Orders Of The Day

Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Donald Somervell)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, which has been amended from time to time, has always had embodied in it the principle that it should run for a period of a year and should then expire unless extended by this House. In one case, in 1940, the extension was by a supplementary Act, but the procedure provided for in the Act is that it may be renewed for a period of 12 months by an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament. There is no power under the existing law to renew by an Address for a shorter period than a year. If we adopt the Address procedure, we must extend for the full period of a year. The present position is that the Emergency Powers Acts, with the Defence Regulations which are left after my predecessor's raid on them the other day when 84 fell by the wayside with general approval, will expire on 24th August. That is the date when the 12 months under the Address which was moved in July last year expires. Everybody would agree that steps must be taken before Parliament dissolves to continue the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, with the Regulations under them. The present Bill simply extends the Acts for a period of six months. We must have a Bill to do that, although it is in one sense doing only one-half of what could be done by an Address, but we  do not think it right, for reasons which I will state a little more definitely, to ask the House at this stage of our affairs to continue these Acts for the full period of 12 months. The fact that they are extended for only six months means that before that period expires the then Government must come back to the then Parliament on this issue in some form or other.

Mr. Herbert Morrison  (Hackney, South)
On what form of issue is it proposed to bring it up?

Sir D. Somervell
:I am coming to that. I am getting a little nervous about relying upon the right hon. Gentleman's decisions or statements in the past. I thought, when I was producing the Order in Council which was obviously going to get general approval, that I ought to give honour where honour was due. On the last occasion when the Act was renewed, my predecessor gave some pledges to the House which are important in relation not only to the shortening of the extension period from 12 to 6 months, but also to the Government's decision with regard to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, which has been introduced but not yet discussed in any form. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Debate on14th July last year, emphasised the point that, after the cessation of the war in Europe, the House would be entitled to have an opportunity for a full review of the Emergency Powers issue. He said: "When a situation arises in which there is a prima facie case for reviewing this matter the Government will not evade the issue but will come to the House afresh and say, 'Let us have a talk about it.' " He said also that it would be the duty of the Government "to come to Parliament and to consult Parliament and to give the House the fullest opportunity of reviewing the whole position and considering the extent and nature of the Emergency Powers which ought to be continued" after the cessation of hostilities in Europe.—[OFFICIAL REPORT,14th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 2083–4.] That was completely reasonable, and we entirely accept those declarations in the letter and in the spirit. It is because this Parliament will plainly not have time to give to this issue in all its aspects the attention which it deserves, and which the right hon. Gentleman promised Par-  liament it should have, that we feel the course we are adopting is the proper course. Under it the new Parliament will have the fullest opportunity of reviewing the whole position. On the question of the time that remains to us, the House is well aware of the position. We heard the statement on Business to-day. There are some Bills, like the Finance Bill, which are essential. There are a number of Bills on which the House has already done a lot of work which it is the general wish of all parties should reach the Statute book. There are the Supply days, which, in any case, have to be cut down. Let me, therefore, first address my remarks to the question whether in the position in which we are now it would have been right to ask the House to have this promised review on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. I submit that the general question could not have the full consideration which it ought to have and which the Government a year ago said it should have. I then come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman raised in a Question on Tuesday, whether anything would be jeopardised by the postponement. In the circumstances when this Bill was introduced, I foreshadowed, and I expect everybody did, that there would be considerable discussions upon it. It may well be that the general principles of the Bill commend themselves to everybody, namely, the principle that we could be certain that when we pass into more normal times as the war emergency, which is still fully with us, fades away that it should be clear that the Government have the necessary powers; and the other principle which the Bill involves, that in this field there should be greater Parliamentary control. These two principles may well, and I hope will, be fully accepted, but undoubtedly this is a Bill on which I would anticipate considerable discussions, not only on Second Reading, but in Committee. There are, for instance, the precise wording of Clause 1, which deals with additional transitional powers, and the question of the two years' limit and whether it is right to go on for two years irrespective of the Emergency Powers Acts being brought to an end. Anybody with experience of this House will realise that there are many matters which would have to be discussed. There is another  matter which I am sure was included in what was stated on behalf of the Government a year ago. That is not only what I may call the form of this Bill and the Committee points which might be raised on it, but a general review by the House of the Emergency Powers at the time when this discussion comes to be held. In this matter there are thus two things which are equally important, but the second, from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, is more important than the first. The first is the extent and form of the powers which can be exercised. Obviously, so long as we are at war with Japan, we must have the widest possible powers, but the question which the citizen is interested in is what use we make of those powers and whether we make an excessive use of them in the circumstances as they exist. That seems to me to be precisely the matter which the Government intended that the House should have the opportunity of reviewing when the right hon. Gentleman spoke on their behalf. It is impossible in the present state of business to hold that review now. The right hon. Gentleman raised the other day, and I am grateful to him for doing it because it is an important point, and it is right it should be cleared up, the point whether, if we postponed the Supplies and Services Bill, such matters as housing and furniture will be prejudiced in the interval through the Departments concerned not having sufficient powers. That is the legal question, and on questions of law the House will look to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General rather than to the Home Secretary. I have had a few words with him, not for the first time on this issue in the course of the last five years, just to be sure that he did not let me down when he came to reply. I can assure the House that we have been discussing this matter from different angles for a long time more or less continuously. I can assure the House that there is no foundation for the fear that the postponement of the Supplies and Services Bill will hamper any Government Department in continuing and exercising such controls as are required in connection with housing, furnishing and the various other similar matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Under the Emergency Powers Acts which we are asking the House to extend for a further period there is full provision for all the controls which  are essential for these purposes. Not only is the end of hostilities in Europe not the end of the war but, as we have been very forcibly reminded—I was looking for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food—we are still in the position of having a war scarcity of supplies. That position is as acute as it has ever been. Therefore, the necessity for exercising powers for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community has seldom been more clear than it is at present. I agree with the idea in the first part of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill that a period will come when, from the strictly legal point of view, doubt might be raised as to whether the circumstances justify the use of the existing powers for the purposes which at the moment we have in mind, and that should be provided for. But at this stage it is rather the political than the legal side which in my view is the governing factor which would have led the late Government, if it had continued, to ask the House at this stage to review the whole position and consider a two years' policy. This period to which I have referred, when it may be said that the existing powers are wearing a little thin, and when the Government may say that, apart from their political obligation to put the whole issue before the House, from the legal point of view the line is getting a little near, will undoubtedly be in the life of the new Parliament. This is a very important matter from every point of view—from the constitutional point of view and from the point of view of the transition from war to peace. I believe it would have been quite wrong to have attempted to rush this through without proper discussion, which it could not have. In the view of the Government it is the new Parliament which should deal with the matter. Before I sit down I would like to say a word on the general question of controls, which is concerned very much in this issue. There have been various statements on the matter. There was in the White Paper on Employment Policy a statement which, I think, puts it very well. It says: "The Government have no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake. But they are resolved that, so long as supplies are abnormally short, the most urgent needs shall be met first. Without some of the existing controls this could not be achieved;  prices would rise and the limited supplies would go, not to those whose need was the greatest, but to those able to pay the highest price. The Government are confident that the public will continue to give, for as long as is necessary, the same wholehearted support to the policy of 'fair shares' that it has given in war-time." The first sentence of that statement, "The Government have no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake," was very well exemplified by the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman, with a promptitude which I think must have impressed the House on 9th May, when 84 Defence Regulations went—I am not sure where they go when they die. I agree that it is important that the process of seeing what we can dispense with should be continually kept in mind. We have to keep a very large measure of control, but there are some things—some of them harassing—which can be got rid of, and for my part so far as they come within my control I will do my best to see that that is done. I will give one example. The right hon. Gentleman removed certain restrictions on passages to Northern Ireland a few days ago, and I was able to make a statement in answer to a Question to-day with regard to restrictions on passages to Southern Ireland. The Government are fully alive to the importance of removing restrictions which are unnecessary. I commend this Bill to the House. I do not say the situation was an easy one, but we believe we have adopted the right principle in asking the House to approve this Bill extending the Emergency Acts for six months and leaving to the new Parliament the important task of having a full discussion and making up its mind in the light of that full discussion what should be done in the future. If in this matter I find myself in controversy with the right hon. Gentleman I shall regret it, but we will do our best on both sides. I assure him that I have regarded the assurance which he gave to the House on this question in July, 1944, as of great importance.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Hackney, South)
On this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to have us with him as he did on the previous Motion on the Order Paper. I totally disagree with the Government's decision. I believe  the Government's decision is absolutely contrary to the public interest. I believe it is unnecessary; they ought to have carried through the programme which the last Government agreed on the introduction of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers)Bill, and they should have combined that with the understanding there was with the House that when the European war came to an end there would be a review of these exceptional powers. I do not see why that should not have taken place within the time at our disposal. Indeed, the review started when I announced—I think on V-Day plus 1—the abandonment of the regulations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. The House had got a big concession in that respect, and a perfectly proper one. Indeed, it was not a concession; I was only too glad to make the announcement. But there it was, and there was the contribution to this problem. I said then with the full authority of the Government, that they would go, and others would be reviewed from time to time, and in order that we could get proper continuity in the exercise of the functions of economic control within an appropriate field, legislation would be introduced in order to enable those regulations to be met in relation to the transition to peace as they had been in relation to the actual conduct of- the war. The Bill was introduced, and I think it was a very good Bill. It had the full authority of the late Government behind it, and certainly it was not produced after inadequate discussion in Ministerial circles. There was plenty of discussion, as one would expect on a subject of this kind. The Bill was introduced with direct Cabinet authority; I see that it was "presented by Mr. Secretary Morrison, supported by Mr. Lyttelton, Sir Andrew Duncan, Mr. Attorney-General and Miss Wilkinson." Therefore, the former Attorney-General is fully committed to this Bill but he has not said a word in support of it this afternoon.

Sir D. Somervell
I was not moving it.

Mr. Morrison
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has some responsibility for this Bill which was before the House and which was still obtainable from the Vote Office. He has said nothing about the merits of the Bill. Would he like to do so?

Sir D. Somervell
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I did not think it would be in Order to go into details, but I said that the two general principles of this Bill, on the back of which, of course, my name appeared, would command general assent from all quarters. There was, of course, room for discussion of the details.

Mr. Morrison
:That is evasive. It is easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say he supports the two general principles in the Bill, and it is equally easy to come along later and object to nearly every detail in the Bill. His name is on the back of the Bill and he will not say now whether he supports the Bill or not. He will not go any further than say that he accepts the two general principles running through the Bill. It is obvious what has happened on this Bill. The vested interests have got going. That is perfectly clear. [Laughter.] It docs not matter whether hon. Members laugh or do not laugh. It is obvious. I could laugh about it if it were not so sad from the point of view of the interests of the country. It is perfectly clear that this new Government, losing their enlightened Labour and Liberal elements and those elements which are concerned with the furtherance of public interests, have promptly reverted to true Tory type, and in this respect they are acting not as a public-spirited Government but as a political instrument of vested interests which want to do what they like with the economic welfare of the country. That is what is happening. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh about it, but before we have done with them they will laugh on the other side of their faces. This Government have surrendered to the forces of economic anarchy who want to do what they like and never mind about the welfare of Britain and the British people. This is a shameful surrender to the vested interests which control and dictate the policies of the Conservative Party, and, of course, the other elements in the Government have got to swallow it. Why was this Bill necessary? I am not a lawyer, but nowadays neither is the right hon. and learned Gentleman a lawyer. He is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and whereas I always listened to him with great respect on legal matters, when he was the  Attorney-General, I am not obliged to listen to him on law now. Indeed, as he said, he must listen to the new Attorney-General—whom I would also congratulate on his elevation and thank for the co-operation I had from him, as from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am bound to say I think we have had some risky legal opinion from the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon. I speak with reserve, and I will try to speak with modesty, but I am not at all sure that he is right. The operative provision on scope is to be found, I think, in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, Section 1 (1) of which provides— "Subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council make such Regulation (in this Act referred to as 'Defence Regulations') as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, and the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community." The scope of that Sub-section must be read in conjunction with the long Title of the Bill, which is an Act to confer on His Majesty "certain powers which it is expedient that His Majesty should be enabled to exercise in the present emergency." I would emphasise "in the present emergency." It goes on: "and to make further provision for purposes connected with the defence of the realm." I again say that I pretend to be no legal authority, but nobody can have been for nearly five years at the Home Office without being apprehensive of going over the line. One cannot hear lawyers argue the difference between intra vires and ultra vires without feeling the necessity for being careful. The courts of our country are very good institutions, but one does not know whether some day they may jump and decide that something which we thought was intra vires is ultra vires. I submit that there is the gravest doubt, to put it mildly, whether, under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of that Statute, read in conjunction with the wording of the long Title, we are entitled to use the Defence Regulations in relation to the supply of building materials for post-war houses or to secure furniture in adequate quantities for the general body of the people as against furniture for rich men's offices, and so on. The new  Attorney-General will have his work cut out if he is challenged in the courts to prove that they come within the Subsection, read in conjunction with the long Title.

