asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the Government's intentions with regard to the revision of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Bill, as introduced.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning and I met hon. Members of the House yesterday, and discussed with them the general lines on which the Government thought that the compensation Clauses of the Town and Country Planning Bill should be framed. We had a very useful and helpful discussion, and I think it right that other hon. Members of the House should be given information as to those general lines, in advance of the laying of the Amendments, because the drafting of the Amendments is naturally a difficult business and they are in very technical language. I am, therefore, proposing to make a statement of those lines, which, so far as can be, is in non-technical language and for the layman. The House will realise that it will not be possible for me to embroider on this statement, which has been rather carefully prepared, because it is a rather unusual course to give the general lines of a Clause when we have not got the actual draft before us. This is the statement:

The Government intend to maintain the general principle that compensation in respect of land and buildings, shall be assessed by reference to prices current at the 31st March, 1939, and they are not prepared to allow any general increase to be added automatically to the compensation so assessed. They propose, however, that, in certain types of case, an addition should be made on the following lines: An owner-occupier of buildings, or of agricultural property, will be entitled to claim from the purchasing authority such an addition to the compensation as may be reasonable, having regard to all relevant circumstances, whether favourable or unfavourable. This addition will not, in any case, exceed a sum representing a 30 per cent. proportion of value at 1939 prices, and will not include anything referable to site value, in the case of buildings, or to development rights, in the case of agricultural properties. A claimant will be treated as an owner-occupier on the ground, either of actual occupation at the time of notice to treat, or of a proved right and intention to occupy within a limited future period. The provision will be framed so as to give equivalent treatment in the case of property which, owing to war damage, is incapable, for the time being, of occupation. Provision will be made for varying the 30 per cent. maximum upwards or downwards, by means of Orders made with Parliamentary approval.

A right of appeal to a suitable tribunal will be given to any claimant in the event of his being dissatisfied with the offer made to him. There is one further type of case in which the Government propose an addition. Suitable provision will be made for an addition, within the foregoing general conception, where expenditure has been incurred by the claimant at enhanced prices on improvements to the property concerned, during the period between 31st March, 1939, and the date of the notice to treat, so far as these improvements are not paid for, or provided for in other ways. This addition will not be restricted, as will the other, to owner-occupiers.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for acceding to my request for an early statement? I quite understand that he would not wish to be pressed on the substance of the statement, and the subject is one the details of which it will be very difficult for the House to grasp. Should the discussions next week arising out of the new Amendments necessitate a change in the programme of Business, would my right hon. Friend inform the House at the èarliest opportunity? It is most inconvenient for hon. Members to find themselves plunged into discussions on Amendments without proper notice.

We will take the earliest opportunity to acquaint the House, should any change of Business be necessitated, and we will also take great care that the House has proper time to consider the actual Amendments before they are taken.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said, may I ask him if it is the Government's intention to bring the conditions of war damage compensation into line with the announcement which he has just made?

I think that is really another question, and I ought to have it on the Paper. It does not relate to this matter. War damage is on a different basis altogether, owing to the fact that it is based on contributions.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that somewhat similar questions will arise in connection with the War Damage Act, and the Landlord and Tenant Act, both of which have a bearing on war-damaged properties? If, therefore, enhanced compensation is to be paid under the Town and Country Planning Measures for the acquisition of areas that have been blitzed, then, obviously, it will follow that war damage compensation should, at any rate, be on not less satisfactory terms. Will the Government bear that in mind and bring forward proposals?

That is, obviously, a matter for debate on another occasion. I am dealing only with limited points.

Can my right hon. Friend say at what stage it is proposed to recommit the Bill for the purpose of adding the new Clauses? Will it be at the end of the Report stage, so as to give the maximum time for hon. Members to consider the Amendments; after they have been placed on the Order Paper?

Yes, that is quite right. We shall take the Report stage and then recommit.

May I ask what guided the Government in determining the hon. Members with whom they had those consultations? Many hon. Members who are interested in the Bill, never heard of this meeting at all.

These consultations took place through the usual channels, and perhaps my hon. Friend will consult the usual channels.

When the Second Reading of this Bill was moved two or three weeks ago, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I was unable to hear the Debate because I was not in the country at the time. I fear that the loss was mine, because the Debate, quite clearly, was both interesting and stimulating. I have, however, read the Debate since my return, and I have reflected upon what I have read, and I would like to offer the House to-day the benefit, if it be a benefit, of those reflections. My first reflection is that, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, as he did, that the Bill did not meet with universal acclaim, he showed himself to be a positive master of under-statement. I do not think I have ever read a Debate in this House in which the weight of opinion was so massively one way, and that way against the Government. I have been asking myself what the explanation was.

There are two explanations that I reject out of hand. It may be possible to argue that the criticism of the House was frivolous in intent, or malicious and mischievous. I reject that argument at once. On the contrary, it is quite clear, from the nature of the Debate, that there was a great deal of sound sense in the criticisms which hon. Members made of the Bill, and that their criticisms, generally, were inspired only with a vigilance to protect the liberties of British subjects, and that, I think, we must all commend. Equally, I reject the explanation that the Government are frivolous in introducing a Bill of this kind, because I hope to be able to convince the House before I sit down, that this Bill is necessary, and that, without this Bill, these international organisations which are now in operation, and others which may come into being, will be at a great disadvantage.

I think that the real difficulty that was in the minds of hon. Members when they discussed the Bill the other day rests on three separate considerations. In the first place, the powers which the Bill gives to the Foreign Secretary were absolutely undefined, and are therefore capable, at any rate, of serious abuse. In the second place, there was no time limit on the operation of the Bill and, accordingly, what the Foreign Secretary did under it passed to a very great extent out of the control of Parliament; and thirdly, I do not think the House was satisfied that there was any real reason for introducing the Bill at all. I hope this morning—perhaps I am optimistic—to be able to re-assure the House on all those three points. There are, I know, other points of criticism which were raised and I think I shall be able to deal with most of these in the course of what I have to say.

I would like to take, first of all, the question of the powers which are to be given to the Foreign Secretary under the Bill. I have to admit to the House that the Bill as it was introduced, is imperfect. It is imperfect because it gives to the Foreign Secretary very wide powers—very wide powers indeed—and there is no indication on the face of the Bill as to the use to which he is going to put these powers. I do not suppose that any hon. Member seriously believes that the Foreign Secretary would, in practice, do all the things which, under the Bill, he has the theoretical power to do; nor do I suppose that any hon. Member has so little confidence in our Parliamentary institutions and our Parliamentary system of Government as to believe that there could ever be a Foreign Secretary who would create a vast class of privileged persons, who would devote their leisure, and probably their working hours as well, to careering incontinently about the King's highway massacring the King's lieges with absolute impunity, having first fortified themselves with unlimited quantities of duty-free wine and spirits, purchased out of tax-free incomes. Such, in fact, was the interpretation which was put upon the Bill by many of my hon. Friends, and I must say that, having looked at the Bill again in the light of that criticism, I can see that it is open to that interpretation. Clearly, it was never the intention of the Government to give the Foreign Secretary powers of that kind, still less was it our intention that he should ever use them in that way. Accordingly, if we are fortunate enough to get a Second Reading of this Bill now, the Government will propose to introduce on Committee stage Amendments which will clarify, define and limit the powers of the Foreign Secretary.

I imagine that it would be out of Order for me now to develop the arguments which I might deploy in favour of the Amendments which are on the Paper. At the same time, it would obviously be for the convenience of the House if I gave some general indication of the modifications which we propose to make in the Bill to meet the criticism of the House of Commons. We propose to add to the Bill a Schedule, and that Schedule will define the maximum immunities which will be granted under this Bill. The Schedule will be divided into three parts. It will deal, first, with the immunities of the organisation as a corporate body; secondly with the immunities of the high officers of the organisation and the representatives of Governments on the governing body of the organisation; and thirdly, with the immunities of the subordinate officers.

First, let me say a word about the organisation as a corporate body. The Secretary of State has been able to give immunities but these are the maximum immunities he can give. It is proposed that the organisation should have four immunities—immunity from legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, immunity from rates and taxes, and immunity from import duties upon goods which are directly imported by the organisation for the purposes of the organisation. I think that what troubled the House most, as far as the organisation was concerned, was immunity from legal process, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I say a few words about that particular aspect of diplomatic immunity. I would ask the House to consider why it is that Governments—not international organisations—give each other immunity from legal process. On the face of it, it looks as though it is just an act of politeness, a little courtesy, something you can do to help the wheels of international intercourse. But, in fact, there is much more to it than that, and there is a severely practical reason why Governments give each other immunity from legal process, and I will try to explain to the House what that reason is.

If there were no immunity from legal process, it would be open to anybody in this country to bring an action in the court against a foreign Government. That might be a perfectly bona fide action and the complainant might have a genuine case against that Government, but even on that basis it would be impossible to keep out of the discussion of the case issues which were not judicial at all, but were matters of politics, and probably matters of high politics. I cannot think of any case which could be brought in which there could not be some introduction of political considerations in the legal argument. But there is another possibility, and that is, that some malicious person might bring an action against a foreign Government not in order to win the action, not in order to get damages, but simply in order to raise some highly contentious political issue, which would be fully ventilated and exposed not only in the courts, but in the Press as well. I think that hon. Members will agree that that is undesirable, and certainly I think that they will agree that, if His Majesty's Government had to appear in a foreign court and had their whole policy publicly arraigned by a foreign court, in a foreign country, it would be extremely undesirable.

Let us carry that argument a step further. More than one hon. Member in the Debate the other day referred to U.N.R.R.A. as a trading organisation. I suppose that one can call it that, though it is a good deal more than that. However, I would like to assure the House—and I have had some experience of this matter in the past two or three years—that when two or three Governments are gathered together in one place for whatever purpose, whether it is for trading, for relief, or for agriculture, whatever purpose it may be, those Governments become a political association; they are not a trading association, and the matters that they are dealing with are matters not of technicalities, but matters of high politics and, very often, extremely complicated and delicatematters. Therefore I would argue that if there is an argument for giving this immunity to Governments, there is an equally strong argument—I believe it to be irrefutable—for giving it to associations of Governments acting together. I hope the House will agree with me on that, but that still leaves unresolved one further point. Hon. Members were very fearful less an organisation such as U.N.R.R.A., or any international organisation, would enter into a contract and repudiate that contract and then the contractor, who in this case would be a British subject, would have no redress in the courts, and therefore no redress at all. I would like to assure the House that that is simply not the case, and that it is inconceivable that things should work out in that way.

I have tried to explain that immunity from legal process is essential to organisations of this kind but I would like to add that the Government fully recognise that there are classes of cases where it is necessary to provide for the settlement of legal disputes between private citizens in this country and organisations which are operating here, and that an organisation obviously must have the power to conclude contracts. The Attorney-General told the House on Second Reading that he had satisfactory assurances from U.N.R.R.A. as regards cases of this kind. U.N.R.R.A. will insert in all its contracts—we have that promise—arbitration clauses which have been approved by the Law Officers of the Crown. If a dispute arises out of one of these contracts, U.N.R.R.A. will arbitrate in accordance with those clauses, and if, as sometimes happens, it is desired to have recourse to the Courts for the determination of points of law, or other similar matters, U.N.R.R.A. will not prevent such recourse to the courts by relying on its general immunity from suit. If, at the end of the legal process or arbitration, if there is one, U.N.R.R.A. is found liable to pay, U.N.R.R.A. will comply with the award: It is our intention, if we make an Order in Council to cover any other international organisation that may be set up, to obtain from it exactly those assurances, and I have not the faintest doubt that those assurances will be given purely as a matter of course. Of course, it is possible to argue that even with those assurances an organisation might break its word, but in that case I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government would not be without resources to deal with the situation which would arise, and the House really need have no qualms at all on that point.

