a war but as something even greater, as the man who sees that his fellow-citizens are treated with a decency which has not always been shown in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has mentioned most of the matters to which I wanted to draw attention, but there is one point that I wish to raise. Some of my legal friends have suggested that the rights of the individual at common law were being taken away, and that that was of most importance. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) suggested that the fact that we were depriving people of their rights in regard to workmen's compensation was not the most important matter. I realise the necessity for emergency legislation, and for haste, but, in view of the long period during which this legislation will operate, it should receive careful examination from this House, especially in view of our past experience. Most of us have had experience of the working of the War Pensions Act. A man who is a British Legion secretary, and who walks with crutches, said to me the other day, "If a man had ever had measles before he was 18 years of age, my advice to him would be never to join the Army, because that would prevent him from getting a pension after leaving the Army. If a man has ever been under a doctor, the medical advisers of the Ministry can connect that with any disability from which he suffers after leaving the Army."

I am not presenting any bouquets to the Minister. I have not had many bouquets myself. I have a frame in which I placed the only letter that I have ever treasured, and that was from a man who had received an extra 5s. a week. I am thinking of buying another frame if ever I get another letter of that sort. This legislation will affect the moral of the people of this country in days to come, and I hope that the rights of the worker in regard to workmen's compensation are not going to be taken away as a result of it. At present, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, if a man is dissatisfied with the action of the insurance company which is paying him his compensation on behalf of his employer, he can at least get medical advice, but in this instance, if that right is taken away, the decision of the Minister will be final. The Minister will be judge and jury in his own court, and will be able to deprive a man of his workmen's compensation, as well as common law, rights.

Quite frankly, I did not expect to have to deal with the general question of administration of war pensions in the Debate on this Bill. I would have very much liked to have had all of our medical specialists here in the Box under the Gallery. As it is, I shall certainly present each of them with a copy of the Official Report of to-day's Debate, and ask them for their observations thereon. Hon. Members, I think, will have a good deal of sympathy with me when I come to deal, on a Bill such as this, with the general question of the administration of war pensions. I have been in my Department for, I think, eight weeks, but I claim that I know a great deal about war pensions, because I have been a member of the British Legion from its formation and I served for 16 years as a member of a local war pensions committee. I handled as many pensions, I think, as any Member of this House before going to the Ministry, and I have been called the "pensions king." I have been more fortunate in that respect than the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson).

I admit that there are many things in connection with the administration of war pensions which might be improved — there is no scheme dealing with human beings and human difficulties which might not be improved — but my experience is that the members of my staff, most of them ex-service men themselves, do give sympathetic consideration to every case that is put up. Sometimes hon. Members have not themselves made sufficient inquiries before bringing a case forward. I do not mind how many questions hon. Members put on the Order Paper, but if they bring cases to me personally my door is always open, and I shall be more than delighted to deal with every case. I give them the assurance that every case will receive my personal attention and, I will add, in reply to a criticism that has been expressed, will not be left to the decision of a civil servant.

I realise that my position is one of great responsibility, and I am not going to shirk the responsibility. But on this Bill we are dealing with something of a temporary character, I hope. This is an emergency Measure. The reason why we are not providing for an appeal to the law courts is because we do not expect these conditions to exist for all time. Undoubtedly we shall be paying pensions long after the war, and I hope that this House will, when hostilities cease, go carefully into this question and, in the light of our experience, frame an Act of Parliament or a Royal Warrant, whichever it may be, which will give the right of appeal and justice and fair play to all who have to claim a pension. But here we are in the midst of a grave difficulty. If hostilities should break out to-morrow, I want to be in a position to relieve those who receive injuries the next day, and not to have them left for weeks and weeks, as happened in 1914. I cannot think of any better method than the one we are suggesting. The taking away of the right of appeal to the courts under the Common Law is done, I must again submit, in the interests of those who will have claims for allowances and pensions.

I am sure that the hon. Member opposite will realise that legal action during war-time is a very difficult matter. You have to obtain the attendance of medical and other witnesses. Where should we be with regard to the medical men? This matter has given me the greatest anxiety, as in the last few days I have had to go carefully into the question of the medical men who will be required in our own military pensions hospitals. If we had to take these men away from the work which they will have to do, we should never get any settlement of any case under a month or two months. I hope that the House will agree with me that, as far as emergency provisions are concerned, the Minister should have the right to decide. If I have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act, I hope that I shall administer it with justice and consideration. Any Member of the House will have the right to ask questions in this House if injustice is done. Questions can be put on the Order Paper or the matter can be raised on the Adjournment. That procedure will be a far better protection for these people in an emergency when things have to be done rapidly, than having to resort to the law courts.