Mr. Molson  (The High Peak)
May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Are we to understand that he considers that the "present emergency" came to an end when he left the Home Office?

Mr. Morrison
I understood that the hon. Gentleman was a lawyer. If he is, he had better keep to law and not make jokes of that kind. Further argument will be contributed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is perfectly competent to argue legal points with anybody, whereas I am not. I admit it. We come to the point whether it is reasonable to argue that the priorities of control over building materials and prices, and control of timber for furnishing, the dirction of business undertakings to put the manufacturing of this in front of the manufacturing of that, the utility furniture programme, the manufacturing of components and so on, are to do with the prosecution of the war, which is the real essence of the Emergency Powers Act. If it is argued that they arose out of the war, I still think the wording is a bit doubtful. Surely we are in danger. Ministers must consider dangers as well as legal speculations. One of these days a court of law may say: "All this has to do with the transition to peace. It has to do with economic reorganisation and it is not a matter which is related, in the words of the long Title, to 'exceptional powers which His Majesty should exercise in the present emergency.' " I think there is real, grave doubt about it. The Bill which I introduced postulated the kind of things which have to be considered, and would have extended the scope of the Defence Regulations to a field covering: "a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution; the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as the result of war." There is another point also. The six months extension will leave us for an-  other six months with the Statute as it was. Here I hope to have the support of an hon. Member who supports the Government, but who, from the back benches opposite, was a very keen watch-dog over these matters. A point of importance arises and I hope that he will support me, notwithstanding the change that has taken place. One of the criticisms in relation to the Emergency Powers Act was that, under the existing legislation, only the Defence Regulation itself can be challenged by Prayer. That is the case. It was necessarily and properly the case, in the conditions of the European war, that Orders, often exceedingly important Orders almost amounting to Statutes, should be made by various Departments, especially economic Departments, but they are not capable of any Parliamentary challenge at all unless arrangements are made through the usual channels. Some of the directions were important and of a legislative character. The Bill which I introduced provided that Orders or directions of a legislative character could be challenged in the House by Prayer. So far as I can see, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no provision for that at all. Let hon. Members opposite face what they are doing. I do not want to cause any mischief, but they are continuing for another six months after the end of the European war, which was mainly in mind when the Emergency Powers Act was passed, a Measure giving to the Government complete and unchecked power, within a doubtful realm of law, to make Orders and directions of a legislative character, without the slightest possibility of Parliamentary check or the tabling of a Prayer, unless they can get the permission of the Whips and of the usual channels to do so. All I can say is that if I had come along with such a proposal I should have expected trouble.

Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that the present Ministers now in power will not use these provisions against vested interests, whereas he might have done so? Hon. Members opposite are not afraid.

Mr. Morrison
That is possibly a worthy explanation of the situation. However, I must put the case to hon. Members of the Conservative Party. My hon. Friend must not destroy my argument as I go  along, because I am hoping to get sortie support. My hon. Friend is on a fair point. There is an answer I would make, if I were an hon. Member opposite. It may be that the Home Secretary will say on behalf of the Government: "We have no intention of using these powers to any material extent. We are a Government who do not believe in using these powers to any extent that we can avoid." The answer for hon. Members opposite should be: "We do not want to have these powers, without a proper Parliamentary check." Home Secretaries are here today and gone tomorrow, and it is not a question of whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worthy or not, but of whether the Government should have these very big and extraordinary powers after the conclusion of the European war. It is perfectly true that His Majesty is still at war with the Empire of Japan. It may be argued, that being so, that the Government can still do what they like, but I suggest that they cannot, for two reasons. One is illustrated by what I have said about the things which are not really part of the prosecution of the war and secondly, measures necessary in relation to the European plus the Japanese war may not be so necessary to the Japanese war alone. I suggest that the procedure which the Government have adopted in this unworthy little Bill is wrong and ought not to have been adopted. The Parliamentary checks are gone and undoubtedly necessary powers needed for peace purposes in relation to shortages, etc., are not in the Bill adequately. What will the result be? If the Minister of Works or the President of the Board of Trade goes to the Cabinet or to the appropriate Committee of the Cabinet, and seeks new Regulations or new Orders to control building materials and supplies, or furnishings, in order that the men who are coming back, many of whom will get married, may have somewhere to live and furniture to house them when they get here, the Attorney-General may have to advise that the powers will be too severely limited. The net result, which I have no doubt is desired either by the Government or some of its influential supporters, will be a nervousness to use these powers and pressure upon the Government not to use them. That will result in a steady drift into a state of economic anarchy, and when the men come back to find homes and furniture  they will not find them, because His Majesty's present advisers have not done the right thing. What is the defence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He says that there was no time and that this legislation could not be rushed. I suppose it is better to rush the Election. If legislation could not be put through it is because the Election is being rushed. Who is objecting to the Bill which was agreed to by the Coalition Government? Who is threatening obstruction and to hold up the Bill? It was not on our side. We were supporting the Bill. Where was the trouble coming from? From the opponents of control, inside and outside Parliament. The Bill would not have taken long. I am not sure that it would take any longer than this one will before we have done with it. It was agreed to within the Government that it was to be put through. It is time that Ministers representing other parties should take responsibility, instead of getting scared at the slightest breath of opposition or criticism. Therefore it seems to me that the Bill is the wrong way of going about the matter. We are left in a situation of grave legal doubt. I believe that the hand of the Government will be paralysed either because they wish it to be paralysed on grounds of policy, or it may be paralysed on grounds of legal power. It is inevitable. How long are we to go on like this? For six months? The new Parliament will not be declared elected until July. August will be coming upon us. The House can meet, it is true, and there could be business throughout August and September. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. If it does, we are going right into that time, with the Government inadequately armed to see that their economic problems are properly tackled. On the other hand Conservative Members, if they agree, are going to leave them without those additional Parliamentary checks which I thought it right to produce in the Bill. It will be well into the Autumn before we see legislation, and what that legislation will be, the Home Secretary has not given us the least idea. He is quite right not to have done so, because he has not the least idea. He will not be there, the Government will not be there, I hope—we will do our best in that respect—but even if it were there, he is not in a posi-  tion to say what the Government think ought to be done. It is clear that the Government have got into a somewhat ramshackle state of mind and have no policy, and do not know where they are. We must agree to the Bill, because, if we do not, the Government will be without any emergency powers in relation to the prosecution of the war against Japan. Therefore, we have to assent to the Bill. Moreover, they would not have other emergency powers which it is necessary to maintain for the time being. We are in a cleft stick. If we vote against the Bill we shall be misunderstood, and it is not nice to be misunderstood, especially with an Election impending. Therefore, I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. But, on behalf, not only of myself, but of my hon. Friends, and, I believe, on behalf of every intelligent public-spirited citizen in the country, I utter my deepest and most sincere protest at the way in which the Government have now deliberately, and with malice aforethought, side-tracked the issue of economic control. We object to their procedure, and condemn it. We shall make it clear in the course of the coming weeks why we do so.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Molson  (The High Peak)
It is always a pleasure to listen to, the Parliamentary performances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morrison). In the days when some of my hon. Friends and I were asking that Parliament should be allowed to have more control over the delegated legislation, which he produced in such large quantities when he was at the Home Office, we always had a deft and skilful Parliamentary speech in order to show how necessary it was for him to have those powers. Now that he has crossed the Floor, and it is proposed to continue those very extensive powers for a further six months, we have had the same Parliamentary dexterity shown in order to produce an electioneering speech. We have been told that these powers which he exercised, these great and all-embracing powers, which extended into almost every realm of the national and economic activity of the country, will be insufficient to enable the Government to maintain control during the transitional period of the next few months. It must be remembered from the purely legal point of view that we are still at war with Japan, and the effect of this Bill is to continue for a further six months those provisions of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree have served him to very good purpose in order to bring about what I think I have read in speeches he has made out of doors, that general Socialistic control of the economic life of the country which has proved so successful and brought the country through to victory. Why is it that these powers, which were adequate to enable him to render those great services to the country which he rendered, and which were exercised also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. E.Bevin), are suddenly going to prove inadequate to enable the Government to control these sinister vested interests which he suddenly finds now amongst those Conservatives who rendered him, on the whole, very loyal support during the last few years? Of course, things change. Nothing pleased me more than the support the right hon. Gentleman suddenly obtained from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and the cordial support and gratitude he expressed for the unwonted kind words which came from just behind him.

Mr. A. Bevan
:May I ask the hon. Member to what precisely he is addressing himself? As I understand it, the Bill to which my right lion. Friend referred was a product of the Coalition Government, and if the Election had been postponed for a few weeks, the hon. Member would be making a speech supporting the Bill. Why does he now object to the Bill which he would have supported had the Coalition Government continued?

Mr. Molson
The hon. Member has interrupted a little too soon. I shall say a few kind words soon about the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney introduced. At the moment, I was addressing myself to the Bill that happens to be before the House. That Bill continues for six months to come the powers contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. The right hon. Gentleman, having read out the first part of it, including the fact that Orders may be made by His Majesty "for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community." went on to say that that must be understood to be subject to the long Title of the Act which stated that it conferred certain powers which "it is expedient that His Majesty should be enabled to exercise in the present emergency;" I then inquired—a pleasantry which the right hon. Gentleman did not take in very good part—whether the emergency had come to an end at the time he left the Home Office. That is certainly not the kind of critical description I shall make of his term of office.

Dr. Morgan  (Rochdale)
Get on to the Bill.

Mr. Molson
I am dealing with the words of the Act which this Bill is continuing for a further six months. Surely, it is quite obvious that under this Bill the powers which were exercised during war-time can be exercised for a further six months, and "the present emergency" has not yet come to an end. So long as the war with Japan continues all the powers which have been exercised under this Act, in the past, can still continue to be exercised. That surely can hardly be disputed. Have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen been satisfied with the powers they have exercised during the war in Europe? The same powers will continue to apply under the present Bill for a further six months. I hope that the Government will, in due course, introduce a Bill similar in principle to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, and that they will not avail themselves of the power under Clause 1 of this Bill to go on extending the Emergency Powers Act by Resolution for 12 months. We have in the past criticised the extension by Resolution of the powers for 12 months at a time, and it is obvious that under the present Bill it would be possible for the prolongation to be carried on in exactly the same way. I certainly understood the Home Secretary to make it quite plain that the only reason he is proceeding by a Bill which extends the Act of 1939 is simply the shortage of Parliamentary time. Although perhaps he was not entirely explicit, it seemed to me to be absolutely plain that the new Government, if they are returned, have every intention of passing legisla-  tion after the General Election in order to put this matter upon a satisfactory basis. It would be a good thing if, from the Treasury Bench, we had an express undertaking that there will be no further extension of these war-time powers indefinitely into the future, but that there will be that opportunity for the House of Commons to take stock of the whole issue, and pass legislation which will enable Orders and Regulations to be made for the transitional period. I hope that when that Bill is introduced credit will be given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney for the changed character of the Bill which he has introduced. For so long, many of us here who were concerned for the liberty of the subject were pressing him to agree to greater Parliamentary control over this delegated legislation. Month after month, indeed, year after year, passed by, and at last our appeals softened his heart. It was last Summer that the then Government accepted the Resolution which I moved in favour of setting up a Select Committee to examine all Statutory Rules and Orders. That, apparently, was not the extent of the beneficial effect upon his mind which was effected by Conservative Member of the House of Commons. Here we now have a Bill in which he goes further than he has ever gone before. Not only was the House of Commons to be given an opportunity of approving or disapproving Orders made directly under the Defence Act but the same was to apply to Orders made under the Orders—to grandchildren as well as to children of the Act, so to speak. It is with great satisfaction that we notice that during the time the right hon. Gentleman was at the Home Office those totalitarian and Fascist ideas with which he started, have gradually been eliminated from his mind. I would like therefore to pay him a warm tribute and say that I am so glad that during that long and distinguished period at the Home Office he should have moved in a constitutional direction. There was no Bill which he introduced during all that long time which showed so sound and sympathetic an appreciation of the principles of the Constitution as the Bill for which, unfortunately, there is no longer Parliamentary time. I hope the Government will give us a clear undertaking that the Bill which they are introducing now is intended as a purely transitional Measure for only six  months, and that we shall be given the opportunity of having legislation in the new Parliament which will, in these many important matters, carry out the principles to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney is so new but so zealous an adherent.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan  (Ebbw Vale)
We have had another example of one of those speeches which recently carried the colleagues of the hon. Member to the Front bench. I note from the newspapers today that he has moved up, so that he is next in the file for promotion. We ought to pay him a tribute, and to pay the Conservative Party a tribute, because the restrained and mild rebellions that the hon. Members have been carrying out in the last few years have had a suitable reward in obscure under-secretary ships.

Mr. Molson
Was it not rather similar when the hon. Member was asked to reply for the Labour Party executive committee at Blackpool?