I would like to turn to the second part of the proposed Schedule, which deals with high officers. I think that the House must have been impressed by the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend that it was unreasonable to withhold from associations of Governments privileges and immunities which we are prepared to give to the Governments as representing sovereign national States. I think most of the uneasiness in the minds of hon. Members was due, not to the principle of giving these immunities, but to the fear lest the number of cases of high officers in which they would be given would be infinitely multiplied. Let me explain to the House how it should work out in the case of the example we have been talking about—U.N.R.R.A. There would be at most, I think, seven or eight high officers of U.N.R.R.A.—which is a fairly big organisation—who would qualify under Part II of the Schedule for the personal immunities which are described there. Of those seven or eight, there would hardly ever be in this country at the same time more than three or four, and none of the seven or eight under Part II would be a British subject, because British subjects are excluded from these immunities under Part II. We thought of specifying in the Bill the maximum figure of seven or eight to give some reassurance to hon. Members, but the obvious difficulty about that is that there is an inevitable tendency when you put down a figure in a statute, for the maximum to become the minimum, and if there were a smaller organisation than U.N.R.R.A. it would be very much more difficult to resist giving a fairly widespread immunity if we had put down a definite figure in the Bill. For that reason we thought it better to leave out any figure, and we hope, perhaps not too optimistically, that in this matter the House will be prepared to trust the good sense of the Foreign Secretary of the day.

I think that what caused the House most trouble of all, was the position of subordinate officials in international organisations. Under the Bill we proposed that they should have two forms of legal immunity; the first, immunity from legal process, covering acts performed in the course of their official duties; the second, immunity from Income Tax in the case of everybody except British subjects normally resident in this country. I would like to say a word first about the Income Tax position. It may be argued that it is unreasonable to give anybody living in this country immunity from income tax, but in cases of this kind there is a very strong practical argument for giving it, and that argument is this: His Majesty's Government only becomes a partner in an international organisation if it is in accordance with the policy of the Government and in accordance with the policy of Parliament.

His Majesty's Government are contributors to these organisations; they contribute very considerable sums of money to the purposes of the organisation. Now if the money available for the organisation is diminished by taxation, it means that the purpose which Parliament had in mind in voting the money is pro tanto not fulfilled, and it is not really possible to argue that that does not matter because the Treasury gets it back anyway, because while it is true that the Treasury gets it back in London, it does not get it back in Washington, in Paris, in Belgrade, in Prague, and anywhere else in which the organisation may have offices and representatives. The net result of a bargain of that kind would be that the British taxpayer would lose far more than he would gain, and, as I have said, the purpose which Parliament had in voting the money would not be completely fulfilled.

Let me come now to immunity from legal process as applied to the subordinate officers, who, as hon. Members have pointed out, may be numerous. I would like the House to consider just what is involved in this form of immunity from a practical point of view. I think there is some confusion in the minds of hon. Members between immunity from legal process and immunity from the operation of the common law. It is not the case that people in this country who have diplomatic immunity stand outside the common law. They do not; they are, in fact, just as much subject to the law as any hon. Member of this House, or any British subject outside this House. Immunity from suit does not imply licence to break the law at will. If it had been so, it is quite clear that diplomatic privilege would have disappeared centuries ago. Neither we nor any other country would have tolerated it.

If hon. Members will look into the past, and, indeed, into the present, they will remember the case of a man, a national of a friendly nation, who was in London under diplomatic immunity, and who is now serving a sentence in gaol. I do not want to specify the case but I am sure hon. Members will remember it. We have to remember that these organisations will value their diplomatic immunity, and will not wish to do anything themselves that will injure it, or allow any of their officers or employees to do anything that will injure it. There is an interesting case in point. The I.L.O., which was raised in the Debate, has diplomatic immunity very much as we are proposing in this Bill, which is guaranteed to it by the peace treaties and by the Covenant of the League. Wherever the I.L.O. is represented they have diplomatic immunities which are largely the same as we have put in this Bill. I have been looking at instructions given to the staff of the I.L.O. by the Director of that organisation, and I would like to read the House a sentence from them because they have a bearing on this point:

"The Director can in no circumstances permit the use of these immunities for other than their legitimate purposes, and will have no hesitation in waiving them in every case where they constitute an obstacle to justified demands that do not affect the interests of the I.L.O."

I am sure that any collection of Governments, working together, would be bound to act in that way and would be bound, in their own interests, to see that diplomatic privilege was not abused. In the case of subordinate officials the only immunity from legal process which they possess is in regard to the acts which they perform in the course of their official duties. Clearly, therefore, there can be no possibility of subordinate members of the organisations going to shops, running up terrific bills and not paying them, because it could not conceivably be argued that they were running up those bills in the course of their official duties.

But there is one type of case in which that could be argued, a case which was stressed repeatedly in the Debate recently, namely, that in conection with road traffic accidents. It was assumed that anyone with this privilege of immunity from suit in respect of official actions, who was driving on his official business or to keep an official appointment, and who knocked a person down, would he absolutely inviolate from the ordinary operation of our traffic laws, so that the unfortunate victim would have no redress. That is not the case. The facts are that we have an arrangement with the Diplomatic Corps in which the members of that Corps, or their chauffeurs driving them, are insured with an insurance company under the Road Traffic Acts, in the same way as any other persons. Liability to pay damages, if they fall due; thereby falls on the insurance company, and it is part of the arrangement made with the Diplomatic Corps and the insurance company that if it is necessary to have recourse to the courts in order to determine the question of liability, or the amount of damages, no diplomatic immunity shall be raised by the insured person or the insurance company to prevent the matter being decided. I, therefore, suggest that the misgivings expressed on this point will prove, in practice, to be without foundation, and that Members can rest assured that no injustice will be done to any British subject on this account.

Does this apply to the higher and lower officials?

Yes, Sir, to everybody.

With regard to immunity from taxation, would individuals who benefit from this Bill be exempt from Purchase Tax on the purchases they might make?

No, Sir. My hon. Friend has reminded me of something else which has a bearing on immunity from taxation. The House will observe that under Part II of the proposed Schedule to the Bill there is no immunity in regard to import duties on goods imported for the personal consumption of the high officer concerned. I do not want the House to be under any misunderstanding on this point, and I think I ought to explain the position: Generally speaking, we give to Diplomatic Representatives in this country permission to import, for their personal consumption, goods which have not paid duty. That is not a statutory right to those individuals; it is a courtesy which we extend to them and which, of course, we could withdraw if we thought fit to do so. Because no mention is made of that in this Bill, I would not like the House to think that we do not propose to go on with the existing practice, so far as the Diplomatic Corps is concerned, or that we do not intend, in the case of these few high officers, to give them the same privileges, provided that they were reasonably used and, of course, we would have ways and means of telling whether they were reasonably used or not. I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend for his interjection, which reminded me of that point.

Would Purchase Tax have to be paid by Mr. Stalin, if he gave a present of cigars to the Prime Minister?

I cannot answer that. Let me now turn to the last main point raised in the Debate, the question of the time limit. In the Bill as it is drafted now, there is no time limit. It operates in perpetuity and we propose, if we get the Second Reading, to introduce on the Committee stage, Amendments which will ensure that Clause 1 of the Bill will last for five years and can be reviewed by Parliament at the end of that time. I know that some hon. Members would have liked to limit the operation of the Bill to the period of the emergency, but I think that would not have been a very good suggestion to accept. Most of these organisations will in fact only get into active operation when the emergency is passed.

I think I have given the House some solid argument proving the necessity of the Bill. I think we really ought to have it. It will greatly improve the efficiency of these organisations and greatly advance the object that we want them to achieve. The Government has not in any way resented the criticism that has been offered. That criticism has been searching, but I should like to make an appeal to the House. If they think they can let the Bill go through, without prejudicing the liberties of any British subject, I hope they will give us the Second Reading and give it as quickly as may be. I ask that not only because there is other business that the House wants to get on to, but because I do not think it would be a good thing that it should go out to the world that the British House of Commons is more grudging in its attitude towards international organisations than other countries are. It is common form to give these immunities to international organisations, and if the House is satisfied that the liberties of the subject are protected, I hope very much that they will give the Bill a Second Reading ungrudgingly and pass it as smoothly and rapidly as possible.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the approximate number of international organisations likely to be covered by this Bill? Of course, the number would not be final because it could be added to later.

That is an almost impossible question to answer because no one can say what the result of the Bretton Woods Conference is going to be. We do not yet know if the International Monetary Fund will come into existence or the Investment Bank. We have had a Conference at Hot Springs relating to an Organisation for Food and Agriculture and since then, there has been gestation and that organisation will almost certainly come into being and will certainly be included under the Bill.

They are mostly future rather than present organisations?

Mostly future, but I suppose the I. L. O. would come under it, and the Governmental Committee on Refugees. The number at the moment would be very small.

I am sure the House is very much indebted to my right hon. Friend for the statement he has made. He will probably find that the reception of the Bill will be a good deal less hostile than that which it met with when it first came before the House. But there are still one or two points that I should like to put to him for elucidation. He said the total number of high officers would not exceed seven or eight. Does he mean seven or eight heads of departments, or seven or eight high officers of all the departments? Because there might be a head of a department, holding a high office in addition. Furthermore, he has given us no indication of the number of people who are likely to acquire immunity under Part III of the Schedule which he proposes to introduce. Can he give a rough estimate of the total number of people likely to come under the Measure? Of course the grant of diplomatic privileges is of very long standing, but circumstances are somewhat different to-day from what they were 40 or 50 years ago. In those days there was very little chance of an Ambassador, or a representative of a foreign country, doing injury to His Majesty's lieges here. My right hon. Friend spoke very scoffingly of foreign citizens driving recklessly about the King's highway murdering His Majesty's lieges. He also referred to a system of insurance which is in fact in operation to cover injuries of that kind. But may I remind him of a famous—perhaps I should say an infamous—case shortly before the war when the Secretary to the German Legation severely injured a British citizen on the road, and refused to pay any compensation whatever? There were other instances before the war of members of foreign Legations injuring citizens, who were advised by their solicitors to accept ludicrously inadequate compensation, because they were informed that cases could not be taken into court. If an insurance system is now in force, it alters the position almóst entirely, and I do not think one can reasonably object to diplomatic immunity being given.

At the same time I do not wish to see it too widely extended and it seems to me that, if it were possible to confine this diplomatic immunity to the high officers, and leave subordinate officials subject to the laws of the country, practically every objection that could be raised would be met. These high officials are, to all intents and purposes, in the position of ambassadors, and it is only right that every privilege should be afforded them. But to give those privileges to all and sundry—to the staff of those officers—seems to be going rather far. After all, they are entitled to use the highest-powered cars they can get, because there is no tax on them. They receive a licence free, gratis and for nothing. They are immune from taxation, they are immune from the speed limit, and they are immune from the regulations which British citizens have to observe in the use of petrol. Petrol is being brought to this country at the risk of seamen's lives, and it is only right that every one should use it with discretion. If we go to a fashionable golf course we see a number of cars and we find that nine out of ten of them belong to members of the Diplomatic Corps. They are using petrol for purposes for which a British citizen would not be allowed to use it. Although there is not the slightest objection to this diplomatic immunity being granted to heads of departments or high officials, it is a mistake to give it to all and sundry.

I think the House was right on 27th September in being very critical about the terms of the Bill. Two or three years ago, it gave almost unlimited immunity to members of the American Forces over here. I am not suggesting that it has not worked out well but there have been occasions when people have been injured and have not been able to obtain compensation, and it was only five or six months ago that the War Office was able to announce that an agreement had been reached by which the War Claims Commission settled claims on behalf of the American Government. I think that the House was perfectly right in being very chary about extending these diplomatic privileges. We are in the curious position to-day of being asked to give this Bill a Second Reading on the basis of a series of Amendments that are to be moved in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have been in Order in referring to those Amendments in detail in his speech in support of the Second Reading. I have not any doubt that the Government will proceed with those Amendments and that there will be no question of our giving the Bill a Second Reading and then finding that some of the Amendments are not being pressed.

I listened with great interest to the Attorney-General's speech, and the apologia with which he tried to persuade the House to give the Bill a Second Reading was to this effect—I may be misrepresenting him, and, if so, I am willing to withdraw—that these immunities are being given, but that they will not be relied on. That was the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.

I would not altogether accept that. The burden of my speech was that under international law and practice, the people covered by this Bill would be entitled to immunity, and the purpose of the Bill was to enable it to be controlled.

The House ought to have this perfectly clear. This immunity resides in the person who is enjoying it, and although the Minister of State referred to the fact that, in certain circumstances, in the I.L.O. the Director-General could withdraw these privileges from one of his subordinates, I am not at all sure whether, in the case of even a subordinate in this country, who was receiving benefits under this Bill, another person could force him not to rely upon the immunity.