I will deal with specific questions that have been asked. I offer my sincere thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for the remarks that he made, as I know that he takes into consideration all the difficulties that Ministers have to undergo, having had the experience of being a Minister himself. He wanted to know about the procedure. It is provided under the Bill that every scheme shall be laid on the Table, which means that there is to be no affirmative Resolution but a negative one. I should have to consult with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before I could make any alterations with regard to that matter. That is a Cabinet decision upon which I cannot give any promise this afternoon, but we will certainly consider and discuss the matter between now and to-morrow and discuss it with the people concerned. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the scales of payments would be far better than those under workmen's compensation. I will tell him exactly what we propose in the scheme. When it becomes a question of permanent injury, the pension will be generally framed on the present war pension lines, which, I think, is satisfactory to all Members of this House and to those who are in receipt of pensions. What they complain of very often is that the medical officer says that applicants are not entitled to pensions, but the scales of pensions are on the whole regarded as satisfactory. That is what is suggested with regard to permanent and temporary pensions.

A different position arises when dealing with war injuries which may only last a week or a fortnight. It might be something very slight or something rather severe, and if it is severe the applicant is entitled to be dealt with under the pensions scheme. We have framed the scheme with regard to war injuries partly on war pensions rates, partly on workmen's compensation rates, and partly on the Ministry of Health insurance scheme rates. That may seem to be rather a muddle, but we have tried to frame the rates of pay along the line of those in respect of injuries sustained in other connections. We feel that the Treasury should be as generous to those who are injured as they are in the provisions made under any other Act of Parliament, and I believe hon. Members will be satisfied with the rates that will appear in the scheme when it is laid before the House. I do not expect any difficulty about that.

There may be some difference of opinion on the question of administration. However carefully you frame any Act of Parliament or draft regulations the question of interpretation is either left to a judge in a court of law or to some Minister of the Crown. It all depends upon whether a Minister administers the Act with sympathy for those who are applicants or with the idea of excluding as many claims as possible. As far as I am concerned — and I am sure that this applied to my predecessors at the Ministry of Pensions — I do not consider these cases from the point of view of finding excuses for not giving a pension. The question rather is, "How can we bring this man's claim within the regulations laid down in the King's Warrant, and in other regulations approved by the House." I could quote many cases where it has been said that the Minister has been very hard, but, 21 years after the Great War, we are awarding new pensions and additions to war pensions every week of the year. It may be that hon. Members may have had certain cases of their own which have not gone through for pension, but I am not afraid to show them the papers connected with any case, and the reason why the claim has not been allowed.

It is because of the lawyers and the doctors.

I am neither a lawyer nor a doctor. I am just an ordinary fellow who looks at these cases. That will be my policy, if I have to carry out the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. The question of appeal tribunals. was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). We have an appeal tribunal in connection with war pensions, and I anticipate that when, as I hope hostilities may cease pretty shortly, we get back to normal, the House will insist upon a tribunal to deal with cases under this Act. But I submit that in dealing with the diffi- culties of the moment it would be absolutely impossible to have an appeal tribunal in order to deal with these cases. There would be great difficulty in getting men to serve on the tribunal and time would be wasted, and, therefore, I think that we can leave the matter with the knowledge that there will be a proper and sympathetic administration of the Act.

As the Minister knows, there is a pensions appeal tribunal in existence at the present time under the Act of 1919. Is it proposed that that tribunal shall remain in existence in the time that is coming, and, if so, are we to be left in the position that, if a man suffers from injury which he sustained in the last War he is allowed to appeal, but, if a man sustains injury in this war, he will have no right of appeal?

We are dealing with civilians. Under this Act the position is definite. It will not give right of appeal beyond the Minister to any claimant. I cannot imagine a permanent Measure without the insertion of a provision for a tribunal to be set up before who man appeal could be presented.

Will the present tribunal continue in existence?

I cannot say, but I will ascertain and inform the hon. Member. A point connected with a medical question was raised by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). It was concerned with nervous troubles that have arisen out of the last War. To this matter I have given much consideration and I am glad to say that I have secured a committee of eminent medical specialists on these diseases and they are going to make a full report. I shall then be able to act upon their report as upon other matters that may be brought forward from time to time by expert medical advisers. When I say expert medical advisers, I do not mean expert medical advisers in the Ministry but from outside. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised the question whether certain injuries had resulted from war wounds. I realise the difficulty that he mentioned, and I have taken it into account in dealing with war pensions, as I believe my predecessor did. Probably the hon. Member is aware that in many cases a man has signed that he was under no disability when he left the Service, but — there is always a "but," and it is a good "but" in this case — notwithstanding that fact I am prepared to reconsider such cases where necessary, and that has been done frequently. The matter can be dealt with when the regulations come before the House for the making of a permanent scheme; in fact, all the points brought forward this afternoon can be dealt with in the Committee stage. I hope hon. Members will now allow me to introduce the Bill.