Mr. Bevan
:On the contrary, I would remind my hon. Friend that my rebellions carried me straight to the most exalted position. At any rate, I was elected, not appointed. I was not the subject, or perhaps the victim, of the caprice of the leaders of a party.

Mr. Molson
My humble preferment last night was also one of election.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
We should now cease to talk about preferment.

Mr. Bevan
I hope you will not prevent me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from extending in advance my felicitations to my hon. Friend for what is about to befall him. I find it extremely difficult to understand the line his argument was taking. He taunted my right hon. Friend with seeming to assume that the emergency had come to an end when he crossed the Floor. But surely he forgot that, before my right hon. Friend crossed the Floor, the Coalition Government had unanimously agreed that the emergency had come to an end sufficiently for a Bill to be introduced clarifying the situation. Therefore, his taunt was quite pointless, as indeed were most of the periods of his speech. The position has been made perfectly clear that a Conservative Govern-  ment now impose restraints upon their own actions. They fear, quite properly, that in the next six months there will be pressure brought to bear upon them, if unhappily they are returned to office, to use some of these powers. By leaving the frontiers of the powers in sufficient ambiguity they make it very difficult for Ministers to act, because all their legal advisers will say, "You had better not do this," or "You had better not go so far as that, because if you do you may find yourself in conflict with the courts." The Government are making it as difficult as possible for themselves to take action which is politically distasteful, but which it would be in the public interest to take. Let me ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a question. We have been, in the last few days, in private conversation about facilitating in the House during the next few weeks some of the Bills which were in process of being enacted when the Prime Minister had his storm. Has he asked the House for facilities to pass the Bill which was introduced by my right hon. Friend?

Sir D. Somervell
:I repeat that I do not regard that as an urgent Bill. We have full powers, and it seems quite wrong to give up what ought to be powers for a limited time, and to substitute long-term powers.

Mr. Bevan
We have been asking during the last six months for a whole series of Measures to be put through before the election. What was the answer from the Leader of the House on every occasion? "No Parliamentary time." Yet the Home Secretary suggests that a Bill was introduced which was not an emergency Bill at all, and which would have taken Parliamentary time that was needed for urgent Measures. He proves too much. It was assumed by the Government that the legal position had become sufficiently obscure, sufficiently difficult, for a Bill to be passed arming the Government with the necessary economic controls to carry over the transition to peace. But, frivolously, as far as we are concerned, the Government scrapped the Bill which had been introduced, and brought in the present Measure, without asking whether we were prepared to provide facilities for carrying into law the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend in the last Government. It seems to me that the intention behind the present manoeuvre, which will  be clear to the whole country, is indicative of what we are to have from this Government. Hon. Members opposite, howled at every day by the yellow Press, advised by the owners of the yellow Press who howl at them, are trying as far as they can to remove all those controls upon which the population of this country depend to protect them from the most merciless and rapacious profiteering. They are trying to do it with all the Parliamentary duplicity of a century of unscrupulous government. But each time they try these tricks they are going to be shown up, so that the British people can see what they are. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) took to himself a great deal of credit. That is characteristic of the Tory Reform Committee. It always picks up others people's ideas, bowdlerises them, and then claims to be the father. My hon. Friend must be in course of continual eruption.

Mr. Molson
Did not Bowdler purify the text?

Mr. Bevan
He altered it. I am within the recollection of the House in saying that the first time a suggestion was made that what is now called the Watchdog Committee should be appointed, through which all the suggested Orders and Regulations should pass, it was made from this side of the House. A year later my hon. Friend picked up a suggestion of my own. It is true that we should have had little prospect of carrying it through the House unless it had been taken up by hon. Members opposite, because they had the majority. It took them a considerable time, however; and hon. Members will note that the Tory Reform Committee, and other Members of the party opposite, became interested in the necessity for Parliamentary control over controls only when we were nearing the position of having economic controls in the post-war period. At no time in the early years of the war did any protest come from that side over these unnecessary controls by the Government. As the war was coming to a successful conclusion, they became more and more interested in seeing that the forms of economic organisation and control which had successfuly carried us through the war, should not be used for the purpose of economic reconstruction after the war. Their interest in Parliamentary democracy increased as the possibility of a rich financial harvest drew nearer  and nearer. On the other hand, we on this side of the House were anxious, as my right hon. Friend has said, to preserve full Parliamentary rights over the exercise of these powers. The reason why we are anxious for that is that only by the exercise of full Parliamentary rights can we see that the economic controls are used in the interest of the people as a whole. We should be able easily to afford all the Parliamentary publicity that could be brought to bear, because we know that we can justify the use of those Parliamentary controls in every instance. If the Bill which was introduced were discussed and proceeded with it would give us an opportunity of finding out what is in the mind of the Government. I presume that if they were moving it they would tell us what forms of economic control they were going to use, what plans they had with regard to the various priorities. They have been absolved from making any such explanations. They get these general umbrella powers. They can take them up and put them down. We have no way of determining what plans they have in mind. We had an instance at Question Time to-day. I hope that the country will recognise what is happening in the House at present. The Government are deliberately stripping themselves, under the guise of arming themselves, of all those powers that are necessary to protect ordinary men and women from a scarcity market, to protect the returned soldier from the profiteers, who are looking lustfully at the gratuities in his pockets when he comes back, who realise that there is now assembling in this country a profiteers' paradise, with a vast scarcity of goods of all sorts, which people are hungry for, which the ex-Service man has been dreaming about, and, accompanying that scarcity, for almost the only occasion in my lifetime, money in the pockets of the poor people. With the poor people having spending power and scarcity existing, with spending power unloading itself on the market and prices rocketing up, in a few years that spending power can be transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich. That has been behind all manoeuvres of this sort, because hon. Members opposite dare not stand up to their paymasters.

5.58 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps  (Bristol, East)
This matter has been so thoroughly dealt  with by my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is not necessary for me to add many words, but I would like to point out that what we are dealing with are really two separate things. First, we are dealing with exceptional powers that are required to continue the war against Japan. Nobody questions that these powers have to be continued in the Government, and we have given our pledge that we will do everything we can to give the fullest support for that war against Japan. But there is quite another question. That is, the use of special powers during the transitional period, and perhaps even beyond it, not relating to war matters at all, but relating to matters of civilian requirements and matters of peace. The last Government had to face the question—as the emergency powers were running out in August—of what steps they proposed to take in order to deal with these two problems—firstly, the continuance of the war powers, and, secondly, the gaining of the civil powers. That Government came to the conclusion, which is incorporated in the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) to the House, that it was necessary, indeed, essential, that a proper definition of these civil powers, if I may so call them, should be presented to the House and approved by them. At the same time, of course, it would have been necessary to continue some of the exceptional war powers, but many of them could have been done away with, since the centre of the war had moved to the Far East from Europe. The primary object of that Bill was to enable the Government to get on with certain very urgent and essential matters of post-war planning—and, when I use the term post-war planning, I mean planning post-European war, because everyone admits now that we are, owing to the termination of the war in Europe, turning a certain amount of our energies towards making good the civilian deficits from which we have suffered as a result of the war. It is also realised that it is extremely urgent that this should be done as rapidly as possible, because on it depend, not only the future of our industries and export trade, but the immediate future of our fighting men when they are demobilised. It was for that purpose—in order to provide the Government with that necessary instrument for  the urgent planning for these immediate civilian needs—that it was decided, of course, with the advice of the Law Officers and all the rest of it, that this Bill was necessary. It was not introduced for fun, or because it was a hobby of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney. It was introduced as a decision of the Government, because it was necessary, and it was necessary in order that the country might be able to make proper provision for urgent matters. Apparently, the necessity has disappeared, the urgency has gone, and the question debated was whether an Address to the King would be sufficient. Of course, as anybody can imagine, that matter must have been brought up, and the question must have been asked, "Will it not be enough to continue, as we have done year by year, the emergency powers for another 12 months? Why have a Bill at all? Why not have an Address? "But the conclusion come to was that it was not enough. Why was that conclusion arrived at? The conclusion was arrived at, in my view, because there were doubts whether, by the continuance of the Emergency Powers Act, addressed primarily to war purposes, the Government would be able to do those things urgently required for the civilian needs of the population. Obviously, there must be some limit to the use of the Defence of the Realm Act. Let me take what is, perhaps, an absurd case, in order to illustrate it. Suppose this Government had adopted the idea of Prohibition. I am not going to insult them by suggesting they have done so, but supposing they had, and had come along and said, "We will impose Prohibition on the country; it has nothing to do with the war; it is just because we think it would be a good idea," and it the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) happened to be in it, it would have been her inspiration. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he could have used those powers to impose Prohibition on the country? I suggest that no court could conceivably have upheld such an interpretation. Obviously, there is some limit to the powers, and on the question of where exactly that limit lies, I could engage for many days in a very interesting argument in another place with any right hon. Gentleman. But I do not propose to trouble the House with  any such legal arguments as that. The Home Secretary, indeed, suggested that there was some limit, because he said the time would come when, from the strictly legal point of view, doubt would arise how far these Regulations could continue. There is a limit. The time will come. When will it come? As regards some of the matters, has not the time come now—things which, professedly, are not necessary for war purposes? Of course there must be a doubt, and it was just exactly that sort of doubt that induced the Government, with a very heavy programme, as has been pointed out already, of I know not how many Bills before the House, to add this essential Bill to that list. That being so, we naturally ask ourselves, as I think we are entitled to do—Why the change? Why has it suddenly been discovered that these powers that were required for civil planning, and particularly in connection with housing and so on, are no longer required? The answer, I think, is perfectly clear. It is that this Government do not believe in planning. That is the answer. Controls, so-called, are simply part of planning. They relate to the way in which, when a plan has been worked out of priorities as to what the people need most in urgent circumstances, you allocate civil supplies after the war and determine whether you are going to allow luxury supplies to be made at the expense of utility supplies, and matters of that kind. Controls are the means by which you order such a plan. This has been the whole purpose and object of controls throughout the war. It is clear that this gesture by the Government is to convince their own supporters, inside and outside this House, that they are going to carry out what was included as one of the 12 points of the Conservative Party's programme—to do away with controls as rapidly as possible—and they are not proposing to introduce any element of planning whatsoever into our post-war civil life. They are, in fact, repeating precisely what happened at the end of the last war. Just as in those days, "homes fit for heroes" were promised to all the people and no steps taken to implement the promise, so they will be promised again. Now it is being made perfectly clear by the caretaker Government that they do not propose to implement the promise by action. One other question which one asks is this—Why an extension by Bill for six  months? The usual practice has been an Address and extension for 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman said clearly that you could not get an extension by Address except for 12 months, and that, therefore, we had to have a Bill for six months. Why for six months? Is it be cause the Japanese war is going to be over in six months? No. It is because this Government know that their term will be up in July, and this is a device to embarrass their successors and nothing else. There really is no other possible reason because—

Mr. Colegate  (The Wrekin)
rose—

Sir S. Cripps
I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to what I am going to say. If there is no danger of another Government superseding this Government within the next 12 months, and if this Government, therefore, have complete control whether they operate or not any of the powers under this Act, there is no reason whatever why it should not be continued for 12 months. It is completely in the control of the Government to use the powers or not as they like. The very procedure of an Address to the King can be adopted for their continuance. The procedure first laid down is enough in itself. Why, then, in these circumstances, adopt an exceptional procedure of bringing a Bill before the House to continue the powers only for six months?

Mr. Colegate
:I can think of the answer. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, if the extension of all kinds of control is so popular, he will have the delightful task, at the end of six months, of bringing in these controls.

Sir S. Cripps
I am obliged, because the hon. Member does think that this Government will not last, which is exactly the point that I put.

Mr. Colegate
:The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to listen to him. I ask him to listen to me. I used the word "if" and it is a very big "if."

Sir S. Cripps
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is no good answering an argument with an "if." If not, what happens?

Mr. Colegate
Well, that will be your funeral.

Sir S. Cripps
:The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are only two possibilities—either the present Government  go on, or another Government will take their place. He will surely agree with that?

Mr. Colegate
indicated assent.

Sir S. Cripps
:If the present Government go on, there is no danger at all, because they will control the whole proceedings. The only possible cause for altering the whole method is because they cannot be sure of continuing. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate that argument, I am not going to trouble the House by repeating it. Let me, in conclusion, say this. So far as we are concerned, we want these powers, to plan for civilian production in this very urgent time of shortages and difficulties, because we believe them to be of cardinal importance, and that everything possible should be done to see, particularly, that the fighting men are provided with those goods that they need when they return to this country on demobilisation. This Bill is failing to provide for those steps which it was agreed by all the Members of the National Government were necessary for that very purpose, and it is, therefore, a notice that this Government, at least, are not going to try to provide homes fit for heroes.