The immunity is the immunity of the sovereign State and, in a case of this kind, would rest in the head of the body. The individual can have the immunity waived without any right of objection. The immunity resides in the head, and it is the head who can waive it. Therefore, the Director-General of the I.L.O. would have complete power to waive the immunity in respect of a subordinate. Wherever the immunity resides, that person will have the right to say whether it should be waived.

Does that apply to U.N.R.R.A. as well?

Yes, the head of U.N.R.R.A. would have the right to waive this immunity.

We also heard the right hon. Gentleman refer to motoring offences—I should not say offences, because we are concerned only with compensation, as people enjoying diplomatic immunity can commit all the crimes on the road without being subject to police court proceedings.

I do not think the hon. Member grasped the point I was trying to make. In cases of that kind, it would be the understanding under which the Order in Council is made, that the head of the organisation would waive diplomatic immunity in cases that ought to go to the police court.

In other words, he would be asked to give an undertaking that, if he might be found guilty of manslaughter, he would allow himself to be tried?

There would be the understanding that the organisation would, if there were any question of manslaughter, waive diplomatic immunity and the man concerned would have to take his chance in the courts like any other man.

So we are now to understand that the immunity is given with one hand, and taken away by somebody else's other hand, and that if one of these people commits a crime, or looks as if he had committed a crime, the head of his organisation will withdraw his immunity from legal process and let the man stand his trial. In other words, they seem to be pretty nearly as much subject to legal process as anybody else. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of motor insurance. That seems good news. I do not know how long it has been in operation, but the House will be very glad to hear it.

Suppose one of these gentlemen is guilty of uttering defamatory statements in the course of his work. After all, it is possible that a man can slander or libel some body of persons, not maliciously but quite seriously, and it may not be a true statement, and may be held to be defamatory. Is that person liable to be sued in the courts for damages for libel or slander as the case may be, assuming that he does it in his personal capacity, or in the course of his employment? It is possible for such cases to arise. I would like to have a further assurance that the rules which have been laid down by the I.L.O. for its staff, will apply to every organisation that takes up residence in this country.

I must confess that I view this Bill with great uneasiness. The whole basis of individual liberty in this country rests upon the rule of law, the rule, that is, that with few exceptions everybody in this country, high or low, rich or poor, can go to the same courts to get redress in the event of suffering any injury. It is true that, like the ancient Romans, we have had to give up our liberties when we were engaged in a desperate struggle, and we did so in order to devote our whole energies to defeating the enemy. But I hope that, like the ancient Romans, we shall resume all those liberties when peace returns. I do not say that it will be an easy process. From observations dropped by Ministers of the Crown, it appears that there is the prospect of its being a lengthy process. At any rate, I hope we shall ultimately recover all the liberties we have willingly given up for the duration of the war. This proposal, however, is something quite different. As the Minister of State pointed out, it is not something that arises now during the war, but something that will be effective after the war. It is, in effect, a proposal that an undefined number of persons should be put outside the rule of law permanently. I say "permanently" in spite of the intimation that the Government propose to limit the operaton of the Bill to five years, because, in the Amendment which the Government will propose, provision is made for its extension for an unlimited period afterwards. To my mind there is no doubt that the intention of the Government is that there shall be a permanent arrangement. I listened intently to the speech of the Minister of State, and I could not find in it anything that justifies the introduction of the Bill. I could not see the necessity of which he spoke. I do not know, even now, what organisations will be affected other than U.N.R.R.A. The right hon. Gentleman has given no list of organisations at present in existence which will be affected, and he obviously cannot forecast what organisations may arise in future that will come within the ambit of the Bill.

I think we can say that a considerable number of people will come under the Bill. It may be argued that, in the past, we ourselves have insisted on extra-territoriality for our citizens in some foreign countries, and an even wider extension of the idea of special privilege, but we have only done that in cases where the Government of the country was felt to be either uncivilised or ineffective, and we have agreed to give up these claims as soon as there was a Government sufficiently competent to ensure justice for our citizens overseas. Does anybody suggest that we have a system of law in this country which is so ineffective and so unjust, that any foreigner coming here needs protection against it? In regard to one or two of the points which the Minister of State made this morning I was particularly puzzled when, referring to Income Tax, he used an ingenious argument to show that there was really nothing in the idea that officials and employees of these organisations should pay Income Tax. Let me put this case to him. Suppose that U.N.R.R.A. employed two people, one a British subject resident in this country, and normally domiciled here, and the other a British subject not so domiciled. Suppose they did work of precisely the same character and were paid precisely the same salary. If the British subject domiciled here, were to pay Income Tax of 10s. in the £ and the British subject not so domiciled were not subject to that tax, one man would be paid only half what the other was getting for doing the same job. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to address his mind to that illustration when he comes to reply.

With regard to motor cars, the Minister of State spoke of the arrangements that have been made for insurance, to get over the difficulty of any person being unable to claim compensation for damage in case of such accidents, but what about liability to imprisonment? After all, when we pass laws governing the conduct of people who drive motor cars we put in penalties, including the penalty of imprisonment, in order to deter people from doing certain things. If those penalties are of value, and have any deterrent effect, they Should apply to everybody. If some people are immune from the imprisonment provisions, to that extent they are not deterred from doing foolish or dangerous things, in the way that people are deterred who are subject to these provisions. I would again ask the Minister of State to apply his mind to that specific point and tell me wherein the fallacy lies, if there be one.

The Minister not only asked us to give him the Bill—which I very much hope we shall not do—but to give him the Bill ungrudgingly. He thought it very undesirable that it should go out to the world that the British House of Commons were grudging where the privileges of these organisations were concerned. I think it would be most unfortunate if it went out to the world that the British House of Commons were grudging, when it came to defending the liberties of the British people.

The action of this House some fortnight ago in asking the Government to reconsider a Bill which extended diplomatic. immunity to an unspecified number of persons, and did not lay down the kind of diplomatic immunity which was intended, was a wise one. The House is to be congratulated upon it. The Government also deserve credit for listening to its criticism, as they have done. They have put down a considerable number of Amendments which definitely react to those criticisms. The observations of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State this morning met, to my mind, ninety per cent., if not more, of the difficulties which confronted the House on the last occasion. I ask myself one or two simple questions. First, ought there to be diplomatic immunity at all? Is it an outworn idea which we ought to discard? A certain number of people think that that is the case. I am persuaded, however, that if there were no diplomatic immunity, we should have to invent it. Diplomats do not act in respect of their own personalities. They act in accord with the Governments who send them here. They are associated, not with personalities but with the political background, economic ideas, and cultural sentiments of a country. I think, as my right hon. Friend pointed out so dearly, that it would be the greatest possible mistake to allow a person, who is, as it were, an instrument through which policies are to be given effect, to be brought up and dealt with in a court of law. Therefore, I think we are all persuaded in this House that diplomatic immunity is necessary and desirable.

If it is necessary and desirable to give diplomatic immunity to a leader of a State and to the high officials of an embassy, clearly it must be equally desirable to give those facilities to an international organisation in which you have not only one State but other States represented. I would draw the attention of the House to the very remarkable fact that the application of the Bill depends upon whether or not the British Government are themselves associated with the international organisation concerned. If the British Government are not in those organisations, the Bill will not apply to them. Those two general points seem to me to cover pretty clearly paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause I (2), but they do not entirely cover paragraph (c), which deals with the minor officials. I think it would be out of Order to deal with this matter in any detail, but I would direct the attention of the Minister to the feeling in the mind of the House that too many of these minor officials may be included.

The Bill indicates that there will he a list, but I am concerned to notice that, in respect of the high officials, there is to be a list, while in respect of the minor officials there may be a list. I do suggest that it would be desirable at a later stage to make it clear that there is to be a list of the minor officials, which will be capable of examination just as much as the list of the major officials. If it is true—I do not think for a moment it is—that it is the intention of the Government that all these minor officials should be included, you might even have a doorkeeper among them. What an absurd situation it would be if the doorkeeper of U.N.R.R.A. were in a different situation from the doorkeeper of the Ministry of Health. I do not think it is intended, and I think we should have an assurance from the Minister on the point.

I know that the arrangements are to be reciprocal; that if they are not reciprocal we do not enter into them, and that they are to be limited to five years. The observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on the question of the termination of the Bill were not quite to the point. The point is that, in five years' time, the operation of the Bill will conclude, but if the House of Commons at that time decides to continue the Bill it can do so, and it is right and proper that the Government should be given an opportunity to reconsider the matter. From that point of view I think the Government proposal is a good one and one which we ought to accept. I feel there was force in the appeal of my right hon. Friend that this House should show itself sympathetic to these international organisations. I would ask specifically whether the International Committee on Refugees is included within the ambit of the Bill, because it is an important organisation and ought, I think, to be included.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned it,

Summed up, my feeling is that this is a Bill to which the House ought to give a Second Reading, and I hope it will do so quickly.

I should like to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley). I was present at the first discussion upon the Bill, and I think the House performed a very useful function in examining the Measure very carefully. After all, we attach importance to the rule of law, and any departure from it should be carefully considered. But I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I have always understood from him that he is interested in international affairs and, I assume, wants to bring the nations together. At a time like this, when there is a prospect of the war coming to an end, and with the necessity for building up international machinery to deal with various problems, surely it is to our interest to be not less generous to organisations located here, or with branches here, than are other nations. I am concerned to note the large number of these organisations which now have their headquarters not, as in the past, in London but in other countries. London is the natural centre for international intercourse. It has a magnificent tradition in that respect, and if it is to be said that in future we will not welcome the establishment of such organisations here, or, if they come here, will treat the members worse than do other nations, denying them diplomatic immunities which it has always been the general custom to grant, we shall do this country no good and we shall inevitably give rise to the suggestion that this country, instead of being the centre of freedom, liberty and progress, is the centre of reaction. I think the speech of my hon. Friend was most unfortunate.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is chairman of a refugees committee and that as its chairman he has been doing valuable work. It has been suggested that it should be removed to some other part of the world. Fortunately, to his credit, it is centred in London. That is one example of what I have been pointing out: to have it here is to our advantage from every point of view, political and economic. I think the Bill ought to have the blessing of this House though, if necessary, it should be amended in its details, because it is right for us to be careful to see that the machinery is on sound lines. We should also insist that the terms of the Bill should be reciprocal, that if we afford facilities to representatives of other countries they should accord equal facilities to any similar organisation, or its branches, set up in their countries. We ought to give the Bill a Second Reading and it ought to become law with as little delay as possible.

I think the Government have been wise in their second thoughts on this Bill and I am prepared to give its Second Reading my completely ungrudging support, subject, as the right hon. baronet has just said, to the consideration of Amendmtnts on matters of detail during the Committee stage. I think, however, that a word of praise is due at this stage to the back benchers of the House for the vigilance they showed on the last occasion, when the Bill did not meet with the general approval which I think it will receive today. There are two Amendments which I feel ought to be considered and I will mention them now, because it will save time in Committee. One is the Amendment to insert a new Sub-section, Subsection (6), to say that Clause I shall remain in force for a period of five years. I think that both Clauses 1 and 2 should remain in force for five years, because if Clause 2 does not remain in force I do not think we can carry the Orders in Council. It is really a drafting Amendment. The other point is that Clause 2 provides for the negative procedure, so that an Order in Council comes into force unless there is a Prayer against it. Personally, I should prefer the positive procedure in a case like this. There cannot be very many organisations affected, and therefore there cannot be very many Orders in Council. I understand that a Select Committee is considering such points, and if it is subsequently decided that the positive procedure is appropriate in a case like this perhaps the Minister of State will give me an assurance that this Bill will be brought into line with the recommendations of the Select Committee, because it is important that this House should not lose sight of what Government Departments are doing.

I am glad to see Clause 4, because that infers equal treatment as between one country and another, and I hope that the Foreign Office will enforce it. There was a rather unfortunate case in which there was no reciprocity in my district, before the war. Kensington could not secure any contribution in lieu of rates in respect of a particular legation. It was not the Russian Legation, but I think it is better not to mention the legation concerned. It has always seemed a little hard that Kensington should have to suffer deprivation of rates in respect of quite a respectable house which was the home of the legation, whereas in other capitals we were making the appropriate contributions towards their expenses. Therefore, I hope the administration of this Clause will be purely reciprocal. I am prepared ungrudgingly to give this Bill a Second Reading. My right hon. Friend mentioned the word "ungrudgingly" and I entirely agree with what he said. I think it is most important that the House of Commons should show itself in sympathy with this treatment for delegations and organisations established here. The reverse side of the picture has not really been brought out so clearly in the Debate. The treatment of our nationals as members of international organisations overseas has been, on the whole, extremely good and not always according to the strict letter of the law. Normally speaking, we are hospitably received and extremely well treated, and I think it is only right that Great Britain—as I claim, the greatest nation in the world, as I hope it will be after the war, in spite of what has been said by others—should everywhere give the impression that it is a great nation.