I beg to move,

" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the transfer to the Minister of Pensions of powers and duties with respect to pensions and grants vested in certain Naval, Military, and Air Force authorities, to amend Section nine of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, to make provision for awards in respect of war injuries to, and the detention of, mariners and other seafaring persons and war damage to their effects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."

It will not be necessary to speak at length on this proposed Bill, because it follows the lines of the Bill which has just received a Second Reading. It gives certain powers to the Minister of Pensions, which I am sure the House will agree that it is desirable that he should have. It is substantially an administrative Measure. It provides for the transfer to the Ministry of Pensions from the Service Department of the administration of pensions in respect of disablement or death due to service in the armed Forces of the Crown in the coming war. It applies to all Service casualties the plan of unification adopted in the Great War under the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916. In the last War a long time elapsed before we arrived at the decision that these matters should not be left to the Service Departments, but should be unified under one Minister, responsible to this House, who could be questioned and criticised on pension matters. It is wise that the House should agree at the beginning and not two years afterwards that the Minister of Pensions should take over the responsibility of dealing with these cases from the beginning of the trouble.

On the former occasion the House of Commons had abundant testimony of the difficulty experienced under the previous system, and we have now abundant testimony as to the advisability of having all these pension matters under one Ministry. We know that the British Legion, from what they have said from time to time, prefer a system whereby they can deal with one Minister rather than three different Departments. War compensation and the treatment of war disabilities is, I submit, a specialised business, and it is better under one single Department than under three. The Bill goes a step further than the Act of 1916. It provides, also, that the Minister of Pensions may make a scheme applying, with the necessary modifications, the rates and conditions of naval compensation to the crews of merchant ships in the pilotage and lightship service and to the crews of ships in all waters which temporarily form part of the Navy.

During the last War, for some reason which I am not able to explain, but I am told it was because the recommendation came forward after the War Pensions Act had been passed, men of the Mercantile Marine, the pilotage service and other services who were assisting the Navy were not included in the scheme, but came under a scheme administered by the Board of Trade. I am not going to say that the Board of Trade have not done their job satisfactorily. I have not had many complaints, although I represent a seaport where many men and widows are drawing what they call a Board of Trade pension. I think, however, that those who know anything of the administration of war pensions will agree that it is far better that these pensions should not be under different Departments, but under the Minister of Pensions, and that they should be treated alike and considered by the same set of people. I shall be glad to answer any questions, and if there are any questions on the naval side my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty will be prepared to answer. The Bill is self-explanatory. It transfers powers from the Navy, the Army and the Air Force to the Ministry of Pensions with regard to pension matters.

One final point. The Bill authorises a scheme of compensation for seamen and others employed in the sea service who are subject to enforced detention in foreign ports and who suffer war damage to their effects. I am sure that proposal will meet with the full approval of the House. If a man is serving in a merchant ship under the naval authorities and is doing a job of work that is essential for the interests of the country, perhaps in bringing foodstuffs or raw materials here, and he is unfortunate enough to be on a ship which is detained and taken to a foreign port and kept there, it is right that he should be compensated in the same way as a prisoner of war who is captured on the battlefield, and that provision should be made for him. The House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole question of pensions and in their report issued on 9th August, 1920. paragraph 40, they say:

" All officers and other ranks in the Mercantile Marine who serve abroad during the war on British Merchant vessels should be regarded as having been engaged on war service, if such service was performed under circumstances where the normal risks of strain were increased by war conditions."

That recommendation has been born in mind in framing this Bill. It is a very necessary Bill, and I hope the House will pass it as speedily as possible.

I shall not occupy the attention of the House for long, first, because most of what I desire to say has been said already on the previous Bill when we were dealing with the question of war pensions administration, and, secondly, because I agree with the principle embodied in the Measure. At the same time, I desire to put some questions to the Minister for the purpose of elucidation. I entirely agree that unification is desirable. It is essential that all persons who are involved in injury sustained as the result of the war should be treated alike. There ought not to be, as there was during the last war, differentiation in treatment, which gave rise to many anomalies resulting in much discontent. There is a difference between this Measure and the last which the House considered. In the case of the last Bill the Minister said that there was power to bring a scheme before Parliament. That is quite a proper provision, but in this Measure no such provision obtains.

Clause 3 provides for pensions payable in certain circumstances to seafaring men. A scheme can be promoted by the Minister, but there is no provision that such a scheme can be brought before Parliament. Why have the Government left out such a very necessary provision, and one which has been embodied in almost every kind of legislation dealing with these matters? Unless there is such a provision contained in the Bill I am bound to ask the Minister — he may not be able to give me a full answer to-day — the nature of the scheme, and, in particular, the rates which are to be paid in the event of injury being sustained. Obviously, we shall only be able to discuss such a scheme by way of question and answer in the House, and I think we should have further information on the matter.