6.14 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)
:To all the great figures in my own profession, various stories attach themselves, as time goes on, and one of these, which has hung about the mantle of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, goes somewhat as follows. It is related that he had a very poor case to argue on appeal. Somebody said to him, "But really, how can you deal with that piece of evidence? It is quite fatal to the case which you will have to present." And according to this mythical story, my right hon. and learned Friend said, "There is no difficulty about that. I will read it straight through once; I will repeat it again, with comments on each sentence; I will repeat it again the third time contrasted with the evidence of the other side. And when my learned friend on the other side gets up to reply on it the court will say, 'Really, we have heard enough of that; we cannot go into that point again.' " I really felt, as my right hon. and learned Friend began to labour, for the third  time of asking, the same alleged legal difficulty—which has never existed in the minds of any court of law which has had to deal with this point—that he was getting back into the realms of that story. I do ask both my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who gave us the first reading of this alleged difficulty, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to consider the clear and established position, which the courts have said, again and again, to be the position, in dealing with these Emergency Defence powers. They have said that the question of these prerequisites, of whether the Order in Council is necessary or expedient for public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, the efficient prosecution of the war, and the maintaining of supplies and services, is a matter for the Minister of the Crown to decide, and the courts will not interfere. They have confessed themselves unable to interfere because, as the Master of the Rolls so pertinently said, "We are here to administer justice; we are not here to run the affairs of the country. That is for His Majesty's Ministers." It is for the Minister to decide and, when he has decided, the courts will not interfere with that decision. The only ground on which they will interfere—and this has been declared again and again—is if the Order is used in bad faith, and the example which my right hon. and learned Friend gave is a perfectly good and clear example of bad faith. [Interruption.] I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to develop my case. I noted his words carefully. He said that supposing a Minister desired to introduce Prohibition by Order in Council he might say "I am not doing this for any purpose of the war. I am doing it on the private and individual desires or judgment of my own mind."

Sir S. Cripps
Or the Government.

The Attorney-General
:Or the Government. If you can get a confession made by the person who is making the Order that he is not doing it for one of these purposes, that is a confession that he is using his powers in toad faith, and the courts will interfere.

Sir S. Cripps
I was using the illustration in order to show that certain matters admittedly lie outside the scope of the  Act, and I understand that the learned Attorney-General agrees with me.

The Attorney-General
My right hon. and learned Friend cannot ride off on that. I am putting an argument and putting it quite fairly. It has been argued in every case in the courts that the only ground on which the courts will interfere is that of bad faith. I am using my right hon. and learned Friend's example as an example of bad faith, and one which, therefore, comes under a clear and established legal rule. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot say—and this is the whole pith of this triply-repeated argument—that there is a verge of legal difficulty. I was most interested when my right hon. and learned Friend said that this would be a most interesting point for him and—he was good enough to look towards me—myself to spend some days arguing in another place. I would like to remind him—because he has put a certain amount of legal matter into his argument—that the last person who tried to get this point argued in another place could not get it argued, because the other place thought it was so clear it did not deserve further consideration from them. That is the legal difficulty to which these points have been directed, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to go on to say that when the appropriate Minister came to the Law Officers, so hazy and difficult would be the question, that he would receive the advice that it was dangerous to proceed. I am not going to say anything further about the value of the advice because, of course, it would come from me, but I do say—and I think the House will accept this—that there would be no doubt whatsoever about the clarity of the advice.

Sir S. Cripps
:I do not quite understand of what advice the learned Attorney-General is speaking. Supposing a Minister called on him and said, "I cannot use control for any purpose connected with the war at all but for some other purpose altogether outside," he would, I presume, advise him that he could not do it.

The Attorney-General
I made the point perfectly clear. If you are going to say that it is outside the prerequisites, then it can be interfered with, because that would, in my view, be bad faith. It would be using the Act for a purpose for which it was not designed. There is no doubt between us at all. But that brings me  to the second point, which again, is perfectly clear—that these prerequisites are clearly wide enough to deal with every purpose which has been mentioned in the Debate to-day. My right hon. and learned Friend need not be afraid that I shall not follow his argument. I shall deal with his points and then their value can be assessed. It would be fair to say that the main points which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney developed and which were developed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and by my right hon. and learned Friend were connected with housing, furnishing and essential supplies of that kind. The Act says, and the words which we are considering are, "for maintaining supplies and services essential for the life of the community." There are two points that would have to be considered. First, Was it an esential supply or service? I think there would be little doubt that everyone would agree that it was. I understood that my right hon. and learned Friend was in some difficulty as to how long these powers could be used; how long you could say, viewing it generally that the powers were being used with propriety within the purview of the Act, and whether the point might come when they were not related to the emergency at all. But what is beyond peradventure is that so long as your shortage has been due to war causes, when you are dealing with the unwinding of matters directly occasioned by the war, and when you are, in point of time, within a period of one month to six months—because that is the period with which we are dealing here—after the close of the war, then I suggest to the House that no one could suggest that these powers were, either in the very broad sense apart from any strict legal sense, with the special position that the Minister has, being used ultra vires in law or beyond the purview of the Act in general opinion. I do not want to confine the remarks I have to make to the House to the legal position, but I did think it was right, having been challenged on that matter, and especially by my right hon. and learned Friend, that I should state, with such clarity and emphasis as I can command, the legal position and the way the courts have interpreted it. I want to deal with the wider point which has been developed by all the  speakers this evening. I do not think that any of us would complain of the airing that they have given to speeches of which, if we do not have the pleasure of hearing them, we shall probably see reported pretty constantly during the next five weeks. It is always pleasant to get a private view or a private hearing of such matters, and it is, incidentally, an advantage that the answers become even more clear. But I think it is important that one should deal with the suggestion tha the Government are, for some reason which has been so dubiously explained, not ready to use those powers. I want to repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in commending this Bill to the House. The basis on which the Government desire to work is that the policy of fair shares in goods, services and commodities should be continued during this time. Nobody has said, and nobody can with any reason make the suggestion, that the Orders that have been made and that can be made under this Act do not give ample power to provide for these fair shares. I do not know how often my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol has had to consider Defence Regulation 55. I shudder to think how many times I have had to consider it and its various offshoots during the last three years, but that gives the most complete, wide and overwhelming powers for prolonging the regulation of distribution, prices, marketing and everything that one could possibly imagine in the case of the supply of goods. Therefore, if on that double basis these powers are amply sufficient, and the Government intend to use them on the basis of fair shares, I fail to see where the difficulty arises. I think one must say a word about the-portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. It is that portion the form of which was that of the right hon. Gentleman but the voice was that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). In a tone shaking with horror, the right hon. Gentleman contemplated six months without subsidiary Orders being laid on the Table of the House. For one moment I was really in doubt whether I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else. I will not embarrass him by giving exact quotations from many of his own  speeches but let me put before him the various reasons which he has so often given with such persuasion to this House on that point. After all, we are here dealing with a limited period and I quite agree that during that period two of the six safeguards which he and I have emphasised so often on delegated legislation, are not with us. In other words, we have not got the renewal which we have in the ordinary way after a period of 12 months but, during that period, we still have the Prayer for the first Regulation—and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Prayer on the primary Regulation is often based on the number and variety of subsidiary Orders which could be made under it; we still have the Debate on the Address, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that he and I, on Amendments to the Address, have had to consider these matters; we still have, fortunately, Questions; we still have the Adjournment. In fact, all these matters which the right hon. Gentleman and I have rightly said—because I think we both believe it—have enabled this House to keep control, and enabled Parliament to show that it can control delegated legislation, and have justified to the right hon. Gentleman and to myself the use of delegated legislation under Parliamentary control. These things are still with us, and the only matter with which the right hon. Gentleman is left is the question of the subsidiary Order which, for a period of six months—and as he has pointed out, that period includes two holiday months—cannot be used. I should like to deal with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). He rightly said that he thought there should be a review of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts procedure. Nobody disagrees with that; in fact my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at great pains to point out that he was acting under the policy adumbrated toy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, namely that there ought to be a review of this procedure at an early date after the end of the European war. The only difference was whether that review could more usefully take place at the moment or in the new Parliament, and I gladly accede to my hon. Friend's request to say that, within the limited time, the provision for such a review will be given. However, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw  Vale (Mr. A. Be van) has, apart from dealing with the more general attitude, also raised this point about the question of delay and I think that he supplied the answer to it. He said that if we had had the Bill in the form proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney, the Government would have had to say what were the powers they were going to use, and for what purposes they were going to use the powers. We have had, as far as I am concerned, a most pleasant Debate on the limited subject before us, but who can imagine the variety of subjects, the different points of view, the many reasonable suggestions from all angles and all quarters of the House which we should have felt bound to bring up had we been discussing that much wider subject of the use to which the powers should be put and the purposes most necessary for their use at the time. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale has provided the strongest argument, I suggest, to the House for the course which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken of preserving the status quo, of leaving the Government with these full powers, and postponing the review until the new Parliament is in existence, and can bring to the discussion of this subject the variety of experience and the new strength which the immediate post-election position always gives. Believe me, it is with the greatest good temper that I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. But I urge the House that on the first point—the supposed legal difficulty—the most superficial consideration of the cases decided during the war will show that it does not exist. On the second point, no one has suggested or can suggest, that the powers under this Act are not capable of dealing with all the difficulties which have been raised. On the question of time, surely the proper time to consider the problem of review, to consider what exactly is necessary to amend not only our procedure but to amend the pre-requisites on which the procedure can be put into operation, is when the Election has taken place and we are back here after that time. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Don caster)
I do not apologise to the House for endeavouring to continue the discussion on this footling Measure. I believe it has now been  revealed by the Attorney-General that the Government have no intention of facing up to the arguments on fundamental matters that divide us, as presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I want to ask the Attorney-General why he did not deal with the questions which arise on the arguments used from this side as to why the Government dropped the major Bill upon which the Coalition actually agreed on which there was unanimity, as indicated by the right hon. Member for South Hackney. So far as that argument is concerned, the point which comes out here nakedly is that the Tory Government and the Tory Party have made up their minds that they will not guarantee any economic security for the masses of the people of this country when the men come home. As far as goods and services, furniture and homesteads are concerned, the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) struck a high note a few weeks ago. I would remind him of his speech in which he told us that in the matter of bricks and tiles and building material, cartels and monopolies have pushed up the prices. Cartels and monopolies have at least imposed and fixed costs which bear no real relationship to proper prices, and there is no real reason at all why some of the costs should be there. That was the hon. Member's own argument and there can be no doubt about it that this Measure cannot be separated from that argument which he used weeks ago. I believe the country has something to learn from the reasons given for introducing this footling little Measure as distinct from the original Bill. If the original Bill had been presented to the House, it could have had a Second Reading, it could have reached the Statute Book inside the next two or three days and what would it have done? It would have guaranteed—at least so far as directing materials are concerned—equating and controlling prices, and controlling commodities, so that those who are to return home and cannot help themselves would, at least, have had a square deal such as the Coalition Government were determined to give it a fortnight ago. However the Tory Party now say, "We continue these little emergency powers, believing that we shall have done enough because there is an Election coming in  between." I suggest to the Attorney-General that this Measure does not deal with issues which guarantee some form of control relating to furniture to fit into the homes of the people. It does not guarantee any kind of economic control at all—in fact, the Government can dismiss and forget all about the particular items in the Emergency Powers Act if they do not want to use them.

Mr. Molson
Surely that is covered by the words: "for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community"?

Mr. E. Walkden
Yes, "for maintaining," but, if they care to set them aside, the difference is this. The emergency did exist, but when you are dealing with a longer view, you say you have no intention of putting before the people a policy dealing with economic issues. You say that the emergency continues. But, when we come to fundamental changes like the men coming home, let us see what has been done. We have guaranteed to a soldier that he will have his leave; we have guaranteed to him that he will have roughly £150in his pocket; we have guaranteed to him that he will have a civilian suit—indeed, we have set aside 48,000,000 yards of material to guarantee that. We have guaranteed all that, but the Government have left naked and unashamed all the power for racketeering in all the other things he needs in the hands of big business by determining that the Coalition Bill should be set aside. That is the challenge we make; that is what we believe. I maintain that all the uncertainty of the future is predetermined by the Tory Party, for deliberate reasons. We believe that the Measure agreed to before VE-Day was a good and necessary Measure, and one which should have come before Parliament. We should have planned what the hon. Member for The High Peak was demanding recently, that we would guarantee everything that the men in the Forces needed when they came home, in the same way as we have guaranteed them their leave, clothes and other things. We should tell the country truthfully why this position has arisen. We should say why the Tory Party have withdrawn one Bill and brought in another. It is because they do not want to put before the country, at the Election, their inten-  tions with regard to control, other than to get rid of them as soon as possible. They do no intend to control the goods that are needed for the masses of our people, the furniture, pots and pans and all those things which we had to chase after the last war. They have no intention of controlling bricks and other material with which to make homes because they believe in a "free for all" that free enterprise should have full rein. As soon as they can lay their hands on the money paid out in gratuities it is the intention of the task masters of the Tory Party to see that there is a free for all. Here is a real division between us, and the country must know that this apology which is now being presented is wasting the time of the House. The young lads in the Tory Party have been told to keep quiet, not because there is not something to argue about, but because they have been told that if they do not, we on this side of the House will score off them and the country will thereby find out that this is all a trick.