The only thing I have been anxious to avoid is dishonest practices such as I am pretty well convinced did take place in the German, Italian and Japanese Embassies before the war, when they were used for totally improper purposes. I hope that sort of thing will never arise again. Most of the criticisms of the Bill in to-day's Debate have not really been so much against extending the principles of diplomatic immunity to international organisations as against diplomatic privilege itself. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir Lambert Ward) spoke about the motor cars of the Corps Diplomatique at golf courses. That is a criticism which may or may not he valid, but it does offer an opportunity to review the whole of these diplomatic privileges, and I hope the Foreign Office will take the opportunity of doing so as the result of the passing of this Bill, so that we shall play fair with other nations and see that they play fair with us.

I think there was some contention a short while ago as to the liability of foreign diplomats in criminal matters and the question was left in an uncertain position. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked about this and as he was speaking I tried to draw on my recollection. He might be interested in the fact that Cromwell himself actually executed an ambassador, but nothing happened. Another interesting story in that connection is that Peter the Great, when his ambassador was murdered in London, suggested that those who had been concerned should be executed at once. It ended, I believe, in the Act of Queen Anne's reign, which attempted to regulate matters of diplomatic privilege. But I think I am right in saying that criminal matters are not definitely covered by diplomatic privilege, that anything which is considered to be mala in se is not covered. Much as I instinctively dislike most statutory laws, I think it might be well to have an amending Statute to the Statute of Queen Anne, for the purpose of clearing up the whole question, especially as we are considering the legislation which we are undertaking to-day. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal, which has already been referred to, that the House of Commons should not appear to be grudging in these matters. It was an extremely shrewd appeal on his part. This House of Commons in my opinion has been extremely ungrudging in all these matters, at any rate, ever since I have been here. Not only have we granted jurisdiction to the United States Army over their own soldiers while they are in this country, but also given them power to try cases of criminality involving British citizens. We have given extra jurisdiction to the Poles, Czechs and so on. Therefore, I think we have been very ungrudging, and I do not consider by right hon. Friend needed to make his appeal to us. If the House of Commons wants to protect its liberties and wants to see that something unusual is not being done, that, I submit, does not give occasion for hon. or right hon. Members to make observations of the kind we have heard.

The Bill as it is to be amended does a remarkable thing. Under the first Amendment it establishes a corporation endowed with diplomatic immunities and privileges under Part I of the Schedule and that I believe, has never been done before in the history of the British Parliament. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the corporation will voluntarily go to arbitration, but that is not stated in the Bill. It would be entirely a matter for the corporation or the Government concerned to say whether any particular case should go to arbitration. Normally, a corporation is, I think, defined by Statute, but these corporations are not defined by Statute, which is a point to be noted. Normally, I believe, a corporation is liable for torts committed by its servants acting within the scope of their authority even if the wrong was done by its servants in defiance of its express orders. A corporation is liable under our laws but this corporation is not liable at all in that regard. It is completely outside control. Lord Selborne, I believe, laid it down that a statutory corporation is for all practical purposes limited in all its powers by the purposes of its incorporation as defined by the Act. But there is no definition in regard to this Corporation. Its powers are in no way defined. We can say what we like about arbitration about liability for acts of the corporation as proposed by the Amendment put down by the Government, but there is no legal liability at all on the part of these people in respect of contracts entered into. I am sure that all the people responsible will be actuated by honourable motives, but nevertheless contracts are not enforceable in spite of that, and the injured party cannot sue and may suffer in a variety of ways. Even acceptances of bills of exchange are attended with no liability. I believe under Part III of the Schedule any acts of the servants of one of these corporations, however arbitrary, and even at times personal, can be claimed by the corporation to be done under its instructions, and therefore not attended with any liability. They might not take this line, but technically, I am sure I am right.

It may be said that the subject is no worse off in regard to the establishing of this corporation from immunity than he is in his relationship with the Crown. It may be said without due thought that it is comparable to the relationship of the subject to the Crown and that he will be in no worse position. But let us see how much better off the subject actually is in his relationship to the Crown. We all know that the King is not responsible for tortious acts. Indeed it has long been held, to quote the words of the court in a judgment of the last century:

"The notion of making the Sovereign responsible for a supposed wrong tends to consequences which are clearly inconsistent with the duties of a Sovereign."

As I have said, it would appear on the face of it that the subject would be in no worse position in regard to this corporation, but if the King commands an act to be perpetrated which is unlawful, the courts can try the complaint of the subject as if there has been no command by the King, so that an action would lie against the King's servants in respect of an unlawful act against an individual—there have been many cases which make this quite clear—but that will not occur with this corporation. A servant of this corporation will be completely covered under Part III of the Schedule. He may commit all sorts of illegal acts under the command of the corporation, but there will be no possibility of suing the servant himself as there would be when a subject is wronged by the Crown. It will not be liable for the acts of its servants, nor can the servant be sued for acting unlawfully. Again, in regard to contracts of the corporation there is no redress. It is interesting to turn once more to the position of the subject in relation to the Crown. Under the Petition of Right the subject can, if his goods, moneys or land have found their way into the possession of the Crown, by obtaining a fiat from the Attorney-General, ask for restitution or compensation; but if one of these trading organisations—and there will be several trading and other kinds of organisations—have got hold of lands, money or whatever it may be, the person affected has no remedy at all. By the Petition of Right he can recover money under a contract, or he can be awarded unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and so on, but in regard to his relationship with this corporation, or any corporation formed under the Bill, he has no power at all.

I think I have shown that we are adopting a new idea in this legislation. Indeed, I do not think in the whole statutory history of this county a Government has ever before suggested that a corporation, with hundreds of servants, should have diplomatic immunity. If the corporation says that a servant is acting under the instruction of the corporation there is no liability at all. There is no remedy for the aggrieved person, as the corporation is completely sacrosanct. It can, if it likes act in the most ruthless and savage way. It is said that it is not likely to do so. Nevertheless it is the corporation alone which decides when it will allow any arbitration proceedings. It is it that decides whether a subject of His Majesty has suffered to such a degree that damages should be given by it as a matter of honour alone. Although I shall not oppose the Bill, nevertheless, I cannot see why we in this House should not have a full discussion. I cannot say that the Bill has been remarkably improved, I do not think it has. On the contrary, I think it has introduced something hitherto completely unknown to the law of this land.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) was good enough to pay a tribute to it, I thank him for what he said about the organisation with which I am associated. I am officially affected by this Bill in respect of official duties which I discharge in my relationship with this body. Accordingly I have not thought it proper to speak for or against this Bill, but this is one point which I should like to have cleared up before we reach the Committee stage. Clause I (2 c) says:

"confer upon such other classes of officers and servants of the organisation (including British subjects …)",

and then goes on to define what these privileges and immunities are. What would be the position—in which I find myself—of a Member of this House, or any of His Majesty's subjects who holds a post in such an organisation as chairman? Would he come within the description of "officers and servants"? If I may make a personal reference I would say that the answer is "No." But I should be in a most unfortunate position. Every one of my colleagues on the Committee, being diplomatic representatives, would come under the Clause. Any other British subject who was a servant of the organisation would come under the Clause. This is of some importance, because this Clause confers certain immunities in the way of making any action they take privileged. That might be most important, because the chairman might be directed by his organisation to write a letter which, under ordinary law, would be held to be libellous but would be privileged if written by any other member of the organisation. I should be glad if the point could be cleared up before the Committee stage—whether the term "officers and servants "includes members of the executive.

It is only with the permission of the House that I can intervene again, but it may be convenient if I try, briefly, to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this Debate. With regard to the point which has just been made by my Noble Friend, the problem he has posed is certainly, as he described it, a very complicated one. It is beyond my powers to give a "snap" decision on it, but we will look into it between now and the Committee stage. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) asked me one or two specific questions. He asked for further information about the high officers who would get these personal immunities of which I spoke earlier. In the case of U.N.R.R.A. the type of officer we have in mind is the Director-General or the Deputy Director-General.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked too what were the number of subordinate officers involved. In the case of U.N.R.R.A., which is of course a very big organisation, probably bigger than any other likely to be created. I believe there are in London something like 150 officials. My hon. and gallant Friend will, no doubt, think that is a large figure, and indeed it is. He went on to say that it would be very desirable to leave these subordinate officers without any kind of legal immunity. I gather that his point of view, generally speaking, was that he saw the case for the organisation having these immunities, and for the very few high officers having these immunities, but he did not quite see the case for all the subordinate officers having them. Perhaps I could make that clear to him now. I think the House was satisfied by my argument that it would be undesirable for actions that are really in their nature political, to be brought in the courts against an organisation of this kind. Clearly, unless the servants of the organisation are included in that immunity, the protection we are giving to the organisation is completely illusory, because if protection is given to the organisation and no protection is given to the servants of the organisation, what happens is that a malicious person cannot bring an action against the organisation, so he brings an action against one of the officials of the organisation. He can then make all the political points, and do all the political damage he would have been able to do by bringing an action against the organisation itself.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) rather resented the appeal I made to the House to give this Bill an ungrudging assent. I can reassure him on one point. If he will read my words he will see that the appeal was not made to him. I said that if hon. Members felt they had been convinced by my arguments, they should give the Bill an ungrudging assent. It is fairly clear to me that he at any rate has not been convinced by my arguments. Therefore the appeal did not lie with him. His main point was that here we are creating a position in which a vast number of people are outside the rule of law. I would ask him to consider what I said earlier. There is and always has been, a distinction between immunity from legal process and standing outside the rule of law. In fact, the practice has always been—and if that had not been the practice diplomatic privilege could not have lasted—that a man who receives diplomatic immunity, is not, therefore, relieved of an obligation to obey the ordinary law of the land. The hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) asked me what the position of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees would be under this Bill, and whether it would come under it. The answer is that it would certainly be possible to apply the Bill by Order in Council to the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees.

The hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) raised a point on Clause 2 of the Bill on the question of the affirmative or negative Resolution. That is a point which really is not concerned with this Bill as such, and if he will forgive me I will not comment on it at this stage. The Government will present its comments when the Bill comes up on Committee stage. I would hate it if my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Rùissell Thomas), or any other Member of the House were to assume that, because I asked the House to give the Bill an ungrudging assent, I implied that the House had been grudging in the past, about this or any other matter. The House has not been grudging; and, as I said earlier, the criticisms which Members have expressed on this Bill have been extremely useful. But I continue to hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading.

I put to my right hon. Friend a specific case with regard to Income Tax.

I must apologise to my hon. Friend that it slipped my mind. My hon. Friend faced me with a dilemma. He said, "If you had in an organisation a British subject ordinarily resident here, he would pay Income Tax, while another British subject, not ordinarily resident here, in the same organisation, would not pay Income Tax. Would not that create unfairness and inequality between those two British subjects within the organisation?" The answer really is this. We in this House are interested in protecting the Treasury and seeing that people are not dodging taxes, and we are interested also in seeing that British subjects do not have their civil liberties taken away. There is nothing against a man's liberty in the fact that two men in the same office have the same job at different rates of pay—I think the most one would say is that it is an indication of a not very well run office. I am quite sure that an office, whatever it was, that was placed in a position of that kind, would find ways and means, internally, of equalising the position.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the Committee stage ensure that the waiver which these organisations will give, so far as diplomatic privileges are concerned, will apply to criminal proceedings and all torts other than insurance?

No, Sir, I do not think it would be possible to introduce such a sweeping Amendment into the Bill, nor do I think it would be in the least degree necessary. We must surely assume that this organisation, to which, after all, we ourselves belong, will behave with a reasonable degree of common sense and honour If it does not, there are plenty of remedies in our hands; and my hon. Friend need be under no apprehension we should certainly use them.

The tort might already have been committed.