I agree with the Minister that a Government scheme under the Ministry of Pensions is preferable to the kind of scheme which was promoted during the last War, which left the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade. I make no charge against the Board of Trade as far as the administration is concerned. I have had some experience of seafaring men, and I know that there has been considerable criticism of the rates paid, and that in a number of cases men have been unable to receive any pension at all. As the organiser of a seafaring union I have had occasion to approach the Board of Trade on many occasions to obtain redress for the men, but at the same time much prefer that the matter should be left in the hands of the Ministry of Pensions who are dealing with these matters on a basis of unification and treating everybody alike. I want to know, in the event of a seafaring man being injured in the process of the war being denied a pension or remuneration, what redress he has? Is he still entitled to utilise the process of Common Law and claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act? Otherwise, it will be most unfair that a man should be compelled to come within the scope of a Government scheme and then, having been turned down, should be denied the opportunity of going further with his case.

There has been considerable criticism of the War Pensions Act. I know that there have been many bad cases. I have had several cases myself which have been turned down. I know that there are cases of hardship, but, on the whole, and speaking for myself, I say that the War Pensions Act and the administration of it has worked out very well. There have been large numbers of cases where the treatment has been beyond reproach, although there have been many cases of hardship. I know of the representations made by the British Legion and by hon. Members, but I say that there has been considerable satisfaction; and I say that for this reason. In spite of what hon. and learned Friends have said — I am speaking for seamen in this matter — I say that I would infinitely prefer to put seamen in the hands of a Government Department and place them within the scope of a Government pension scheme than leave them to the hazards of the law. That is my view, and it is the view of seafaring men. I do not distrust lawyers, nor do I make any criticism of the courts, but from my experience we have had far more trouble under the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act than we have had under Government schemes which relate to pensions and remuneration. Therefore, as far as seamen are concerned, I prefer to put them in the hands of a Government scheme and bring them under the administration of a Government Department.

All I ask is that proper safeguards should be provided, and one safeguard is that there should be something in the nature of an appeal tribunal. The discretion ought not to be entirely vested in the Minister. Secondly, if a claim made by a seafaring man is rejected by the Department the man should have the right, even if there is an appeal tribunal and his case has gone before it, to invoke the aid of the Workmen's Compensation Acts under Common Law in order to establish his case. Provided that these safeguards are furnished, I should prefer, speaking for seafaring men, to leave these men in the hands of a Government Department.

I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) a little misunderstood the legal points that were made by certain legal Members in the course of the Debate on the previous Bill. I think everybody will agree with the hon. Member for Seaham that the last thing we want is that every claim under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should go through the machinery of the courts, for that would be an impossible procedure. The only thing we suggest is that in certain cases where a Common Law remedy appears to exist and where that remedy might yield far larger compensation to the individual than was possible under the scheme that alternative should be kept alive. That is the suggestion that was made by legal Members who spoke in the Debate on the previous Bill.

With regard to this Bill, I think every hon. Member realises that it is a question of administrative procedure, and that it is necessary that, as happened eventually during the last War, all the pensions administration should come under one Department. In saying that, I wish to present my humble tribute of gratitude for the way in which the Departments concerned dealt with their own pensions cases as long as they were within their purview. In particular, I have always found that the War Office has dealt with pensions cases in a most satisfactory way. It is obvious that during hostilities, which are so imminent, the Fighting Departments will have so much to do that to leave them with this additional burden would be to place a greater strain upon their personnel than would be reasonable. For those reasons, I think this Bill is a necessary one, and I support it.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the transfer to the Minister of Pensions of powers and duties with respect to pensions and grants vested in certain Naval, Military, and Air Force authorities, to amend section nine of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, to make provision for awards in respect of war injuries to and the detention of, mariners and other seafaring persons and war damage to their effects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hore-Belisha, Sir Kingsley Wood, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Shakespeare, and Sir Walter Womersley.

:I beg to move,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to national health insurance as respects the period of the present emergency, and to amend the law relating to widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions as respects that period and as respects provisions against double pensions."

The main object of this Bill is to secure that persons insured under the scheme of National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions do not suffer any loss of rights under those schemes by reason of joining the Armed Forces of the Crown or entering upon war occupations. The Insurance Acts do not run outside the United Kingdom at present, whereas persons entering upon war occupations might find themselves working outside the United Kingdom. For that and other reasons, it is desirable to make certain that their rights are preserved. The Bill provides, in effect, that on return to civil life all such persons will find themselves in the same position as if they had been continuously in insurable employment throughout their period of service or war occupation. There is a further provision in the Bill dealing with the adjustment of Health Insurance benefits and Contributory Pensions to payments which are made in respect of war injuries or pensions paid in respect of death due to war. In effect, the Bill merely secures that double payments from public funds are not made in respect of the same event, and the approved societies are safeguarded against having to make payments for which no financial provision is made in the scheme of National Health Insurance.