Mr. Craven-Ellis  (Southampton)
What an imagination.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House [ Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Col. Sir Charles MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very speedy way in which we have been getting through legislation this week. This Bill is one instance; we had also an amazing experience on Tuesday in connection with the Scottish Education Bill, and I hope that when the new Government come into power, if they are to be the same as the old Government, they will deal with the land and coal questions in the same speedy way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Bill Lords

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Military Service (Higher Age Groups)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

6.52 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe  (Brighton)
After the hustings performance from the other side, a few moments ago, I want to raise a matter which is of some importance to people in the Services at the moment, and which relates to a decision of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth(Mr. E. Bevin) who was, at the time the decision was taken, the Minister responsible as Minister of Labour. It relates to a decision which he made not to call into the Forces people now over the age of 30. I raise the question in all friendliness to the present Minister only for the purpose of hoping that he will be able to throw light on this matter, and will, thereby, be able to give some satisfaction to the members of the Forces who are concerned. The Question I put to the then Minister of Labour on this matter was whether he had any information as to the numbers of men who would foe called into the Forces if the age limit were raised to 40 instead of being reduced to 30. The right hon. Gentleman, said he had no in formation at all, and I considered that rather surprising, because it is scarcely credible that a decision of that kind would have been taken by him without his being in the possession of the information—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale)
My right hon. Friend said nothing of the sort. He said that the information was not available, but that the number involved was small.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe
If my hon. Friend will turn to the second Question  I asked on the same day, relating to this matter, he will find that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was that he had no information, and was unable to give any figures. There can be little doubt that this decision, unless adequately explained, will cause dissatisfaction to those who are now serving. They cannot help feeling that if men over 30 are not called into the Forces their service must automatically be prolonged. The only answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth has given about this matter is merely to say that that is not so. Well, that is not good enough for the troops; it is not good enough to say that that is not so, and to state that as a bald fact without some adequate explanation. I would like to know whether this decision was taken in full consultation with each of the Service Departments concerned, because it follows that a number of men will be required to be kept in the Army during the next few years, particularly, for instance, in the Army of Occupation in Germany. Such explanation as the then Minister of Labour attempted to give was that there was not time to train men over 30 for them to be used in the Army. I suppose it would be right to admit that probably battle training would take some time, but battle-trained soldiers are not the ones we want for occupation in Europe. There are clerical and technical appointments which could be well filled after a very short period of training. There are men who could be brought home from Germany if their places were taken by men who have not been in the Army at any stage of the war. There are men who were 24 or 25 when the war started who are now in their thirties and who have been in reserved occupations. That reservation has now come to an end, with the result that they have not been in the Forces at all while other men who have been serving for a long period are retained because these men are not called up to take their places. If there is an adequate explanation I shall be only too glad to hear it. There can be only two possibilities with regard to the position of the present Minister in relation to this question. Either he agrees with the decision which was taken before, in which case I have no doubt that he will welcome an opportunity of explaining to the troops why the decision was taken, or, if he disagrees with it, I have equally  no doubt that he will not hesitate to reverse it. I do not think this matter ought to be complicated by the question of training. It seems to be a simple mathematical fact that if you fix the size of your Army of Occupation and you can bring in, say, 20,000 at one end you can let 20,000 out at the other. That is the simple way in which the soldier looks at it. He is unable to understand why men of 30 to 40 who might provide the 20,000 cannot be compelled to do so. Incidentally, I met a sailor the other day who had some strong language to use about the late Minister of Labour. He said that the question of training was rubbish or, rather, he did not use the word "rubbish," but I gathered he considered that it was not a sound argument. He told me that his training as a naval rating took precisely 10 weeks, after which he was at sea on convoy duty. This is perhaps not unimportant, because though no figures are yet available there is a strong rumour in the Navy that only the low age groups are to be released this year. There is a suggestion that men in the early twenties groups might be released from the Army whereas only about one to seven groups of those in the Navy have any prospect of being released this year. Serving men cannot help feeling that if men between 30 and 40 were brought in and had 10 weeks' training there would be a prospect of more age groups being released this year. It seems a simple question of the more you get in the more you can let out. There are also certain specialist aspects of this question with which I would like my hon. Friend to deal. For instance, in the case of the medical profession, there appears to be some dissatisfaction among those doctors who are serving in the Army and whose practices have virtually disappeared.

Mr. Speaker
:The hon. and gallant Member is turning his back on me. I would remind him that he is supposed to address me.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe
:I beg your pardon, Sir. I apologise humbly for having made that mistake. A number of doctors are feeling a little dissatisfied with their present situation. Many of them have lost their practices, and they have been serving perhaps five or six years in  the Royal Army Medical Corps. It is true that those doctors who have been in civilian practices have been mainly very much overworked and they have rendered invaluable services, but there are different conditions for the men who have to serve perhaps in the Middle East and those who are living at home. Many of the doctors in the Services feel that the time has come when there should be a substitution and that doctors between the ages of 30 and 40 should be called into the Services so that those who have been in the Medical Corps for the last five years could be allowed to come out and resume private practice. There is very much the same problem in the legal world. I suppose that at no time during the war have legally qualified people been more required in the Army than they will be in the immediate post-war period, and yet a decision has been taken which prevents those who have not been serving from being called up now to take the places of those who have been serving. The problem is much the same from whatever point of view one looks at it. It comes down to the simple question whether or not it is right that men who are comparatively young, in the early 30's, should be protected from serving while others of the same age are required to continue serving. I do not put this matter to my hon. Friend in any sense of hostility. If he can give a satisfactory explanation, nobody will be more pleased than I shall be. I hope also that my hon. Friend will be able to give an explanation which will satisfy those who are affected.

7.3 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke  (Dorset, Southern)
I support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe). There must be very few hon Members who have not received numerous letters from men serving overseas complaining of the fact that the call-up to the Services has now been limited to those under30 years of age. I rise only to ask why it is that we have not been given the information before. Can my hon. Friend now tell us what numbers are involved? Now that the war with Germany is over, security considerations obviously are not of such great importance as they were before. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to-day gave  very detailed figures about men in different categories. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell us not only what is the over-all figure for those between 30 and 40 who might have been called up but for the new regulations, in order that we may satisfy our constituents that the number is very small, but also what those men are in broad categories. My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned doctors. Can we now be told, roughly, how many doctors and others are in that class, so that we can satisfy our constituents when they put individual complaints to us?

7.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale)
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) for raising this matter, because I know there has been a certain misunderstanding in the minds of a great number of men in the Forces, especially those serving overseas. My late chief, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. Bevin), endeavoured, in answers to a series of Questions put by my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members, to deal with the points that have been raised, but, of course, these matters are not always easy to handle by the simple method of question and answer. My hon. and gallant Friend made great play with the point that this surely must be a question of simple mathematics. It is nothing of the sort. Many other considerations arise. I want to assure him at once that no step of this description would be taken by the Ministry of Labour without the fullest consultation with and approval of the three Services. The considerations that arise may be divided into two classes. In the first place, there is in the minds of the troops the question, Does the decision not to call up men over 30 militate against the possibility of an early release under the demobilisation scheme? In a recent Debate my right hon. Friend and I gave the most categoric assurances that the fact that men over 30 are not now being called up has no effect whatever upon the pace of the release scheme. The pace of release does not depend upon the numbers of entrants, but upon mechanics. The Government are releasing men from the Forces as speedily as the mechanics of the situation and the demands of the war in the Far East make possible. The over-  riding consideration is transport. There are other considerations, such as the number of men who can be handled at the demobilisation centres, fitting them out with suits, the issue of forms, and the proper coaching of the men and women going through the demobilisation centres in what they have to do. These are real considerations when men and women are going through the centres by the thousand. The pace of release depends not upon the calling up of men over 30, but upon how fast we can bring men home, with the transport available, and how fast we can handle them when they do come home. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will take it from me that, as the late Minister categorically stated, this decision will have no effect whatever on the pace of release in Class A under the release scheme. Class B does not arise in this connection, because it depends upon certain vital needs here. The second point that should be considered is this: Are we entitled to call up for the Forces men whom the Forces do not need, simply for the sake of calling them up? I do not believe we are. I do not believe Parliament entrusted the operation of the National Service Act to the Government for frivolous reasons; it entrusted it to the Government for the purpose of calling up for the Armed Forces men whom the Armed Forces need for the prosecution of the war and the proper use of military force. The position depends upon the allocations of manpower made to the Forces. The present situation is that there are more than enough men under 30 to meet the allocations which are laid down for entry into the Armed Forces. Therefore, if we were to continue to call up men over 30, it would only mean that young men under 30 would be left in civilian occupations. I do not believe that would be right. If there is a choice between men over 30 and men under 30, I believe it is the men under 30 who should go. My hon. and gallant Friend asked why we would not give the figures of those over 30 who might be available. The answer is clear. Until we come to consider the individuals, we cannot tell whether they are available or not, because: they have rights of postponement on hardship grounds and of deferment on grounds of occupation. Therefore, it is quite impossible at any one moment to state cate-  gorically how many men in an age group are available for call-up, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the best guesses we can make in the Department are that the numbers of men over 30 available for call-up are very small indeed. Who are the men, apart from those in the low medical category? In the main they are men who have had postponement on grounds of personal hardship; it may be they are the owners, occupiers or managers of small businesses or shops which would otherwise be closed down. No one in the House at the present time would wish those men to be called up while younger men are available. Others have been deferred, many against their own wishes, by the Ministry of Labour, because of the vital importance of the work which they have been doing during the war, and probably many of them are still doing jobs of the highest importance. Therefore, I suggest that the decision which my right hon. Friend came to as long ago as. last Autumn, when he reduced the age of call-up from 40 to 35, and again this Spring when he reduced it further to 30, was a right decision in the circumstances. We still propose to go on calling up young men under 30 as they reach the call-up age, or as they become redundant, or lose their reservation, if they are in reserved occupations, to meet fully the proper allocations to the Armed Forces. I know there has been doubt in the minds of men in the Services, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that if one talks about the matter from the point of view of simple mathematics, it does sound normal to say that the more men you put in at one end the more you will get out at the other; but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that is not so. As I have said, the pace of release from the Armed Forces depends upon the mechanical possibilities of transport and handling. The allocation of men to the Forces in the future can be met by men under 30, and it would not be right to call up men over 30 while there are young men under 30 available. My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the point that the late Minister, in answering Questions, brought in the matter of training The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) also referred to that matter. The point at issue really is this. These young men are being called up  primarily for the war in the Far East, and if there is only a certain number of men allocated, it is better to call up the young ones who will be available either for the war in the Far East, if they are needed when trained, or for the occupation in Germany, whichever is more desirable in the military situation then prevailing, rather than to call up men who, because of their age, would be available only for the occupation in Germany. With those assurances, that it does not mate the slightest difference to the time the men will be released from the Forces and that we have plenty of young men under 30 whom we intend to go on calling up to meet the proper allocation to the Armed Forces, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)
I find a certain amount of anxiety among people in the Air Force and the Army on the question of release from the Forces. Is there any truth in the belief that medical orderlies and staffs attached to doctors in the two Services are likely to be deferred beyond their age group?

Mr. McCorquodale
:That is a detailed point about which I could not give any categorical assurance now. I must have the fullest consultation with the authorities in the Services about it, but from my information at present, as far as is physically possible having regard to the paramount needs of the Forces, release under age and length of service will apply to all in the Forces, and doctors and lawyers and medical orderlies and others, will all have their opportunities of release when the turn of their age and length of service group comes. In the Navy and Air Force certain trades are released at a different time. Certain trades in the Air Force groups will be passed through quicker than others, and to that extent it is not possible to meet the Air Force point of view.

Mr. Bowles
Is there any likelihood that doctors and their staffs will be retained to examine men medically on their way out of the Service?

Mr. McCorquodale
:Doctors will certainly have to examine these men carefully on their way out of the Services. I hope the military will find enough doctors in their ranks to do that without calling on additional doctors or holding up the release of doctors. But it would not be right for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's answer on Wednesday.