On a point of Order. There are several Amendments to this Clause, three of which are important. The Government Amendments are small drafting Amendments. The three to which I have referred propose to raise the rates of benefit for the man, for his wife, and for his dependent children. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and would make for clear discussion, if we could have a discussion on the first Amendment covering the other two Amendments. If hon. Members liked, we could have an individual vote on each Amendment, but no further discussion. I think that if this course is not followed the discussion on the first Amendment will overlap on to the second, and that on the second will overlap on to the third. I wonder whether you, Mr. Williams, would facilitate clarity and good business by giving a Ruling on the lines I have suggested.

I would welcome that procedure, if it were possible to adopt it. It would save time and would deal with the whole problem.

I also would welcome that course.

This, of course, raises a very highly technical point, because the Amendments are on different Clauses and on very distinct points. The object of a Committee stage for a Bill is quite different from that of the Second Reading, where the general principle of the Bill is discussed. The object of the Committee stage is to enable Members to come to decisions on separate points, such as the scale for a man, the scale for the wife as a separate proposition, and the scale for the child as a separate proposition. I quite realise that when it comes to a question of the family, these have a very close alliance to each other. I do not think that what we do to-day should be treated as a precedent, but it seems to me, although I am bound by very strict Rules, that, if the Committee as a whole expresses its opinion that on this subject we should take a general discussion and allow a good deal of latitude, that course might be followed. But we must not discuss the other points later. If that is the will of the Committee I will submit to the Committee, not as a precedent, but on the clear understanding that the Committee consider it in their best interests. I hope I have made the position quite clear.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, leave out "four," and insert "ten."

When I heard the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to the Debate on the Second Reading, I felt very worried about what was to happen in many thousands of cases. I thought of the position, which had been indicated in the Debate, of the soldiers who have already returned from service owing to disabilities. I thought of people in industry, who were now coming out of munition works and finding themselves without employment. I thought we should have an opportunity of giving them much greater protection than is afforded under this Bill. I know that we were told that this is an interim Measure, for a period of transition. The idea was put forward by the Minister that we need not be unduly disturbed, because the demobilised soldier would be placed in employment in eight weeks, or else the Ministry would have failed to achieve its objective. After the eight weeks, if the Government have met with disappointment, all those hundreds of thousands of people will be in the same unenviable position that our returned soldiers were placed in after the last war. The constituency that I represent is very largely working-class. There are three municipal wards, Mile End, White Vale, and Denison, and the majority of the people in each ward are working-class. When I have been in my constituency I have realised that many thousands of the men and women are in the Services, and I have felt worried about what will happen to them when they come back. I am thinking of those gallant men in Mile End, White Vale, and Denison who have always had very difficult circumstances to face. They are now being called upon, possibly, to lay down their lives in this great conflict. I am anxious to secure for them, on their return, the most adequate protection and the opportunity of a decent life. To my mind, the greatest of all the problems that we shall be faced with after the war is that of providing a decent house and a decent income for those who have made great sacrifices during this period of stress.

I propose, in the first Amendment, that the payment of 24s. a week to the individual should be raised to 30s. a week. Hon. Members may say "Why 30s? "I would have liked to take, instead of the figure of 30s., the figure x, and to have said that x should represent the wage of the worker in his industry, but the rules of Order did not make that a possibility, and I take the figure 30s. because I myself have been closely associated with the agitation of the Old Age Pensioners' Association, who claim 30s. a week as the lowest possible sum that would afford maintenance for old age pensioners. I put it to the Minister that I believe that the only satisfactory figure would be a figure which would give to the worker the wage of which he was in enjoyment during the time he spent in the factory or works. The figures proposed in these Amendments are, in a certain sense, token figures, in order to meet difficulties which one faces because of the rules of procedure.

1.0 p.m.

The second of the three Amendments proposes an increase in the allowances for children. If the Bill were passed as it stands, the first two children of an unemployed man would get 5s. per week and the other children 4s., and I propose that the figure for every child in the home should be 10s. a week. I want to make only this comment in connection with the second Amendment; no doubt other hon. Members who are very particularly interested in this aspect of our social problem will deal with it in greater detail: It must be perfectly obvious to everyone in this Committee that it is impossible to maintain in any satisfactory way the health and strength of a child on either 5s. or 4s. a week. The figure of 10s. would provide a certain possibility of health and strength for the growing child.

The third Amendment proposes an increase in the allowance that will be given to the wife. The figure in the Bill is 16s. a week, and I propose that this figure should be raised to £1. There are also consequential Amendments, which I do not propose to discuss. There are two schemes of unemployment insurance in the country—the general scheme and the scheme for the agricultural workers. While I am not asking for a vote on the second Amendment, our scheme of Amendments has in view making the same rates of benefit apply to both the agricultural and the general schemes, so that every unemployed man, whether in agriculture or industry, would receive unemployment benefit of 30s. a week, for every dependent child there would be 10s. a week, and, for the wife, there would be an allowance of £1 per week. Where there was a family consisting of a man, wife, and one child, the income going into the home would be £3. With the cost of living as it is to-day, and the conditions people have to face, £3 is no excessive amount to maintain a man, wife and one child in a certain measure of decency and comfort.

I would conclude by saying that if the period which this Measure covers proves to be a very limited period, then a much more generous scale than is provided under the Bill would throw no very great additional burden upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund; but if the period should be longer than the Government think will be the case, then this Committee has no right to put upon these people the additional burden of unemployment for such an extended period. Hon. Members of all parties have been saying, in reference to the years of unemployment and all the difficulties and heartbreak that our people were called upon to face after 1918, that we are not going to have that repeated after this war. If that be so then let us ensure, in this Measure, that we take the steps that will prevent a repetition of the situation that arose because of an inadequate amount going into the home.

That is the plea I make to this Committee. I hope that those decent people whom I have represented in this House during those years of depression, whose sons and daughters are now in the Services, are to be given a measure of social justice, and that, in the years after peace comes, they will not again be faced by the old weary, miserable days because of the pitiful income going into the home. I plead with the Minister of Labour, and with this Committee, for these Amendments to be accepted, so that there will be a more adequate provision for those who may have to spend some weeks in unemployment in the days that are to come.

I have much pleasure in seconding the proposal put by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I would say that this Measure is a symptom of things that are to come after this war. In spite of all the promises that unemployment and depression would not take place, we are facing the proposition of dealing with the men who will be returning and will have to face the job of finding employment, or, if no employment comes along, of finding means of subsistence. I have never understood why it has always been accepted in public life in this country that an unemployed man, and his wife and family, can live on a great deal less than the employed man can live on. We seem to me, under the present conditions of society, to be creating, by an inadequate scale of allowances, a large number of diseases in the human body, and, afterwards, spending lavishly considerable amounts of money in order to try to build up the frame that has been destroyed.

We shall be met with the argument that the proposals we are putting forward have no relation to an Insurance Act, and that men are largely being paid out of the funds contributed during the period of employment. That can be accepted as an argument, but, because of the fact that men are being thrown on an insurance scheme, instead of being dealt with by a completely Governmental scheme, we must make demands on the Government that, in ordinary cases, may not seem justifiable. We may argue that the unemployed man is only going to be carried over the bridge period between service and industrial employment or between war and peace. That argument has held the field for a very long time, and has been the pretence of a large number of glib-tongued politicians in this country and in others, but those of us who give a little study to the question do not accept the theory that it is only going to be a short bridge period, that the Government have large-scale plans for dealing with the unemployment question, or that there will be a return to prosperity in industry in a very short period after the war.

I would say, in passing, in dealing with the arguments for a higher scale, that the competition that will inevitably develop after the war will produce a greater system of cut-throat competition, with consequent unemployment and depression very much worse than after the last war. When we propose a scale that has more relation to the cost of living in this country, it must not be understood that we have wild theories that are not practicable in present-day life because it has been argued, time and again, by those who advocate increased scales in order to feed men, women and children, that the country cannot afford to treat its unemployed or poor on a lower standard, that this problem has some relation to turning the wheels of industry and to the lack of purchasing power of the people.

In dealing with the children's scheme, it would be unfair and unjust to say that there is no proposal for an increase in this Bill, and that there has been no advance since the last war. I remember 1926, during the General Strike, when I myself and my wife and two others in the family, had 28s. a week. The rent of my house was 15s., and I was left with the splendid sum of 13s. with which to feed and clothe myself, wife and two. children—if I had been completely de- pendent upon that income. Therefore these scales are not generous by any manner of means. I was a member of a parish council before I came to the House of Commons, and I can remember being a member of a committee dealing with the scales of relief under a Tory-dominated council in Glasgow. They paid 22S. 6d., plus 7s. 6d., for a single individual, making 30s. There was an increase up to 12S. 6d. in special cases, and there were clothes, boots and bedclothes in addition. They paid 7s. 6d. for the first child, 6s. 6d. for the second and 5s. for each other child, with a limit to the number paid for. That Tory council gave a much better allowance to those drawing relief—not drawing it out as insurance benefits for which they had paid—and had a much greater standard than the average person is allowed under this Bill.

1.15 p.m.

The single person presents a difficulty which has never been faced. That was my experience when, in 1926, I argued with the parish council that we ought to have a subsistence level, plus a rent allowance. We found that a man who perhaps had enjoyed good wages but had been a drinker and had gambled away part of his income, and had been content to live in a dwelling with a rental of 3s. or 4s. a week, was drawing the same allowance as the decent worker who was paying 15s. rent in order to try and provide a better opportunity for his children. That was the basis on which the Unemployment Assistance Board dealt with a large number of cases in this country. An unemployed single person who drew 24s. a week might have to pay 8s. or 9s. in rent, being left with a miserable sum with which to keep and clothe himself and provide ordinary amenities. I remember, again, an argument that I used in those days in dealing with the cost of living figures and so forth. It was that in respect of a child of our own we had to spend 10s. 7½d. per week in order to provide it with milk, and here we are giving only 5s. or 4s. for the child of an unemployed man.

We are not using extreme, harsh or unjust language in saying we should face up to this problem in a more courageous manner and give to these people scales of relief that have some relation to the cost of living. There are impositions today on the community which the unemployed will have to bear. The cost of coal has been steadily rising, and in some areas the cost of gas and electricity, and there are rises and falls in the prices of certain commodities during winter. These have not been taken into account. We have a rent committee sitting at the present time and I do not know what the decisions of that committee will be, but there is a tremendous demand being made by property owners for an increase of rent. They, regard it as scandalous that while the shopkeeper can put on his increase, the landlord, with a tenant in possession, is at a disadvantage. They are demanding an increase of rents and I can see that even the small allowance granted to unemployed people under this Bill will be swallowed up. It will be argued by property owners that even the unemployed are getting an increase and that they ought to get their bit too. My hon. Friend was not using any extreme argument when he said that 50s. for a man and wife was not sufficient. Is there any Member of this Committee who would like to try to keep his wife and himself for a limited period on 50s. a week? The only regret I have is that it does not apply to Members of Parliament. If it did it would be rectified in a more adequate manner than it is to-day.

We spend in Glasgow from 70s. to 75s. a week on the institutional treatment of children who have developed T.B. That is what is done when we have destroyed the physical frame, and yet when we should be maintaining them on a decent physical standard we expect them to drag along on a miserable pittance. There will be large masses of unemployed people after the war who will have come out of the Forces and out of factories believing that they were going to live in a better world and have something worth while, for which they believed they had been fighting. They believed that there would be no unemployment and that if there was it would be dealt with in a decent manner. When there somebody to kill there can be a decent wage. When it is a question of killing Germans or killing Japs, it is a paying proposition, but when it is a question of peace, the people are not treated in that way. These scales should be revised. I would have liked to see a much higher scale for the people, who, when they come back, will be unfortunate enough to be unemployed.

I listened with great interest to the two speeches we have just heard, and if I were trying to instruct the public in the manner of the philosopher Plato I would say that I agreed with a very large amount of what had been said. In the ideal community there would be no fluctuation in income. I have often wished myself that there was no fluctuation in income. A great many of us in 1929–30 found ourselves with the clothes we stood up in and a large overdraft at the bank and it was a very unpleasant experience, and I have very great sympathy with anyone who finds his income disappear in a moment of time. But, after all, what are we trying to do here? We are not trying to gauge the Government's policy on employment, to which a large part of the hon. Members' remarks were addressed, but we are simply dealing for an interim period with the unemployment benefit obtainable from the insurance scheme until such time as a permanent scheme of social security is passed into law and comes into operation. That is the gap to be filled by the present Bill. Whatever basis we may adopt when the matter has been discussed on the grand scale on which it must be discussed when we bring in social security, costing £800,000,000 or 900,000,000 a year, we surely must be guided at the moment by current practice.