There are further provisions to the effect that insured persons will be able to secure payment of benefits or pension although the records affecting their title may not be available when the claim arises, due to the possible destruction of records as a result of the war. Therefore, a provision is made in the Bill which, to put it in a few phrases, enables the Minister to carry on, make payments, and afterwards look into it and see whether he was right in doing so. I think those three sets of provisions are all provisions which the House as a whole will agree it is desirable to make.

This Bill is not believed by hon. Members on this side of the House to be controversial. The hurried introduction of the Bill has prevented us from making a full examination of its details. We accept it in good faith because we observe that the purpose is to give safeguards and protection to people who, in emergency conditions, will have to change their occupations or change their position in life. In the first instance, it is provided that men who may take up an occupation abroad and who at present would be disqualified from participation in the National Health Insurance scheme and Contributory Pensions are to be given entry into the insurance schemes. Contributions will be made payable on their behalf by their employers for whom they work abroad, and they will not be required themselves to make any contribution. That is a very valuable provision for the workpeople who are called upon to undertake national work from time to time. Secondly, there is a provision by which workpeople will be required to make the ordinary contributions of 3d. and 2 ½ d. to maintain their insurance benefits. That is not new, but it does apply to a very large number of people who will take up employment for war purposes in this country. On the last two Bills, I shared the apprehensions of hon. Members on this side regarding the full effect of those two pieces of legislation. I see nothing that would lead us to suspect any breakdown in the administration of the proposals of this Bill, and I am required, on behalf of hon. Members on this side not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall examine it again before the final stages are taken to-morrow.

As the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has said, this is a Bill which, as far as its main purposes are concerned, we all welcome. There are three points on which I think some further explanation is needed. First, in Clause 6, Sub-section (2), there is provision for the sort of scheme which we discussed on the last Bill but one, regarding personal injuries in case of war, and under which scheme the decision is to be made by the Minister of Pensions as to whether the injury does or does not come within the scheme. In this case also, the decision of the Minister is to be final. It seems to me that there should be some appeal from the Minister in this matter, which will be of great importance to the people concerned, and my hon. Friends and I propose to move an Amendment tomorrow to the effect that it should be possible to appeal from the Minister in these cases to the pensions appeal tribunal already set up under the Act of 1919. Secondly, I think some information should be given to the House as to the scale of war pensions which is envisaged. The Bill states that where a dependant's war pension is less than the pension under the Contributory Pensions Act, the amount shall be made up. One would suppose from those words that the scale of pensions intended is less than the present scale under the Contributory Pensions Act. If not, it is difficult to see what those words mean and we ought to have some assurance on that point. My third point is this. In Clause 14, Sub-section (3), there is a provision against drawing an old age pension and also a dependant's allowance under this Act. In particular, I call attention to the words

" not being a pension in respect of the service of the pensioner's son or stepson in the late War."

The existing law as regards people who lost sons or stepsons in the late War, is that they can draw their pensions under the Contributory Pensions Act and also dependant's allowance in respect of the son or stepson lost in the War. In that case, at present, we allow two pensions to be drawn. As I read this Clause the same terms are not proposed in this case. In this case it is proposed that, if a man or woman gets a dependant's pension in respect of a son or stepson lost in a coming war, the old age pension of that person will be scaled down in accordance with the terms set out in the Bill. Some explanation ought to be given of this new departure. Why is it proposed to give worse terms in the case of old age pensioners who lose sons or stepsons in a coming war, than was given to old age pensioners who lost sons or stepsons in the late War? We shall put down an Amendment on this point to-morrow and I hope that some explanation will be forthcoming.

Arising out of our experiences in these matters I feel it necessary that some observations should be made on this Bill. It may be said that individuals should be aware of their responsibilities but thousands, nay millions of our people, may become involved in a situation in which it will be impossible for them to remember that they are responsible for taking steps to maintain their insurance rights. Clause 10 of the Bill states:

" Regulations of the Minister may authorise the payment, during the period of the present emergency and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, of any benefit under the Insurance Acts without the question being determined whether the statutory conditions governing the right to that benefit have been complied with."

This will be very important to millions of men and women affected by this legislation. It is essential that they should have adequate safeguards, and should be made aware of their own responsibilities. I would make this plea to the Minister, that no individual should be left with any excuse for not being aware of his or her responsibility. I would ask, in the first place, for an assurance that these regulations will be in language as clear and simple as possible.

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is necessary at this hour to draw the blinds. It deprives us of air in the Chamber.