Discharged Soldiers (Hospital Treatment)

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Stokes  (Ipswich)
Unexpectedly I find myself in the fortunate position of gaining possession of the House. I apologise to the Secretary of State for War for having been forced into the position of giving him such little notice, and I wish to exonerate him entirely from not being present, at least at the opening of the Debate, but the matter is of such great importance, and in my view involves such a principle, and is so devoid of party politics, that any Member of the Government could answer and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be here docs not seem to me to be as important as it might have been on other occasions. The question to which I wish to draw attention relates to some matters that I raised on 8th May with regard to young soldiers, wounded, and whilst in hospital contributing to the upkeep of their mothers, being discharged before they had even left hospital for the first time, because it had been decided that they were no longer of any use for the Armed Forces. That is treatment which should not be meted out to any man or woman who has engaged in the dangers of war in the defence of the country. It is a meanness which ought to be shown up and put right at the earliest possible moment. I perfectly understand that you cannot go on keeping people in the Army when they arc quite incapable of serving, but these are cases where the men have not been in hospital for long. They have been discharged and put on less attractive terms while in hospital for the first time. I have cases where men in one Service, with similar wounds, are kept on, although it is known that they will no longer be of any use, whereas men m the Army are discharged. If a man goes to the front and risks life and limb and is fortunate enough to get out alive, though with something very much more severe than what we used to call a "blighty wound," surely it is our responsibility to see that he is maintained in hospital free of all charge until such time as he can be put on his feet and enabled to return home, though even then he may not be of much use as a contributor to the family budget. In the Debate on the Army Estimates I listened to a very eloquent speech by one  of my hon. Friends appealing for fair treatment for wounded ex-soldiers and pleading that never again should we be allowed to see them trailing themselves along the gutters and appealing for money. I am sure the House intended that that should never be allowed to happen again. I am equally sure that that was the intention at the end of the last war. But unless we are constantly on the watch and paying attention to the matter, when the war has passed and people forget about it, unfortunately the men get forgotten too. I had arranged to raise the matter two nights ago but it was late and, by arrangement of the Secretary of State, it was put off until next week. But it happens that the day next week that I landed on is even worse than the night before last.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke
:The hon. Member will get publicity for his side of the case without my right hon. Friend having an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Stokes
I am hoping that I shall be able to talk long enough to enable the Secretary of State to toe here. It is not my intention to shut him out. My hope is that Members will shortly arrive from the smoking room to support me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I understand that the Secretary of State cannot be here.

Mr. Stokes
:He has his case prepared and any of his Under-Secretaries can make it for him. There is no difficulty on that score. At any rate, I will undertake to speak until 8 o'clock.

Mr. McCorquodale
In case there is any misunderstanding, my present advice is that the Secretary of State cannot be here to-night. He has an engagement which he cannot get out of, and the Government cannot promise that any representative of the War Office will be available. But I will certainly stay.

Mr. Stokes
:I am sure the hon. Gentleman will do most noble work, but it seems to me very strange that the Government should have such little control over its Ministers as not to be able to get a representative of the Department to reply to a Debate. I do not take the view of some Ministers about the unimportance of Parliament. Presence in Parliament is more important than anything else, and comes first.

Mr. McCorquodale
I agree with the hon. Member, but it seems a little hard. A firm appointment was made for next week, and I do not think any condemnation can be placed on my right hon. Friend or on the Parliamentary Secretary because he is not here.

Mr. Stokes
It is the Noble Lord who is in trouble about this. I am not. I was assured at a quarter past seven that the Secretary of State would come but might not be here for an hour; I said I would go on and speak for quite a long time. I have done it before and shall probably do it again. My fear was that we should be left with no time in which to ventilate the matter, because of the Dissolution, and thus a very grave issue would never be dealt with at all. The only thing for a back bencher to do is to seize opportunities as they come and, if he does not do that, he is neglecting his job. The matter concerns a young man, Private Connor, 10th Battalion Royal Berkshire. Regiment. He was in the Army for two years, spent 10 months in Italy, was wounded in the left leg near Cassino on 24th January, 1944. The wound is still open. He has been eight months in hospital. He was discharged on 21st September, 1944, with a 100 per cent, disability pension of £2 a week. Except for two months he has been in hospital ever since. He had to pay 19s. a week to the hospital and, on top of that, he was making an allowance of 14s. to his mother, so that he was left with 7s. That does not seem to me to be good enough. The second case is that of Private Fuller, 2nd Battalion West Sussex Regiment. He has been in hospital since October 12th, 1943, paralysed in both legs. He was discharged on 12th May, 1944, with a pension of £2. He is still in hospital, paying a contribution of 19s., reducing him to 21s. He, again, is making a contribution of 14s. a week to his mother, leaving him with 7s. That does not seem to be the way in which we should treat these men. Another case is that of Sergeant R. Headington, of the King's Royal Regiment, with 2½ years' service. He was wounded 14th September, 1944, and is suffering from a compound fracture, resulting in the left leg being two inches shorter than the other. He has been in hospital since 1944 and is told that he will be discharged at any moment. As a sergeant he gets £3 3s. a week, out of  which he keeps his widowed mother. If he is discharged he gets £2, and if he is still in hospital he will be required to pay 195. a week. Now that the Financial Secretary has arrived, may I say with all friendliness that I am glad to find myself in opposition to him on the first occasion on which he appears at the Treasury Box? I have examples, with which I shall be glad to furnish him, of people with similar wounds lying in beds alongside one another, the one belonging to the Navy and the other to the Army, the Navy man being kept on and not discharged, but the Army man being discharged and made to contribute to his upkeep while in hospital. It is particularly hard for men suffering from face wounds, which the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) describes as plastic cases. Anybody who knows about the healing of wounds knows that plastic treatment takes a very long time. The mere fact that a man is to have a false nose or cheek has an appalling nervous reaction on him, and if, on top of that, it is decided that he is no more use to the Service and he is cleared out before he is properly fitted up and able to go home it must have a deplorable reaction on his feelings. I do not believe it is a state of things this House would tolerate if it realised what was happening. Not only is there this loss of pay, which in a way is the least important aspect of the matter, although very fundamental, but the fact that the man loses his uniform is important, and he loses all the amenities that go with it. I know that there are all sorts of organisations to come in and help him, but that means charity, which the man does not like. He ought to be kept, on full pay until he is in a position to be returned home and discharged from the Army. We ought not to be mean to these men who have suffered in the war, as so many hundreds of thousands of young men have. I suspect that there is a miserable Treasury minute and that the old dead hand of finance is trying to enforce economy, thus creating bitterness and unhappiness among a minority of people who have done so much for us. In view of the fearful odds which these fellows have had to meet on so many occasions, it ought to be the expressed view of this House that they should be kept in hospital on full pay without any  charge until such time as they are fit enough to be released. Our sentiment should be that for any contribution which can be made to them individually, the sky is the limit, and that even that is not high enough.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown  (Ince)
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is doing a great public service in having this matter ventilated. The War Office do some things very slowly, and my experience in dealing with them indicates that, although they are slow in doing some things, when it comes to meting out unfair treatment and injustice to the soldier who has had the misfortune to receive wounds on the battlefield, they are in a tremendous hurry. I come into contact with men who have suffered from the attitude of the War Office, and I can only sum it up by saying that they are very parsimonious in their treatment of the unfortunate wounded soldier. I ask the Financial Secretary why there should be this differentiation between members of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I get many letters on this question from serving soldiers, but I have never yet had one from an airman or a member of the Navy; all my letters complain of the treatment meted out to soldiers. The War Office get the men on the cheap in the first instance, and they try to cheapen the process further as the men emerge again into civil life. When men have had the misfortune to sustain wounds on the battlefield, some of them so serious that they will never fully recover from them, it is essential that the War Office should be more humane in their treatment. The men remain in hospital for 56 days, and then they are discharged. Their pay is reduced and they are denied the ordinary amenities which go to other people. I ask again why this treatment is meted out. Everybody in these days wants to be fair and square with people who have served in the Forces, and everybody I meet has a keen desire to see that fair play and justice are meted out to these men. We fail to find that attitude manifested by the War Office, however. I could quote case after case showing the heartbreaking circumstances of these unfortunate men, and I beg the Financial Secretary to have this matter re-examined in view of the different treatment which  is meted out to the men in the Air Force and the Navy, so that the treatment in all three Services is brought into line.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has raised this important matter. I gather that he had to do so at rather short notice, but, even so, it seems rather regrettable that only one back-bench Member of the Conservative Party could bother to be present to listen to the discussion of this serious human problem, which affects so many thousands of our wounded men. I want to make two points, both of which are, I think, relevant and have not been mentioned before. Incidentally, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who will reply for the War Office on his elevation, although I doubt whether he feels very comfortable at having to answer at such short notice on this rather tricky matter. I should like to invite his attention to Hansard of 29th May, where, in a written answer in Cols. 64–66, the Undersecretary for Dominion Affairs was good enough to summarise for me, at some length, the treatment that is given by the various Dominions to wounded and sick Service-men. I think he will agree that broadly speaking, it shows that the practice of the Dominions is considerably more generous than our own. For instance, in Australia naval personnel suffering from disabilities which necessitate hospital treatment may, if not previously invalided from the Service, be borne on full pay for a period up to 18 months. That is rather more than we rise to. It is, of course, a naval matter, but I quote it by way of illustration. In New Zealand, which perhaps provides a clearer case, "where a medical board decides that a Service man requires further treatment at a public hospital or convalescent hospital or home, he is not finally disposed of but remains on full pay and allowances so long as he is under treatment." That is in New Zealand, where there happens to be a Labour Government, but that is by the way.

Mr. Silverman  (Nelson and Colne)
It is the core of the whole problem.

Mr. Driberg
:Yes, but I do not see why even this predominantly Conservative caretaker Government, since it includes a few "men of good will," cannot show its  good will, in its dying days, by a gesture of generosity in this matter. It is added in respect of New Zealand that "a Service man undergoing treatment may elect to be discharged and take the war pension granted to him before the completion of treatment." I mention that, as one of my two points, in the hope that the Government will consider the practice of the Dominions and see if they cannot raise our practice at least to the same level of generosity. The other point I want to mention is with regard to men suffering from tuberculosis, because they also find themselves discharged from the Service while they are in the early stages of their treatment. I can see that this is a purely administrative matter, about which a purely administrative point of view has been taken, but I wonder if I can persuade the War Office to consider also the psychological aspect of it. Men suffering from tuberculosis get very depressed during the long stages of their disease; it is terribly lowering and depressing. It comes as a real shock and blow to them—I know because I have been to the tuberculosis sanatoria in my own county and I have talked to these men—suddenly to receive notice that, because they have been in sanatoria for a few months and may not recover their full health, the Army no longer want them and they are, so to speak, almost thrown on the scrap-heap. It has a bad psychological effect which may well contribute to the retarding of their recovery—because, I believe, tuberculosis is one of the diseases in which the mental state of the patient is of considerable importance. Those are the only points I wish to make. I would suggest that to the slogan, "Fit for service, fit for pension," which I believe was originally used in this House by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), we should add the slogan, "Unfit for service, fit for full pay and allowances until fit to go home."

7.47 p.m.

Major F. W. Cundiff  (Manchester, Rusholme)
It is not often that I find myself fn agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but on this occasion I would like to support his plea specially with regard to the question of plastic cases, and I speak with some little knowledge of this  subject. It is a fact that during this war plastic surgery has come very much more into its own, probably because of the amount of tank warfare which has resulted in a much higher percentage of wounds caused by burning. It is a fact that bad plastic cases may involve from six to 12 separate, perhaps major, operations lasting over a. period of three years. I think it is wrong that somebody suffering from very severe burns, and having to put up with these multiple plastic operations, should be discharged from the Army. I therefore plead with the Financial Secretary to see whether these men cannot be retained in the Service; and if it is possible to send them home for periods of two or three months before they return to hospital for a further operation, they should be granted their full pay and allowances and the retention of their uniform.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
I join with my colleagues and with the hon. Member opposite in making a plea to the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give full consideration to this question. I know it has been before the House before by way of Question and answer, but hon. Members have never obtained satisfaction, and this is one occasion on which we can say that we are not satisfied with the answer and when we can give the subject more advertisement. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has done a great service in watching for an opportunity to bring the matter up. As I understand it, the plea is this. First of all the Army do not treat their patients in the same way as patients in the Air Force and the Navy are treated. Ordinary treatment is given to the men in those two Services, but the men in the Army do not get the same kind of treatment. In the Army, a severely wounded man is sent to hospital, and before he has fully recovered or sent from hospital he is put on a pension and his Army pay ceases. There may be a reply to that charge, but for the life of me I cannot understand why a man, no matter to which Service he belongs, if he is severely wounded in carrying out his duties and has to be taken to hospital, should undergo that change of status. To all intents and purposes that man is doing a greater service to the country in hospital because it is due to what he has done that he is in hospital. Surely a  grateful country, which at all times is praising our men, as on V-Day and on other occasions, lauding them and saying what gallant men they are—and they certainly deserve it—should do everything possible to remedy this injustice. This is one of the occasions on which we feel that a grave injustice is being done to the serving men. Any man suffering from wounds, no matter on what part of his body, should be on full pay until such time as he is sent from hospital and they can do no more for him. Then comes the question of the rate of pension which should be given to him. There can be nothing more disagreeable for the man than to think that while he is being treated for his wounds in hospital he is to lose his uniform and is to become an ordinary civilian. While he is in receipt of treatment in hospital and until such time as he is allowed to leave hospital he should be kept on full rate of pay all the time. Is that too much to ask? If this went to the country on the plain issue I do not think the Government dare stand up to it. There may be a reply. We want to know what it is, but if it is on the same lines as previous replies the country will not be satisfied. I have heard the Financial Secretary to the War Office 'before, and I believe that if he had not been in his present job to-night he would have been here ready to help us in our attack on the Government. Of coarse, it is a difficult position, and I cannot blame him to-night, but I hope that when he gets into conclave with the Secretary of State for War, and he is asked for his opinion, he will tell the Secretary of State for War that this is the kind of thing which must be altered. After all, when you take up a Government post you have to consider the feelings of the House. If I may say so, the Financial Secretary's chief is rather a hard man. He may be an efficient man—I am not saying one word against his efficiency—but he is rather hard on the men who are under him. That is the case, at any rate, so far as financial benefits are concerned. Unfortunately, he cannot be here to-night. I wish he could be, because it is easier to talk to the head man than to the Financial Secretary, and I am sure that if he had been here, the hon. Member for Ipswich would not have pulled any of his punches. However, he is not here,  and the Financial Secretary is in hi place. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give us the answer that we want I hope he will tell his chief what we think about the position. An Election is impending, and if unfair treatment is to be meted out to tin Servicemen they will have something to say about it. Let us not forget that these men have given their all for the State, and should be treated fairly and justly.