Where does the current practice of the Ministry of Labour come from? I will tell the Committee. The Unemployment Insurance Scheme was initiated, as hon. Members will find, in Sir William Beveridge's book on unemployment after the rules of every trade union had been carefully analysed and classified, and the whole of the experience of the trade union movement in preventing malingering, which, unfortunately, we have to face, was utilised. It was decided at that time to make what was called a miserable payment of 7s. per week. It has been built up to a larger and larger amount, and a very grave responsibility rests on those administering the scheme. They have a large fund to administer, but that is not a reason for having—as I gather some hon. Members opposite the other day seemed to think—a really high share out and so getting rid of £290,000,000 very quickly. The proposal is a very responsible one. It is that, having a very considerable fund, some immediate advance should be made until we get the new scheme, with the new rates of contribution—which we are not getting here; there are no increases of contribution under this proposal—and that these advances should operate until the new scheme is brought in.

The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) foresaw cut-throat competition after the war producing great unemployment. Cut-throat competition does not produce unemployment. It produces employment but less profit. If two bicycle manufacturers, in cut-throat competition, reduced the price of bicycles to £2 10s. there would be an immense sale of bicycles and more employment. If cut-throat competition is too severe manufacturers lose profit, but it is not cut-throat competition which leads to unemployment. Therefore, the Government, in my opinion very rightly, look forward to a period after the war when there will be plenty of available employment. There are firms with which I am connected whose order books are full up for ten years ahead. Many large firms will not accept orders for many years ahead because they are full up with orders, but even these firms will have to change over from their war production to peace production. The position is aggravated—and I think everyone will agree that it is a serious aggravation—by the housing shortage. There may be a factory discharging workers who are badly and urgently needed at another factory, but it may take a few weeks to get over the inevitable difficulties before they can be transferred from one factory to another.

I have often disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, but here I think he is right. Since it is clear that there will be possibilities of short, sharp bursts of unemployment, not because there is no employment available, but because of physical and other difficulties in transferring workers from war to peace work, the only thing to do is to make some temporary provision such as is provided in this Bill. Without prejudicing the position at all or raising the question of contributions, about which some of us have ideas that we hope to put before the House in due course, the only thing to do is to bring forward a short temporary Measure of this kind, and I hope, therefore, the Minister will resist this Amendment.

If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) had devoted himself to the simple and fundamental issue that is comprised in this Measure instead of indulging in a lot of academic nonsense and irrelevance, it would have been more to the point.

That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion.

Exactly, that is why I expressed it.

It is nonsense.

We had better be quite frank with each other.

Certainly.

The hon. Member declared that he often disagreed with the Minister of Labour. On those occasions, the Minister of Labour was presumably progressive, but on this occasion, when the proposal is one that in effect—and it is unchallengeable—means a condition of semi-starvation for people who have rendered service to the hon. Member and to the nation during the war, he agrees with the Minister of Labour.

That certainly is not unchallengeable. Do not make that foolish remark. Talk about nonsense! That is nonsense.

It is unchallengeable by Members opposite. The facts given by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) are all familiar to us. We have heard the arguments which have just been addressed to us for over twenty years in every unemployment insurance Debate that has come before this House. Every time the other side have stone-walled on this issue, and every time they have pretended they were anxious to do the right thing for the unemployed. But every time, in fact, they kept them down, actually below the subsistence point. That has happened over and over again. We had better face the issue. In any event we had better prepare ourselves for the next election, when this will be a fundamental issue. Then let the hon. Member for The Wrekin and his friends go to their unemployed constituents, whether many or few, and ask them to accept this miserable pittance after years of honourable service to the nation. Let him do that and he will get his answer.

We had a most peculiar argument addressed to us by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. Indeed, it is an argument closely associated with the proposals contained in this Bill—one to which exception has been taken by my hon. Friends, and to which I take exception. It is this, that manufacturers have large orders on their books, and are straining at the leash ready for the word "Go." No one desires more than myself the revival of British trade, and I think I have made as useful a contribution as the hon. Member, because I recognise that unless you do revive British trade, there is no question of security. He says that these orders are in the offing, and the prospects of British trade are apparent. Well, if as a result of that all that we are going to be faced with—and this is the argument we have just heard—is an occasional, temporary, dislocation, due to a switch-over because of the need for new equipment and new industrial set-up, why jib at a proposal to make the rates a little higher than is proposed in this Bill? Obviously that cannot mean the insolvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; how can it? That does not mean we are going to have this "bust" which the hon. Member asserted hon. Members on this side were demanding, because there is no great dispersal of the Insurance Fund, of the large income at the disposal of the Minister. Why is it at the disposal of the Minister? Because it has been contributed largely by those who hope, some day, to he the recipients of it, unless we have a Government that is capable of Promoting such a revival of British trade and organising our industrial life so effectively that unemployment will he reduced to a bare minimum.

I put this argument to the Committee. If there is to be large-scale unemployment after the war, then this is the wrong method of approach. Does anyone suppose that the hon. Member for The Wrekin will come along at a later stage, when we have this large-scale unemployment and many people are waiting to be recipients of the Fund, and ask for an increase? No, then he will say that it is impossible. There would be some substance in his argument in those circumstances, but if, on the other hand, we do not expect large-scale unemployment because of a White Paper, and what may be attached to that White Paper subsequently, then clearly we can afford to be reasonable, if not generous, because there is no generosity even in the proposals of my hon. Friend below the Gangway.

We should, at least, be reasonable with these people. Who, are these people? Soldiers, sailors and airmen who will be discharged ultimately and who may be discharged now for one reason or another. After the period of gratuity has expired, the period of grace has expired, the period of relaxation has expired, and the man is faced with the responsibility of seeking employment in order to maintain himself and his family, and there is no employment because of this switch-over and this temporary dislocation, or because of some other reason, if he is single he receives 24s. a week. He will be going down on his knees and wishing he was back in the Army again, because he was better treated in the Army. It costs more to maintain the man in the Army, even if he is doing nothing, than you propose to provide for him when he is unemployed. Take the case of munition workers. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that you can afford to give those who are unemployed, having been discharged from munitions production, the earnings they were receiving whilst so employed. However I have always held, and I maintain this principle, and I believe it is morally unchallengeable, that if a person is unemployed through no fault of his own, he is as much entitled to all the elementary needs of life, as somebody more fortunate than himself who, by accident, finds himself unemployed. I recognise no distinctions. What you are proposing here is to penalise people who are going to be unemployed, temporarily, it may be for many months or perhaps permanently—for who knows what the course of events will be?

I should like the hon. Member and other hon. Members opposite to address themselves to this fundamental issue: Whether it is a temporary period or whether it is a prolonged period, do they expect a single man to live on 24s. a week? That question permits of an answer, "Yea" or "Nay." Do they expect a man, his wife, and two children to live on 50s. a week? How do they expect it is going to be done? I challenge anybody in the Committee, certainly anybody on the other side, to say it can be done in these times, and I doubt whether it will be done after the war, because there is no indication that the cost of living is coming down. On the contrary, I expect that as regards certain necessary items, the cost of living will increase. How do we know that we are not going to have inflation after the war, with money values completely distorted?

The only answer that can be advanced to my question is this. Hon. Members may say "This is an unemployment insurance fund. It is a technical matter. You cannot get more out of a fund than you are entitled to get. It has to be solvent," and the rest of it. If that is the reply, then give us another line of approach to a solution of this problem. Do not attack it in this fashion. Indeed, it ought never to have been attacked in this fashion. I will tell the Committee why it has been attacked in this fashion, whether the Minister likes it or not. This is the only constructive proposal the Government have yet advanced in connection with unemployment, except the White Paper. What is the White Paper? It is a White Paper and no more. It is a promissory note which may never be redeemed. That is all. Anybody can put a lot of proposals in a White Paper but, when it comes to legislation, that is a different proposition. Then you have the reactionary Conservatives on their toes. Then you hear what they have to say and it is quite a different proposition. I say that this is the only constructive proposition that has yet emerged from the Government archives in connection with unemployment.

What a line of approach. What a sad commentary on all the tributes that have been paid to the munition workers, to the people in the Civil Defence Forces and the National Fire Service, to say nothing of those in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. What an unflattering commentary. What a tragedy—yes, a repetition of the tragedy that followed the last war. If there is one subject upon which I feel keenly it is this, because I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, before not since the last war, suffered the agony of unemployment, and I know how bitter it is.

But there was no unemployment insurance scheme then.

I know how bitter one can become in those circumstances, and even if I had received the miserable pittance paid out in those days it would not have saved me from starvation. While I sympathise with the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who, on one occasion, found himself standing up in the clothes he wore and with an overdraft, I have a shrewd suspicion that he did not want for three meals a day. Sometimes it is very useful to have an overdraft—your credit is often higher when you have an overdraft than when you are without it. But the unemployed have no overdraft; they have no credit at the bank, they rely on the ministrations and the good will of the hon. Members of this House. They are in our charge. At the end of this war they will be the solemn and sacred charge of hon. Members. As far as I am concerned, I am not going to let them down—I hope I shall not be charged with any egotism in saying that—and I do not believe any hon. Member on this side wants to let them down. I know how they feel about this business. But tied as we are, chained, fettered, manacled to this Coalition and all that it entails, we are prohibited and we cannot move. Nor do I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is anxious to impose this reactionary Measure on the unemployed of this country. I do not believe, in his heart, he wants to do it. We credit him with long and meritorious service to the workers of this country. But this suits the unholy traditions of the Conservative Party. They are up to their old tricks again. They are getting ready for the aftermath of war. Let us be on our guard against them. I shall not vote against the Government to-day; it is not worth while to get a few people into the Lobby. If the hon. Member is afraid—

You coward.

He thinks I have not the courage.

I said, "I think you are a coward over it, as I have seen you before."

I must ask the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) to withdraw that expression.

I am quite willing to withdraw my remark, Major Milner, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his charges. He is very free with his remarks about the Tory Party, which he knows are utterly unjustified, and he has no right to make them.

With great respect to the Chair, and quite appreciating the Chair's desire to retain decorum in the Committee, I do not ask the hon. Member for The Wrekin to withdraw his remark because I know it is simply a foolish statement. I think that hon. Members know me well enough and know that, if I want to do anything, there is nothing that will deter me, either physically or mentally. If the hon. Gentleman wants to try, he can. As I say, I am not going to waste my time in going into the Lobby. Half a dozen or perhaps a dozen going into the Lobby will, perhaps, make further complications, and will not have any effect on the other side, so what is the good with that solid phalanx against us? They are not here now, but they will emerge in due course from the dining rooms, the smoking rooms, and the Library. They will come along, not knowing what the issue is, and some of them will not care what the issue is. But they will vote against the unemployed and their interests. Therefore, I content myself with this protest. I hope it has been vehement, but it has not been so vehement as some of the protests we will make before long if this is the kind of policy which is to be adumbrated and applied by His Majesty's Government.

This is a very important Debate. I regret to say that I was not able to be present here last Wednesday, because I was serving on a committee in connection with rent control. Unemployment insurance is the most peculiar subject I have ever known. Nobody wants to discuss it. It is an unattractive subject. The fixing of 1s. or 2s. extra for a child is not something which makes a popular appeal. It is not like discussing foreign affairs, or the I.L.O. or intertional finance. Every Government, not with bad or mean intent, has always said "Let us get rid of unemployment benefit, let us end commissions and boards." But always the question comes back to the House. When this war started I met a Conservative colleague, now dead, and I said to him "The war will at least do something for me, inasmuch as I shall not have to hear about unemployment insurance until it is over." Now the question is before us again, even before the war is over. When this issue used to be discussed in the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and others then in the House well know, we used to have violent Debates about the rates of benefit. I remember that we were never opposed on the grounds that what we were asking for was too much. We were not met by an argument that 5s. then, for a child, was too much. The scale then, I believe, was something over for a man and equivalent allowances for his wife. The argument which met us was that while our demands were just there was not enough money in the till. That was the argument in 1930–31–32. Since then we have had an economic blizzard and five years of war, during which we have spent £12,000,000 to £15,000,000 a day, and yet we were told that we could not afford it then. I always get angry when I am baffled, because I am not then capable of arguing things nicely with others, and what baffles me is that before we spent the millions which we have spent in this war we could not afford to pay what is now being offered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was quite fair. He does not want the House to discuss every item raised by this Bill—agricultural workers, children and all the rest of it. His Amendments are tokens which represent two things—the inadequacy of the Government's offer and the need for better treatment. I read last Wednesday's Debate and I noticed that hardly one Member mentioned the 22s. which has been fixed as the allowance for women. Can anyone tell me how an adult woman of 25 or 30 can live on 2s. a week less than a man? It beggar's description. Whatever else the Government did I should have thought they would at least have made the amounts equal. How can they defend the different treatment of women against men?