I think it is a thing we must put up with.

I was appealing to the Minister to frame these regulations as clearly and simply as possible. I would also ask that notification should be given to individuals of their responsibility with regard to the statutory obligations involved in these regulations. I suggest that these notices should be sent out in the same way as Income Tax notices are sent out at present. Under the Income Tax administration, a first notice is sent out, which is very often followed by a second and then by a third and final notice. Those of us who have had experience in connection with approved societies know how serious this issue is to all concerned, and in this matter I am making an appeal on behalf of the poor people of this country who may be living under conditions in which they will not remember their individual responsibility. Just as several notices are sent out in regard to Income Tax, so I suggest that at least two notices should be sent to the individuals concerned in this matter, reminding them of the necessity of taking steps to maintain their insurance and pension rights. Approved societies should be instructed to issue notices and then if the individuals so notified do not carry out their responsibility, a second notice should be issued giving them sufficient time to fulfil their obligations under the regulations and maintain their insurance and pension rights.

These are points which will obviously arise on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I assure the hon. Members that I have taken a careful note of them.

I beg to move,

" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent membership of any of His Majesty's Forces being a disqualification for membership of the Commons House of Parliament. "

The operative Clause of the Bill will provide that

" A person shall not be incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in, the Commons House of Parliament by reason only that, as a member of any of His Majesty's Forces, he holds any office or place of profit under the Crown."

The incapacity, if any, arises under Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707. That Section applies to new offices, that is to say, offices created in 1705. The present statutory position is a little complicated, and the Bill is in quite general terms. For example, officers in the Royal Air Force are taken care of by Section 4 of the Royal Air Force Act, 1917. Officers of the Territorial and Reserve Forces are provided for by Sections 33 and 36 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. The reason for a Bill of this kind arises in regard to the acceptance by Members of the House of membership in His Majesty's Forces under active service conditions. It is a possible view that, in spite of the development of these forces, all positions in them are old offices, because there were an Army and a Navy in 1905. This Bill will remove any doubt that there may be on the matter and produce results which I think the House would desire. There was a somewhat similar Bill at the beginning of the last War, but it was slightly differently worded.

In supporting this Bill, I would say that we all regard those Members of the House who are serving in His Majesty's Forces with mingled congratulation and envy, and we wish them a safe, early, and victorious return.

It was no later than last evening that I raised the very question that is covered by this Bill, and it is a tribute to the new spirit of unity which pervades us that legislative suggestions made by Members on this side should, within 24 hours, be given practical effect. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

During the War this matter was debated ardently on both sides, and it was opposed from this seat by John Dillon, who opposed it on grounds with which I did not agree, but I think they should be restated. He argued that once upon a time Parliament was overawed by the officers in the Army, and he went back to Cromwellian times to prove that it was necessary in those days to protect Parliament from the Army. Now I am glad to say that if we were all officers in the Army, we should be better citizens, more useful, and do a great deal of good to the Army.

May I ask whether the case of those who are employed in Civil Defence either as Regional Commissioners or otherwise, and sit on one bench or another in this House are covered in any way?

This Bill deals only with the Defence Forces.

May I not ask whether it ought not also to include the fourth arm, that is, Civil Defence? There may be a considerable number of Members who are Regional or Divisional Commissioners or are otherwise engaged in various ways in Civil Defence, and if they are not covered, I think they ought to be covered.

That point will no doubt be considered. I think that many of those to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers would not in fact be holding offices of profit under the Crown. The point will no doubt be considered, but it is not covered by this Bill.

Could I have an assurance from the Attorney-General that the word "he" in line 4, Clause 1, embraces also the word "she"?

I beg to move,

" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable His Majesty by Order-in-Council to extend to the Isle of Man Acts passed for purposes connected with the defence of the Realm."

The Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce to the House is purely formal, and it is on similar lines to a corresponding Act that passed into law shortly after the outbreak of War in 1914. Its pur- pose is to enable any United Kingdom legislation dealing with the Defence of the Realm to be extended by Order-in-Council to the Isle of Man, and it is a very necessary purpose. It provides a much more expeditious method of legislating for the Isle of Man than the usual machinery of passing local legislation through the Tynwald and getting it subsequently approved by Order-in-Council. The Bill is desired by the authorities in the Isle of Man.

I should like to ask whether the authorities of the Isle of Man have been approached in this matter, and what has been their reply?

The authorities in the Isle of Man have been approached and have expressed their desire to have this Bill.

I understand that the Prime Minister will make a statement in a short time and I will suspend the Sitting. The bells will be rung when the House is to reassemble.

resumed the Chair.

:Sir Nevile Henderson was received by Herr von Ribbentrop at half-past nine last night, and he delivered the warning message which was read to the House yesterday. Herr von Ribbentrop replied that he must submit the communication to the German Chancellor. Our Ambassador declared his readiness to receive the Chancellor's reply. Up to the present no reply has been received.