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan  (Glasgow, Gorbals)
I do not quite agree with the last speaker about the absence of the chief. I was thinking that it might be a good opportunity for the new Financial Secretary to the War Office. Having won his spun on the back benches and been promoted to the Front Bench, he might wish to win his spurs in his new office, and I do not know of a more favourable opportunity for him to do so than this particular occasion. I only hope that he will prove to be capable of converting his chief to our point of view. I think we have an overwhelming case. I had a personal contact with this question the other day, lending it some human interest. I live in a Glasgow tenement, and next door to me is a boy of 19 or 20 years of age. While serving in France he lost a limb. He has been discharged from hospital. It is a mistake, however, to think that because the War Office have discharged him from hospital, he is finished with hospital treatment. What has happened is this. The lad is now discharged, and at the end of a period of eight weeks he comes on to the allocated pension. The Minister of Pensions may hold that the loss of a leg is equal to a 60 per cent., 70 per cent, or 80 per cent. allocated pension. It means that this lad is to be maintained on that sum, although he has not reached anything like the condition when he can, even partly, enter into a competitive industry, not even in the lightest of light work. Pending his discharge he is handed over to the Minister of Pensions with one leg. He goes about until that leg hardens. It is like having false teeth. You have your teeth drawn but you do not go the following week to have the false set fitted. You have to wait. After a period of weeks or months the man goes back into another hospital, this time controlled by the Minister of Pensions, and there a leg is fitted on to him.  While he is there he is given training in the use of the leg, and then when he comes out of that hospital he has to accustom himself to the leg and to train himself for future industry. With the best will in the world he cannot be ready to enter into training for a future job until months have elapsed after his discharge from the second hospital. I can understand the War Office saying, "After all, when we have discharged the man that is as far as we can go, and if you have a quarrel it must be with somebody else." I do not think the Government can ride off with that. The fact is that the man has been injured in their service, and if the War Office are not going to accept the responsibility of making a full maintenance grant they should see that another Department takes over that duty. It is pathetic to see these cases of young men; in fact it is pathetic in the case of anybody. As one hon. Member said, you can go over the whole gamut of cases which are in a shocking state. No one can say that eight weeks is anything like a normal period for a serious case. One hon. Member referred to the cases requiring plastic treatment. Then there are cases of tuberculosis, of wounds to the legs and often of wounds to the sight which possibly cry for more human sympathy than any other case. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again. It might be unfair in the circumstances to expect him to give us a Government decision on the matter now, but he is a comparatively young man and no one can say how long he may be in his present position. If he is defeated, or if he leaves that office, he will no doubt want to do what any other Member of Parliament likes to do, which is to say, when he looks back at his period of office, that he was able to do some good. I know of nothing more noble or better than that he should do what he can for the people who are serving in His Majesty's Army, and see that the limit of 56 days is cancelled and that no limit is placed upon the time required to make men fit to re-enter industry and earn their livelihood in ordinary competitive business.

8.2 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Petherick)
:I feel sure that the House will sympathies with me in my task  to-night. I do not in any way take exception to the fact that this very important matter has been raised. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said in his opening remarks that he approached the matter, so far as I was concerned, in all friendliness; I reply in nearly all friendliness, for a reason that I will mention. The hon. Member for Ipswich gave notice of his intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment a week from to-day, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had prepared himself to answer on that day, on behalf of the Government. I was sent for actually at 7·15 this evening and told that it was to be raised to-day, and that I was to make my maiden speech from the Government Front Bench in exposing the point of view of the War Office on this matter, as I will now try to do. There is nothing I dislike more than a speech which is read, but I hope the House will forgive me if in this instance I stick rather closely to what is admittedly a brief which has been given to me.

Mr. Stokes
:I should not like it to be thought that I had done anything unfair. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that I would not have had the Adjournment to-day but for the fact that the Business for next week will not give the Secretary of State time to deal with the matter.

Mr. Petherick
I hope that there will be no misunderstanding on the matter. As I say, it was not till 7·15 that I knew the date had been changed and that I had to come to the House. I arrived here at 7·30, and my hon. and gallant Friend who sits beside me was good enough to take a few notes. First, I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he could not be here to take the Adjournment as he had intended. He had to go off almost at a moment's notice to a meeting and he deputed this rather difficult task to me. It has been said during the course of this short Debate that the War Office is unfeeling and hard, and that it sometimes treats wounded soldiers unfairly when they are in hospital and discharges them too soon. I hope to be able to show within a very few minutes that that is not the case. I wonder whether, to start with, I might say something personal on the subject of the War Office. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said that he wished I had been on a back bench to-night, so that I  might have joined in an attack on the War Office. I do not remember in the course of my career as a back bencher ever having had to make any sort of attack on the War Office. Obviously, in the early stages of the war, they had, as we all know, an immensely difficult task. If I did join in any attack, I hope I should be very careful in ascertaining the facts. Honestly, I think the hon. Member for Ipswich has indulged in a little exaggeration, a fault which I have observed in him from time to time. I have only been in the War Office since Tuesday, but in the course of my duties there I have had to deal with and answer many hundreds of letters from hon. Members of this House. Far from all the replies being hard and negative, as some of the speeches to-night would lead one to expect, the situation was quite to the contrary. I was not only pleased but even a trifle surprised by the very great trouble which always appeared to be taken in difficult cases presented by hon. Members. Among the letters which I have read in these last three days the number in which satisfaction has been given has been really astounding. First, I would like to deal with one or two of the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich and of which my hon. and gallant Friend beside me took notes. He spoke of young soldiers in hospital, wounded, being discharged prematurely before their wounds were fully healed. It is very difficult to give a positive answer to a general allegation of that kind. I would suggest to the hon. Member that when cases are put to him he should first write to the War Office about them and give a full statement of each case when very careful consideration would 'be given to the matter.

Mr. Stokes
I did not say that they were prematurely discharged from hospital, but from the Army.

Mr. Petherick
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I understood that they were discharged prematurely, and I took it to mean discharged from hospital. He mentioned the case of a young man who was discharged when suffering from a suppurating wound and had £2 a week disability pension. I cannot give an answer to-night on that specific case, but if he would send me the particulars I will do my best to look into them. I must say that be did cause a certain amount of confusion in our minds, because he raised  a number of questions to my right hon. Friend which appeared to be matters for the Minister of Pensions and on which my right hon. Friend could not really be expected to reply. He confused us still more by putting a lot of supplementaries, from which it appeared that the hon. Member was directing his mind to something rather different.

Mr. Stokes
:That really is not a fair representation of what happened. I put my Question to the Secretary of State on the principle. Despite my protest, he insisted on transferring the matter to the Ministry of Pensions, but I was not prepared to let him get out of it.

Mr. Petherick
:I do not think that the Secretary of State would wish to evade his responsibilities. After all, there are two Departments of State responsible for different branches of this administration and it is a little difficult to deal with what should be a War Office matter if it is confused with Ministry of Pensions matters.

Mr. Silverman
I think, with great respect to the hon. Member, that he does not quite understand the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). It is true that no one can reasonably ask the War Office to deal with grievances if they arise in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. What is being said is that when the War Office makes up its mind that a man will not be fit for service again, instead of waiting until his treatment is complete, and maintaining him on Army pay and allowances until that date, and then transferring him to the Ministry of Pensions, it transfers him to the Ministry of Pensions too early. On that point it is surely perfectly relevant to say to the War Office: "Look at the result of what you do if you take that course. You take the man from a position in which he has his pay and dependants' allowances, and put him in a position in which at a stroke his emoluments are reduced, and he has to make a large contribution to his treatment." I do not think the hon. Gentleman can complain of that. It is a relevant part of the whole grievance.

Mr. Petherick
I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point. I am hoping to reassure him and other hon. Members who are somewhat disturbed about this matter that the position is not as they fear. We  are not, in general, discussing the medical treatment of Services personnel, but the question of whether, during that treatment, they should remain on Services rate of pay. I should explain that the position, as I understand it, is that while in receipt of Service pay a member of the Services would ordinarily receive hospital treatment in a Service hospital or else in a hospital which has made particular arrangements for the treatment of such cases under the Emergency Medical Scheme. Some Ministry of Pensions hospitals—to which I refer in passing—also provide for the treatment of Service patients under the E.M.S. scheme, and also make special provision for particular disabilities. If, after invaliding, a Service man still requires treatment, the Ministry of Pensions is notified under the continuity of treatment scheme. As a result of that, arrangements are made for the man's further treatment elsewhere. When the treatment has been given in a Service hospital, the member of the Services, provided he is fit enough to be removed, is transferred either to a Ministry of Pensions hospital or to a Emergency Medical Scheme hospital. If the treatment has been given in an E.M.S. hospital, he can still be retained there if it is in his medical interest that he should be retained, while he may be transferred to a Ministry of Pensions hospital or an E.M.S. hospital nearer to his home. That is very important. The nearer a man gets to his own home, the more happy he is likely to be, the more cheerful and the more inclined to recover quickly. When treatment has been given in a Ministry of Pensions hospital, he is retained in that hospital. I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). He mentioned the question of the tuberculosis patients. The arrangements I have mentioned do not apply to cases of tuberculosis, nor do they apply to certifiable mental cases who, when they are invalided, are transferred to the care of the responsible local authority. I have had one or two cases of that kind as a Private Member, and I think the hon. Member should, on the whole, be satisfied that that is probably the best method of treating these extremely sad cases, to which he pointed in the course of his speech.

Mr. Driberg
I said that I realised the administrative point of view, but asked if it would not be possible for the psychological effect on the men concerned to be taken more into account—whether some means could not be devised by which they could receive this good sanatorium treatment while still remaining on full Army pay.

Mr. Petherick
Being only a new-comer to the War Office, I am afraid I cannot give a positive reply on that point. Anything raised on the course of this Debate will be carefully considered. I am not saying that in the ordinary official sense. I mean that it will be carefully considered. In the course of my short experience, when things have been put up, they have been carefully considered, very often with extremely satisfactory results to the man in question. In the light of what I have now stated about the treatment of tuberculosis and these other complaints, could I state again, rather more fully, the question which all three Service Departments—not only the War Office—have to consider? They have to make up their mind on a very difficult matter. Very often the question is whether Service personnel who are so severely wounded or incapacitated by illness that they cannot recover and be fit for active service for a period of some months, should nevertheless continue to receive full Service pay and allowances for periods longer than at present provided by the Regulations, so long as they remain in the Service hospital or Ministry of Pensions hospital. That is the main point we are discussing to-night. In the great majority of cases, I am informed that finality is reached in the matter of a comparatively few weeks or months, that is, they know whether the man is going to be fit enough to go back to active service or not. He then has a medical board. If he is found to be no longer fit to return to the Service he is discharged after a period of 56 days, and in place of his Service emoluments he passes to the appropriate rate of disablement pension, that is to say, he is handed over to the Ministry of Pensions. As hon. Members are aware pensions are laid down in the Royal Warrant and are administered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. T. Brown
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain what takes place when the man has not fully recovered.  Is he not aware that the man suffers a loss in economic status by that process? Will he answer that?

Mr. Petherick
:I think that is an extremely difficult point. I am hoping to come to it a little later, though I am afraid the hon. Member cannot expect a really authoritative reply to-night. I am doing my best in this rather difficult position.

Mr. Buchanan
We shall be quite sympathetic.