The Prime Minister has done it.

Well, I tried to follow the horses at one time and I found it nearly as difficult as trying to follow the Prime Minister. I have given up both pastimes. I remember talking to a secretary at an employment exchange in Glasgow once, and he told me that one thing that struck him was that the girls who claimed benefit were all well dressed. For a single woman, I think I could argue an unanswerable case that she needs even more than a man. Twenty-two shillings for a woman is mean and petty, and a disgrace. I want now to turn to the most pathetic feature of this business—the figure for children. I am chairman of a small, highly skilled and technical craft association, and I am beginning to feel that in a craft closely related to it unemployment is raising its head. Further, I am beginning to feel it in my own division. Tonight, in a works which I would be out of Order in mentioning—and I do not take the view that a capitalist cannot run a works, because he can if he likes—between 400 and 500 men will be dismissed from the foundry and pattern shops. This in the midst of a war. I have a letter from a man who is fairly well off and who lives in Cathcart. He is a foreman joiner who was engaged on concrete work. I will hand over his letter to the Minister so that he can examine it in detail. The work this man was engaged on was nearing its end, and as his services would be no longer required by the firm he began to look for another job before getting the sack. He was ready to take another job, but no permission was given and so the man was dismissed. Since then, for over 18 days, this man has been tramping the streets trying to get a job while his wife, child and himself have been living on 34s. a week. This man was offered employment and was not allowed to take it.

That is happening all over the country.

I am not against training schemes, but the great majority of men who will be coming back from the Forces will not be war casualties. The fellows I am meeting now in large numbers are those who have been found to be unfit since joining the Forces. They are not in first-class health. Try to get one of these men a job in the City of Glasgow, or the county of Lanarkshire, and see what happens. The Glasgow Corporation will say, "There is labour of that type in abundance."

2.0 p.m.

I often feel that the House of Commons, including myself, too readily forgets the things it has done. I am careful about attacking Members, because I have so many blemishes of my own that I cannot afford to do it too much. It is not long since Parliament was shocked by two reports issued at a time when the name Professor Boyd Orr—a great man—was a household word to people interested in politics. He brought home as has seldom been done before the effects of malnutrition and bad housing. In his famous report on the Scottish situation, a tragic document, he put malnutrition first. To-day we are fixing the income of a child at 5s. a week. When I read the White Paper I get angry. A man at work is to get his full wages and 5s. for each child after the first. The day he comes out of work the first thing we do is to take the family allowance off him. What a cruel thing it is. We push him out of his job—that is bad—and, when we have done that, we attack his children. Even Beveridge fixed 8s. for a child. The Government in their White Paper fix 5s.

We cannot discuss the White Paper.

I am not doing so. I am discussing the inadequacy of 5s. per child. It is totally inadequate even in a temporary Measure. The Under-Secretary for Scotland told us the other day that school feeding could not be carried out under three years. We can only discuss these questions when opportunities arise and to-day is our only day. Our vote to-day will determine the child's money for years to come. It will not be sufficient for me to say that the numbers were few. Heir Hardie was in the House when the numbers were fewer still, and yet he voted. These human issues are of fundamental importance, and we must plead for decent treatment for the children. It would have been a disgrace to the House of Commons that we could spend an hour or two discussing diplomatic immunity but could not bother about how a child was to live. That would have been a terrible position for the House to be in. Those who have raised the question have performed a public duty to the House and the country. I intend to vote for the improvement of the unemployment rates. I hope that hon. Members will vote as their consciences dictate and that the House of Commons will assert itself. Last Friday the House of Commons turned the Prime Minister down in order to see that justice was done to landowners. Is it too much to ask that on this Friday my comrades and I, who have so much in common, should do everything to see that justice is done to the unemployed?

I am not going to pretend that I have not been very much moved by the speech that we have just heard. The hon. Member has brought home to us all the inadequacy of the amounts available for those who are unemployed. But I draw the conclusion from his speech that, no matter what we may do, the amount paid to anyone by way of unemployment insurance is not a proper alternative to an adequate wage for full employment. Even the figures proposed by the movers of the Amendment would not enable the unemployed to maintain themselves and their children on a reasonable standard of living. The lesson that the Committee and the country should learn is that we must see that the policy of full employment is made a reality and that we are not exposed to the necessity of making these small payments. If unemployment insurance was intended to meet a long period of unemployment, if it had to be recognised as an accepted fact that in the post-war world, as in the world before the war, men and women were to be unemployed over a long period, many of us would object to these small rates, but to-day we are faced with proposals to meet a temporary emergency during the period of change-over from war to peace production. It comes at a time when men, and often women, have been in full employment for a considerable period and it is reasonable to assume that they have something by way of a nest-egg to help them temporarily.

Does the hon. Member, and does his right hon. Friend, accept the principle that the longer a man is unemployed the higher should be the payment?

I am going to use my influence, as far as it goes, to see that the policy of full employment is maintained, because I believe that unemployment insurance is at best a palliative and that the real remedy to which we should address ourselves is not to increase the benefits but to see that they are no longer necessary. I have received two communications from shop stewards. They are not asking for what hon. Members opposite are proposing. They say they are concerned about the problem of redundancy, and they ask that until alternative work has been found, men who are declared redundant shall be paid the full rate of wages on the basis of a 47-hour week. They have adopted what is a logical attitude, an attitude in accordance with the arguments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). All the Government have done is to propose increases to meet the change in the value of money. If they had seen fit to give rather more, it would have been acceptable no doubt on all sides of the Committee. I regret, as one who has always stood for equal pay, that there is this differentiation between men and women. I admit that one cannot maintain a child on 5s. a week but one hopes it will only be for a limited period, during the changeover, and that these people have some other resources. In the circumstances, I think one has to accept the Government's proposals for the time being but, if full employment cannot be brought about, and there is once again protracted unemployment as before the war, the question must come up for revision.

Does the hon. Member mean that when these people have become unemployed they should take their money out of War Savings Certificates so as to tide them over this period?

I would much prefer that they did that than that they and their children should go short.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) rightly said that the increase proposed in our Amendment is insufficient, and he added that, therefore, there was no point in the Amendment. We thought that proposals which are couched in such modest terms as to represent only a token increase would receive approval from all Members. If there is any logic in my hon. Friend's speech he will go into the Division Lobby for the Amendment. I am not one of those who can speak of unemployment and poverty from personal experience, for I have always been one of the fortunate ones and have never run short in the same way as some hon. Members who have spoken from their own experiences with sincerity and feeling. Therefore, I want to examine the matter in a calculating and impersonal way. This Bill, in effect, increases the rate of benefit in exact proportion to the increase in the cost of living since before the war. Cmd. Paper 6520, on page 8, states that the increase in retail prices from 1938 to 1943 is 41 per cent. I am not in a position to challenge that official figure, but I feel sure that it is not on the extravagant side and is rather on the conservative side. Let us take the increase at 40 per cent. for the sake of argument. The 17s. in 1938, when increased by 40 per cent., comes to 24s., and that is what the Bill proposes. All the other figures, within a shilling or two, are an increase of 40 per cent. on the 1938 figures.

I do not think that the Minister pretends that this Measure does anything but bring the purchasing power of the unemployment benefit of 1938 up-to-date in accordance with the cost of living. We are not, therefore, giving an increase; indeed, the existing figures are below the 1938 values. If we want to examine the adequacy of the figures we can quite properly compare those of 1938 with the cost of living of 1938. We are fortunate in having for the years just prior to the war an excellent examination of the relationship between income, standard of living and the amount spent on food. In his classic work, "Food, Health and Income," Sir John Orr states that until there is an income per head of between 20s. and 30s. per week, that is until the level is reached when 10s. per head per week is spent on food, there is malnutrition. We should examine these new rates, which are equivalent to the old rates of 1938, with that in mind. A man received 17s. a week in 1938. Sir John Orr's investigation showed that a person with that income per head was spending about 8s. on food. A man and wife with children, who were receiving benefits of 10s. or less per head per week in 1938, were spending the small sum of 4s. per head per week on food. Apart from the amount of calories and so on that are required, we all from our own experience know that we cannot maintain reasonable standards of living by spending 4s. per head per week on food. That is what the rates of benefit in 1938 meant, and the rates we are being asked to accept to-day are the same proportionately.

In our Amendment we are not proposing anything extravagant or unusual. We are proposing increases which will lead to the income per head for a family with one, two or three children being somewhere between 15s. and 18s. per head per week. Sir John Orr proved in 1936 that, until the income per head was 25s. per week, or thereabouts, insufficient was spent on food to maintain health properly. To make a proper comparison with Sir John Orr's 255., we have to increase it by 40 per cent. We, therefore, require 35s. per head. When there are children, we are offering 15s. to 18s. per head. In other words, we have not advanced at all on the 4s. per head per week for food of 1938. Was the country satisfied with those figures? I know that it was not. I know that my hon. Friends above the Gangway were not satisfied. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied with this Bill now.

If the Government in the five years before the war had known the man-power problem with which they would have been faced in the last three or four years, would they have tolerated such meagre unemployment benefits, which were undermining the health and physique of the people? What a tremendous amount would have been saved in man-power if we had, in the years before the war, paid benefits adequate to provide a sufficient diet. I have not the figures to prove it, but I am confident that it would have lead to a considerable increase in the number of men who were sufficiently physically fit to go overseas in the forces—

This is a wide Debate, but it is an abuse of the whole proceedings to go into the question of man-power now.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams. My contention is that it would have been greatly to the benefit of the community if those who had been out of work before the war had been paid a sufficiently high rate of benefit to maintain health. It will be to the benefit of the community after the war, and at the present time, to pay benefits of a sufficiently high scale to maintain health. I think I have proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the rates which we paid before the war were insufficient and that the rates proposed by the Bill are exactly the same in purchasing power. The Amendment is very modest and only proposes an increase in purchasing power of 25 per cent. on pre-war prices. It is such a modest proposal that no one can say it will bankrupt the Fund or upset the finances of the country. Apart from humanitarian considerations, it will pay a great dividend in the increased health of the people.

I am glad that we have had another Second Reading Debate, in which the whole range of the problem has been recited, together with a rehearsal of the speeches that will be made on the White Paper in a week or two's time. It has been said that men are unemployed in Glasgow now, that they have been stood off. If the Minister had not taken the initiative and come promptly with this increase, those men would have been getting £1 a week and the women 10s., whereas in a fortnight's time I hope to put it up to 24s. I do not think the Minister can be criticised for taking the initiative at once. It is not a bad trait in a Minister to take the initiative, and I do not think he ought to be pulled to pieces for it. I do not mind at all. I realise, when people are great experts on these problems, that every time they come before the House, the experts' knowledge must again be displayed in the shop window—but it has nothing to do with the Bill. I am told that I am going to starve children on 5s. a week, that I am riveting 5s. a week on the children. Nobody knows better about Government policy on these things than my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The last time I was at this Box dealing with this problem I put these rates for children before the House and they were adopted: Under 8 years, 6s.; between 8 and 11, 7s. 6d.; between 11 and 16, 9s. As my hon. Friend well knows, these people will have a claim to these rates. Under the Needs Act the system has been modified to the point at which claims are admitted in a way that has no comparison with the old means test conditions which, quite properly, used to rouse such ire in the House.

2.30 p.m.