It may be that the delay is caused by consideration of a proposal which, meanwhile, had been put forward by the Italian Government, that hostilities should cease and that there should then immediately be a conference between the Five Powers, Great Britain, France, Poland, Germany and Italy. While appreciating the efforts of the Italian Government, His Majesty's Government, for their part, would find it impossible to take part in a conference while Poland is being subjected to invasion, her towns are under bombardment and Danzig is being made the subject of a unilateral settlement by force. His Majesty's Government will, as stated yesterday, be bound to take action unless the German forces are withdrawn from Polish territory. They are in communication with the French Government as to the limit of time within which it would be necessary for the British and French Governments to know whether the German Government were prepared to effect such a withdrawal. If the German Government should agree to withdraw their forces then His Majesty's Government would be willing to regard the position as being the same as it was before the German forces crossed the Polish frontier. That is to say, the way would be open to discussion between the German and Polish Governments on the matters at issue between them, on the understanding that the settlement arrived at was one that safeguarded the vital interests of Poland and was secured by an international guarantee. If the German and Polish Governments wished that other Powers should be associated with them in the discussion, His Majesty's Government for their part would be willing to agree.

There is one other matter to Which allusion should be made in order that the present situation may be perfectly clear. Yesterday Herr Forster who, on 23rd August, had, in contravention of the Danzig constitution, become the head of the State, decreed the incorporation of Danzig in the Reich and the dissolution of the constitution. Herr Hitler was asked to give effect to this decree by German law. At a meeting of the Reichstag yesterday morning a law was passed for the reunion of Danzig with the Reich. The international status of Danzig as a Free City is established by a treaty of which His Majesty's Government are a signatory, and the Free City was placed under the protection of the League of Nations. The rights given to Poland in Danzig by treaty are defined and confirmed by agreement concluded between Danzig and Poland. The action taken by the Danzig authorities and the Reichstag yesterday is the final step in the unilateral repudiation of these international instruments, which could only be modified by negotiation. His Majesty's Government do not, therefore, recognise either the validity of the grounds on which the action of the Danzig authorities was based, the validity of this action itself, or of the effect given to it by the German Government.

This is indeed a grave moment. I believe the whole House is perturbed by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. There is a growing feeling, I believe, in all quarters of the House that this incessant strain must end sooner or later — and, in a sense, the sooner the better. But if we are to march, I hope we shall march in complete unity, and march with France.

You people do not intend to march — not one of you.

I am speaking under very difficult circumstances with no opportunity to think about what I should say; and I speak what is in my heart at this moment. I am gravely disturbed. An act of aggression took place 38 hours ago. The moment that act of aggression took place one of the most important treaties of modern times automatically came into operation. There may be reasons why instant action was not taken. I am not prepared to say — and I have tried to play a straight game — I am not prepared to say what I would have done had I been one of those sitting on those Benches. That delay might have been justifiable, but there are many of us on all sides of this House who view with the gravest concern the fact that hours went by and news came in of bombing operations, and news to-day of an intensification of it, and I wonder how long we are prepared to vacillate at a time when Britain and all that Britain stands for, and human civil- isation, are in peril. We must march with the French. I hope these words of mine may go further. I do not believe that the French dare at this juncture go, or would dream at this juncture of going back on the sacred oaths that they have taken. It is not for me to rouse any kind of suspicion — and I would never dream of doing so at this time, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, deeply though I regret it, we must wait upon our Allies, I should have preferred the Prime Minister to have been able to say to-night definitely, "It is either peace or war."

To-morrow we meet at 12. I hope the Prime Minister then — well, he must be in a position to make some further statement. — [Hon. Members: "Definite"] — And I must put this point to him. Every minute's delay now means the loss of life, imperilling our national interests —

Honour.

Let me finish my sentence. I was about to say imperilling the very foundations of our national honour, and I hope, therefore, that tomorrow morning, however hard it may be to the right hon. Gentleman— and no one would care to be in his shoes to-night — we shall know the mind of the British Government, and that there shall be no more devices for dragging out what has been dragged out too long. The moment we look like weakening, at that moment dictatorship knows we are beaten. We are not beaten. We shall not be beaten. We cannot be beaten; but delay is dangerous, and I hope the Prime Minister — it is very difficult to press him too hard at this stage — will be able to tell us when the House meets at noon to-morrow what the final decision is, and whether then our promises are in process of fulfilment, for in my mind there can be no escape now from the dilemma into which we have been placed. I cannot see Herr Hitler, in honesty, making any deal which he will not be prepared to betray. Therefore, thinking very hurriedly in these few moments, I believe that the die is cast, and we want to know in time.