Mr. Petherick
I am aware of that. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is invariably sympathetic to anyone who is in my unfortunate position. After all, he fears he might be in the same position himself some day. I think it is not any part of the case which hon. Members have made to-night, that men in this category should continue to receive 'Service emoluments for a very-long period if they obviously cannot be sent back to active service. To argue that case would be to argue that the rates of pension laid down in the Royal Warrant are inadequate, and that obviously is not a matter for the War Office but for the Minister of Pensions, and it can obviously be discussed on the Pensions Vote. The case with which I am now dealing is a much more difficult one, in which finality is not reached for a considerable period, and in which it cannot be established whether the man ought, in fact, to go back to active service or not. During that time the man would be undergoing treatment in an Army or Ministry of Pensions hospital. It is in respect of those difficult cases that the complaint lies. The Regulations provide that, generally speaking, a man should continue on Service rates of pay for eight months, which, I understand, may be extended under different conditions to nine months in the case of psychotic illness, where further detention in a Government hospital may avoid the necessity of certification. I had to ask what "psychotic" meant. I understand that it covers a general group of mental cases. The period may also extend, in cases where artificial limbs have to be fitted, until they are fitted. It has been decided, after full consideration, that tuberculosis cases may also continue on Service emoluments for eight months, where men are receiving treatment in civilian or military hospitals. I hope that that may be some reassurance to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). The period of eight months, during which Service personnel may in these circumstances be kept on full pay, represents a considerable advance on the previous practice. I am informed that until October of last year a soldier undergoing treatment in a Government hospital could be discharged from the Army 28 days after he was found to be permanently unfit. That was found to be much too short a period. The period was extended to 56 days, and on 1st March, 1945, to eight calendar months after his first absence from duty. I think hon. Members will realise that this matter has been very carefully examined, and these concessions have been made as a result of that examination. In all these cases, there is a dilemma, to which I have already referred. It may become clear at a very early stage that a man may never be fit for active service again. But to revert him over-hastily to pension rates would be to treat rather shabbily those who have sacrificed their health to their country. That is very well understood in the War Office, and it is a consideration which is always borne in mind. It seemed, therefore, that the only thing to do in these cases is to fix a period, more or less arbitrary, after which the Service pay gives way to pension rates. The War Office has drawn the line at eight months, with a possible extension in the case of the psychotic patients, or in cases where artificial limbs have to be fitted, which was referred to by one hon. Member in the Debate. I think hon. Members will understand that the whole matter has been very carefuly reviewed, and that these further concessions are realty substantial concessions, which the House should welcome.

Mr. Tinker
:Does that apply to all the Services, because the charge has been made that the other two Services are treated differently?

Mr. Petherick
I am coming to that point in a moment.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
Will this new Regulation apply to men now in E.M.S. hospitals who have been discharged? Will they be taken back?

Mr. Petherick
I shall have to look into that matter. I am glad the hon. Member raised it, and I will write and let him  know the answer. I come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme (Major Cundiff). That is the case of those men who have been disfigured facially. I suppose everybody is aware that they represent some of the difficult cases. Some treat their facial disfigurement as a "rub of the green," and do not mind, others are affected in their nerves. That can be well understood. All those cases have to be dealt with sympathetically, and it is the intention of the War Department to do so. With regard to these cases, the Government are considering whether they can make any special arrangement. I cannot make any promise nor can I give specific details, because the matter has not yet been fully considered; nor has any final conclusion been come to. But the matter is being examined, and if a fair, and, I hope, generous, solution can be arrived at, the House will be informed. I now come to another point, raised by the hon. Member for Ince, about the different practices in the three Service Departments. Obviously I do not answer for any other Service Department, but I am informed that the general practice of the Service Departments is approximately the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what I am informed. Obviously, there must be minor differences of detail, but I know that an attempt is made to treat soldiers, sailors, and airmen, as far as possible, on approximately equal terms. I think I have dealt in general with the matter of the stage at which the change from Service rates of pay and allowances to pension rates should take place. I have not dealt with, and it is certainly not my business to-night to deal with, the question of the general adequacy or not of the pension rate. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.: But he has informed us that he is making an improvement in the financial provision for the men who, after discharge, continue treatment in hospital for a disability due to service. The position of these men has been under consideration for a very considerable time, and it has been decided that, during the remainder of the course of treatment which they are receiving at the time of discharge, they will be paid full treatment allowances by the Ministry of Pensions, without the deduction in respect of home savings which has hitherto been  made. This change will operate from the first pay day in June. If I have not convinced the House that the War Office is doing its best to mete out substantial justice to all these men it will be my fault, not the fault of the Department which for the moment I have the honour to serve. I hope that hon. Members will consider these matters carefully, and see if they do not think that the concessions show an earnestness of endeavour to do the very best possible for those soldiers who, unfortunately, have to be invalided or to go to hospital, through no fault of their own, for service given to their country.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Silverman  (Nelson and Colne)
I am sure that the House will agree that if we remain not altogether satisfied it is not the hon. Member's fault. We would all like to congratulate him on the way he has dealt, at very short notice, so fully and so carefully, with a difficult question, which he knew aroused a good deal of feeling in all quarters of the House. I think I would like to add, not only congratulations on that, but on the general sympathetic attitude that he himself has shown in the way of dealing with the difficulties which we all recognise. If we are not satisfied altogether, it is because we are not altogether satisfied with the decision that has been taken, and I think the principal point is the one that he himself dealt with at some length. There are two kinds of finality. Obviously, there is the stage at which the doctors can reach a final prognosis in the case—the stage at which they can say that, some day or other, the man will be fit again for active service or that he will never again be fit. That is finality of prognosis, and it is one kind of finality. Then, there is the finality of treatment. The claim that is being made on behalf of the men is surely a reasonable one. It is that, so long as the treatment is not completed, so long as active treatment is still necessary and may well improve the man's condition, so long as that stage continues, he should be treated exactly as he would have been treated if the prognosis were more favourable. In other words, if the doctors say "This man, with careful treatment, will go back to the Army," then the Army pays him his full pay and full allowances, and full dependency treatment. What we say is  that, when doctors have come to the conclusion that he will never be fit again for Army service, but may, with treatment, be a good deal better or a little better, then, they should treat him in exactly the same way and not hand him over to the Ministry of Pensions or to industry or civil life, until he is as fit to make a good job of it as he ever will be. There is no reason why any arbitrary period should be fixed or why the arbitrary period should be eight months, 56 days or any other period. The period during which most of us feel he is entitled to get his pay and allowances, is the period that elapses between the date of his wound and the date on which it can be said "We can do no more for him; we have done our best, and there is nothing more we can do for him." As he is no longer fit for Army service, we say he should now be the responsibility of the Ministry of Pensions—out of hospital and until treatment finishes. That is a reasonable claim to make, and some of us find it difficult to understand why anybody wants to resist it. I know it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. I think that most people who have considered this, have found it a little difficult to understand why the War Office makes any difficulty about this at all. Supposing they conceded this claim, who in the world would object? Who would feel aggrieved by it? The Treasury? Surely not. The taxpayer? Would he grudge the extra few thousands or tens of thousands of pounds that would 'be involved? I find it very difficult to believe. I cannot see what harm could be done by doing it, and I cannot see why anyone thinks that it is not just in itself. I cannot see who would be offended or aggrieved by it, and I hope that the War Office may, with all respect to the concessions made already, think about this matter again and see if they cannot make a clean sweep of the thing, so that, while a man is still under treatment for wounds, injuries or illness contracted in the service of the country, he should be paid his pay and allowances and should not be handed over to the Ministry of Pensions until you have done all that you can for him and not before.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson  (Mossley)
If it is in Order, I should like to congratulate the Financial Secretary to the War Office  on his very good temper and his very able reply. Hon. Members have spoken about finality, and I should like to point out, from experience, that there is no finality in this. May I take an actual case? In 1900, an officer was discharged from the Army as permanently disabled. In 1914, he rejoined and passed a medical examination. In 1915, he was again discharged from the Army as disabled, but, at the beginning of 1918, he passed a medical examination and finished the war in France. A case of that sort shows that it is no good to talk glibly about finality. Here is a case in which the Army Medical Corps decided that a serving officer was permanently disabled in 1900, and was discharged from the Army, but he was back again in France in 1914, was again discharged as permanently disabled in 1915, and was back again in France with the Army in 1918. I give that example to show how impossible it is to make hard and fast rules. The Financial Secretary did indicate, undoubtedly, that although he could not commit the War Office, a certain degree of flexibility is allowed in these cases. I think that, if some hon. Members were able to look at the correspondence of the War Office—and the other Departments of State are not far behind—they must agree that this Department takes an immense amount of trouble in order to avoid hurting certain people's feelings. Before I came into the House I read through the whole correspondence with the parents of a soldier who had been killed and who thought that an injustice had been done. It was, obviously, a prejudiced view, and the letters I saw from the War Office were a perfect eye-opener to me, as compared to what I knew of the War Office in the reign of Queen Victoria. The Department clearly made every effort to meet every point put forward by this man's parents, although it was obvious that there were no grounds for their suggestion, and, to me, it is clear that the allegation that the War Office is unsympathetic is quite untrue. It is becoming a habit, because we have a Secretary of State who has the full confidence of the Army, to make attacks upon him in this House as an unsympathetic person. I know, from actual contact, that his devotion to the cause of the soldier has not been exceeded by any Secretary of State for War this country has ever had.

8.39 p.m.

Dr. Morģan (Rochdale)
This is a difficult subject, I know, and I intervene only because it has a medical aspect. Certain hon. Members have talked about finality and prognosis. The whole issue is one of procedure, and on what basis the decision is to be made with regard to the Serviceman in hospital—whether, it is on his fitness to return to service, or whether his treatment is reaching a terminal stage. The whole machinery is wrong. It should not be a question at all while he is under treatment of whether he is finally fit for service in the Army or whether his treatment should be continued. When a man is undergoing treatment a mistake may easily be made in declaring him fit for rehabilitation. It is the rehabilitation point I want to impress upon the hon. Member. Then and only then should a medical man come to a decision whether the Service grants should cease, or whether a man should be passed from the Service Department to the Pensions Department. To adopt any other procedure or line of demarcation would be unfair and wrong to the patient. You cannot do it, for example, in cases of skin disease. You have cases of tuberculosis. Medical boards should only come to a definite decision when a man has reached the stage when it is no longer a question of actual treatment, but of whether he is fit for rehabilitation or to be sent to some other place for retraining in order to follow his ordinary occupation. The point I want to make specially is that the whole procedure is wrong. These men should not be "boarded" by men employed by a Service Department or even by any Government Department, The whole medical arrangement with regard to Government Departments is entirely wrong. The moment it has to be decided whether a wounded soldier, or a soldier who is ill, is to remain in the Service or should be passed on to the Ministry of Pensions, the whole arrangement should be taken outside Government Departments and put under independent medical boards. He should be examined by men entirely independent of Service remuneration and promotion and away from Government Departments altogether.

Mr. A. Hopkinson
Are we to understand that in the hon. Gentleman's profession a certified medical man will give a wrong decision because he thinks it is  going to be to his advantage in that Government Department? I have never come across anything like that myself.

Dr. Morģan
I think the hon. Gentleman is so affected by psychosis because of his peculiar attitude to things in general, and that question makes it more obvious to me, as a medical man, that he really ought to study the subject more carefully. Medical men are human and sometimes make mistakes. It is the most difficult thing in the world, sometimes, to make a proper diagnosis, and even more difficult to make a proper prognosis.

Mr. A. Hopkinson
:That is not my point. My point is that the hon. Member made a very grave accusation against the medical profession, and having benefited so much at their hands, after numerous wounds in various wars, I resent it, and would ask him to withdraw the aspersion.

Dr. Morģan
:I am not going to withdraw any imaginary aspersion which the hon. Member says I made against the profession. I make no charges against the profession. I have been in the profession for 35 years and I do not make charges, but I accuse you of having a biased view.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)
Really, the hon. Member must not accuse me of bias.

Dr. Morģan
No, Sir; but you allowed the hon. Gentleman to make an accusation against me of having made a grave allegation against the medical profession. He is constantly doing that sort of thing. I resented the implication. When he says that I am making charges against the medical profession he does not know what he is talking about. The Financial Secretary to the War Office was very considerate in his reply, and made a welcome concession, and he ought to be congratulated upon it. I would ask him to see whether medical boards dealing with all classes of cases could not be taken out of the purview of the Departments, and made independent bodies. It is not that men do not want to come to a correct decision. They do, but a stage is reached when the patient wants to know exactly where he is and some decision of some kind should be made. When discharged from hospital a man will want to know how he is to manage in civil life.  The whole question, from the point of view of the medical profession, should be reviewed. These boards should not be composed of men employed by the Department, but of men who are absolutely apart from it. I have followed this subject for a long time, and I have seen pathetic cases. The decisions have been quite legitimately wrong, due perhaps to the difficulties of the case, the recurrence of symptoms, and the difficulty of knowing whether the disease is really constitutional or not. It is because of the extreme difficulties in these cases, on which the future of the men so much depends, that I hope that the War Office, having made a concession to-day, will go a little further and deal with the question of rehabilitation. I  wish the War Office would give some consideration to the way in which such cases are handled by the Air Ministry. However, I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the very fine concession he has made, and hope that it will be a stepping stone to something better later on.

Major Cundiff
:Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him whether his suggestion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already spoken, I think.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Nine o'Clock