This meeting will not have been held in vain if it demonstrates to the world that the British Parliament will not tolerate delay in the fulfilment of our honourable obligations to Poland. The Prime Minister in his statement said that we have received no reply from the German Government to our Note, and that the delay in sending us a reply might have been caused by consideration of the Italian proposal for a conference. Consideration of that proposal has, at any rate caused no delay in the advance of the German Army, and I am sure that Parliament feels that a reply must be demanded, unless the advance of those armies is promptly stopped. It is, of course, vital that we should march in step with our French allies. Let not the confidence which we feel in our French allies waver if, indeed, they wish to await the decision of their Chamber. That requirement may impose some measure of delay at this time, but the Prime Minister has undertaken to make a statement at noon tomorrow. I hope that before then some information of this sitting of Parliament and of the feeling of Parliament on this issue may be conveyed to the French Government. I have no doubt that their response will be generous and cordial and that their feelings will be the same as ours, but it is well that they should know what ours are. I hope that when we meet at noon to-morrow the Prime Minister will be able to give us a statement.

I think the House recognises that the Government is in a somewhat difficult position. I suppose it always must be a difficulty for allies who have to communicate with one another by telephone to synchronise their thoughts and actions as quickly as those who are in the same room; but I should be horrified if the House thought for one moment that the statement that I have made to them betrayed the slightest weakening either of this Government or of the French Government in the attitude which we have already taken up. I am bound to say that I myself share the distrust which the right hon. Gentleman expressed of manoeuvres of this kind. I should have been very glad had it been possible for me to say to the House now that the French Government and ourselves were agreed to make the shortest possible limit to the time when action should be taken by both of us.

It is very possible that the communications which we have had with the French Government will receive a reply from them in the course of the next few hours. I understand that the French Cabinet is in session at this moment, and I feel certain that I can make a statement to the House of a definite character tomorrow when the House meets again. I am the last man to neglect any opportunity which I consider affords a serious chance of avoiding the great catastrophe of war even at the last moment, but I confess that in the present case I should have to be convinced of the good faith of the other side in any action which they took before I could regard the proposition which has been made as one to which we could expect a reasonable chance of a successful issue. I anticipate that there is only one answer I shall be able to give to the House to-morrow. I hope that the issue will be brought to a close at the earliest possible moment so that we may know where we are, and I trust that the House, realising the position which I have tried to put before it, will believe me that I speak in complete good faith and will not prolong the discussion which, perhaps, might make our position more embarrassing than it is.

Could not the Sitting of the House be suspended, not adjourned? It might mean a little discomfort to hon. Members but that is not a great consideration. The House would then be available at any time to hear a statement from the Prime Minister.

I hope that the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member will not be considered by the Prime Minister. I hope that this House will go and sleep on it, and that to-morrow at 12 o'clock the Prime Minister will be able to come and make a definite statement to this House that there is the possibility of saving the peace of Europe. Do not let us shout across the Floor of the House terms about honour and bravery, and all the rest of it. Millions of ordinary working folk will get neither honour nor anything else out of a general European war, and if the bombs can be stopped tomorrow in Poland — the Prime Minister's condition, as I understand it — and if they can be prevented from raining over the other cities of Europe, then it will be one of the greatest achievements that the world has even seen. The horror of a world-wide war — [An Hon. Member: "Postponed for a few months."] I am not entering into prophecies, but I believe that war postponed is something gained. The mass of humanity are common-sense people. Given time, common sense, throughout the various countries, even in Germany, will begin to function and bring to bear powers that will put a stop to these wild adventures that have terrified Europe. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to allow himself to be rushed. He has to take the principal decision and the principal responsibility. Let him think once, twice or thrice before he plunges Europe into war.

I think everybody in the House will agree entirely with the remark of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that everything is to be gained by war avoided. The point to-night, however, is, unfortunately, that the war has not stopped. It is going on. There is no Member of the House, on whatever side he may sit, who will not pay a tribute in his heart, and indeed most publicly, to the work which the Prime Minister has done for peace. Everybody knows that the Prime Minister is devoted to peace. Everybody agrees also that it is necessary that we should march step by step with France; but our pledge to Poland is Britain's pledge, not France's. We must remember that now it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, 38 hours since this war began. It is now something like 24 hours — 1 do not know the exact time — since the Prime Minister's message was delivered in Germany. If there were any intention on the part of Germany to comply with that request, to fall in with any scheme for peace, surely she could have stopped the devastation by now. I say this not because I disagree with the Prime Minister — and I am sure that everybody will agree with me in this — and not because I do not appreciate the burden that is upon him, the terrible responsibility which he has to bear; but I do pray that he will remember, as indeed, I know he will remember, that the whole country is nervous about this continual delay in carrying out our pledges.