I want to state a principle. I happen to be a Socialist, and I am still a Socialist, in spite of the chains that join me to the Coalition, and in spite of the same chains that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) would probably have riveted on himself with great alacrity if the right post had been found. As a Socialist I am never going to admit the principle that insurance is the right way in total to deal with unemployment. I will not accept that.

I take one view, having gone into this insurance system, and I always have taken it. If I have one view in this matter it has been consistent. There is a great difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and me. He was trained in what is called the Little Bethel of Socialism, the I.L.P. I got my economic basis when I was young, with the S.D.F. I was like my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague); we both kept right on the strait and narrow path. I take the view, having got into this insurance, that it was, after all, not a Socialist measure. It was a Liberal measure, a Liberal device, and it was devised at the time to avoid the actual steps that ought to have been taken to deal with unemployment. I have never departed from that principle, as I stated in the Debate on the White Paper. I am being asked to forsake all my Socialist principles and come down to the I.L.P. philosophy that the dole is the solution for unemployment, and I am not going to do it.

Nobody asked the right hon. Gentleman to do it.

That is the argument.

It is not the argument.

I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals that on more than one occasion he has stood there and given me a lovely little lecture on behaviour.

Yes.

Well, let the hon. Member take it to himself.

I gave way five times for the right hon. Gentleman on Friday last, and he might do it once for me. I have never taken the view that this was a solution of unemployment. I take the Parliamentary view that this is expenditure for unemployed people, and I have taken the legitimate way of saying that it is not enough, and that we should increase it.

All right. I will come to that point in a moment, but the hon. Member does take the view that the Government are not riveting 5s., as the total standard for children. Even the 6s. to 9s. which I mentioned just now are exclusive of the right to food in the schools, and in addition to unemployment assistance allowance, as the hon. Member well knows. He should give the Government credit. Governments are not entitled, I understand, to any credit at all. I have discovered that since I have been a member of one. At least the hon. Member can be fair and tell the country that what the Government have placed before Parliament quite recently is this scale, plus, in case of necessity, free school feeding, and not the 5s. which is before the Committee just now on a pure insurance basis. When I brought the other Bill before the House I was denounced in exactly the same way and voted against in precisely the same way as I shall be to-day. I do not mind. Whatever else I have been guilty of as Minister of Labour in this Government no one can point the finger of scorn at me for what I have done in connection with the means test and this business since I have been in office. I do not apologise to anybody when I compare it with what the rules were before.

Did we not in those Regulations provide that this horrible question of rent should be in addition to the payments—reasonable rent? That applies to the single man and to everybody else, but should it have come out of the Insurance Fund? I say "No." It should come out of the Consolidated Fund, out of the general taxation of the country. That is the difference between us. I am not prepared to saddle pure insurance contributions with it. I say to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that I think this is as much as we ought reasonably to put on the contributions now, especially in view of the new scheme. It is reaching a point where it is the limit. If the contributions will not stand it up to that point, it has to come out of the general taxation of the country.

Hear, hear.

Then the hon. Member concedes my point. I am only dealing with the contributory portion of these benefits. I have not put before Parliament what is essential for the maintenance of life. I have never pretended to argue that. I would not justify these sums as being sufficient for the maintenance of a proper standard, not for one moment. I know my own people in this country very well, as intimately as any hon. Member who has spoken. I know that, up to the limit, the more that is put on insurance benefit and the more the man gets as a right without question, the better he likes it. Everybody accepts that principle. Therefore I have endeavoured, up to this point, to meet what I think can be reasonably stood without increasing contributions, and without facing any more taxation—indeed without touching the accumulated funds. It has been said that I ought to have touched the accumulated funds and increased the benefits; well, I do not think so. The accumulated funds will have a very great bearing ultimately, as hon. Members will find in a few weeks, on the height of the contribution that will ultimately have to be paid in the total scheme, and that is a very big factor in the whole consideration of the insurance portion.

It has been suggested that I ought to have increased benefits more under this particular scheme. I am sorry. I have added 20 per cent., which I think is reasonable, to this particular income to which the man is entitled. Questions have been raised whether I ought on this Bill to have dealt with the problem of the people who are redundant. It is a little difficult to deal with the whole demobilisation of war man-power in a Bill like this. I have already announced that, in addition to the Command Paper dealing with demobilisation itself, I am in discussion at the moment with the industries, the T.U.C. and the employers and other federations, in the hope that I will get an agreed scheme. The Cabinet, of course, have to play their part, the main part. When the change-over comes—and it has not come yet—Parliament will have an opportunity of hearing the views of the Government on that issue as well.

One of the arguments advanced concerned a foreman carpenter. We are not a perfect institution. Some official may have made a mistake. I do not know. Nobody knows better than the hon. Member who raised it that it will be dealt with pretty speedily if we get to know about it. I am quite prepared, if he will give me the name of the man, to look into the individual case immediately, and to see whether any error has been committed. As I said on Second Reading, whatever arrangements I make for re-employment there is bound to be some period when tranferring from one field of employment to another men will have to draw their unemployment pay. It cannot be synchronised perfectly. If that should happen—in fact, it is happening now—it will not mean that the total of unemployment is up. It changes continuously. The difficulty is that changes are taking place very fast, because of the changes in the nature of the war and the preparation for the intensification of the Japanese war.

Is it the Minister's contention that there is no serious surplus of man-power but that there is still a shortage?

The vacancies are far more than I can fi11 at the present moment. The difficulty sometimes arises that the people who happen to be out are not the people for whom I have vacancies, because of the different crafts. The total demand in the country now is far greater than I can fill. I only say that to illustrate the very great difficulty there is. Take the whole of the south coast of England. It is an area which, in the language of the Ministry of Labour, has been an exporting area for labour.

I very much regret to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but I do not think we ought to go into the areas of labour. We had had a very wide discussion.

I apologise. I was trying to answer the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and it rather led me off to pursue that line. I do not think there is any great total rise in unemployment, except in the adjustments which have to take place and up to that point I prefer to meet as much of the difficulty as I can out of the rights to insurance benefit. If there is to be extended benefit from the State, it will have to be apart from the insurance part of the Bill. I do not think there is any other point except the general criticism of the amount, and I hope that the Committee will now be able to come to a decision in order that we may proceed with the other Clauses. As incidents are arising every day now we must pay these increases out as quickly as we can, and within the next fortnight or three weeks make the money available, provided the Bill is given the authority of. the House and I can put it into operation.

A few days ago I criticised the 24s., and I want to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for being unable, on that occasion, to hear his reply. I read it all the next day, and I was somewhat reassured. Having heard the Minister now, I am further reassured. I still want to see further improvement. This is an insurance Bill and I suppose it is natural for one to expect the benefits to be such as a lump of money paid week by week would enable the contributor to draw. On that aspect of it, I want to put it to the Minister that too much has been paid in. He must admit that he could not have amassed the surplus he has but for the fact that contributions were too high.

I am sorry, but I do not see how this relates to the Amendment.

Surely I am entitled to say that if there is a surplus such as there is now, it was brought about by contributions being higher than need have been paid?

No, I think that goes much too wide.

I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and I do so, but may I say this? Surely there is in the Fund now a very big sum of money, and from that money it would be possible, if the Minister so desired, to increase the amount that is laid down in this Bill. Leaving out the question how it got there, it is there, and it is still my view that it would have been far better for the Minister to use some of that money and increased the benefit to the men, women and children who are covered by this Bill. Is it claimed that a man can live on 24s., and a woman on 22s., a week? I do not intend to vote against the Bill. I recognise it is an advantage to have an increase, but I still say that in my view the increase ought to have been, and might have been, more.

If I were an unemployed man, as I have been in the past, and if I had children and they went to school, they could get meals there, but the Minister is surety wrong when he says they can have free meals there in all cases. It is not so. In many cases they pay for their meals. It may be that the amount paid is not sufficient to cover the whole cost of the meals, but in most cases something at any rate is paid for the meals. I would have to ask myself, supposing I was not insured, what would I get. I have a right to go to the public assistance committee, and the scale I would get—

We came to an arrangement at the beginning of the day to discuss the points raised in these Amendments together, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on to free meals. He is now going on to another subject. We cannot extend this discussion to things which not only are not contained in the Amendments on the Order Paper, but to things which are actually far beyond what is in the Bill. I think the hon. Member should keep strictly within the Amendments, and to the arrangement that has been made.

I must express some surprise at that decision. The Minister was allowed to say, without any interference from the Chair or anyone else, that in addition to these benefits a child could get free meals.

I have allowed the hon. Member to deal with that matter. I am appealing to him, in view of the arrangements made at the beginning of the day, not to extend the discussion so that we have a wide discussion on things which are not in the Bill.

Further to that point of Order. With great respect, the Minister quite properly and within his rights made reference to the question of free meals, and declared affirmatively that free meals could be procured. Is it not within the province of an hon. Member to demonstrate that the Minister might be mistaken?

I think the hon. Member is not quite clear as to what I said, which was that I heard the Minister say that, and I allowed the hon. Member to make the statement, which he has done. He was, however, going on to deal with further matters of that kind, and I suggested it would be in the interests of the Committee if he did not develop that aspect of the subject further. I did not question his right to say something on that point.

I merely intended to say that in the circumstances I mentioned I would be better out of insurance. As an unemployed man who had paid insurance contributions I would receive, under the provisions of this Bill, 24s. a week. Surely I am entitled to say that if I were out of insurance, paying nothing, I would get 24s. 6d.? As I say, I was somewhat reassured by the statement made by the Minister to-day, and I shall not vote against the Bill. I think this discussion has done very much good. I do not think much need be said to the Minister by me or anyone else, in regard to what we feel about it. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite as much as I do, and no doubt he feels as I do, too. But I fear, and many of us fear, that this 24s. is being taken by the Government as the basis of what a man can live on, and I wish to assure him that if the Government persist in that view, and lay that down as a scale on which a man can live, the Government are looking for very serious trouble in the future.

I suggest that the Minister rather misled the Committee when dealing with the present scales. He himself said specifically that he did not regard these scales as adequate—as sufficient to provide a standard—but in resisting the Amendment, lie indicated that in addition to these scales, the recipient could have several additional benefits and allowances and so on, and that in regard to the children the scales operated by the Assistance Board could be applied. But ho knows full well what happens when a man becomes unemployed and draws unemployment insurance from the employment exchange. He does not go along to the Assistance Board and make an additional claim for these other things. He merely draws unemployment benefit, and when this Bill passes into law—

If my hon. Friend will allow me, what I said was that he had a right to do it.

He never gets it, and everybody knows it.

Quite frankly, the question of rates which are outside the Bill is outside the scope of discussion, even on Second Reading, and I think that the Committee, having asked for the latitude which has been given, might now at any rate help me, and not make the discussion so much wider.

Surely these things are closely related to the Amendments we are discussing? Surely if we may not examine what additional income these people may have, there is no point in discussing the benefit at all?

Those are points for discussion in other circumstances on another Bill. I do not think it is right or fair to bring them into this discussion.

Might I submit, with all respect, Mr. Williams, that it is extremely difficult for Members to come to a conclusion on a matter of this kind, without considering whether a man receives in toto enough to live upon, and it is very difficult for them to decide how to vote, unless they can ask the Minister, and the Minister can reply, to questions designed to illustrate what the man's income will be in certain circumstances.

If we were discussing the whole question of what a man's subsistence should be, that would be so; but this is simply a matter of insurance, and of what can be paid out of the fund.

Suppose we had been discussing the first Amendment, strictly in accordance with the Rules of the House, without widening the Debate, as we agreed to do. The Bill proposes a certain rate, and I have moved that the rate should he increased to a certain amount. Surely I am entitled to say, "I could not live on the amount in the Bill," and for the Minister to say, "No, but you could go out and sing in the street, or do something else to add to it"; and then, surely, I would have an opportunity of discussing those circumstances. I submit that, in accordance with the strict Rules, one would be entitled to say that one wanted this increased amount for the man, although there were other ways in which income might be increased.

No, we must keep strictly to the matter of insurance on this Bill. Hon. Members have taken great latitude in their illustrations, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, but I suggest that, if we are going to make any arrangements of the kind we have made to-day, it will become completely impossible for the Chair, if hon. Members widen the Debate indefinitely, so that almost any point can be brought in.

A number of Members, including myself, have been impressed by the Minister's argument; and that fact may decide the fate of the Bill. His argument was that this is not a subsistence standard, but merely a part of the income available to the unemployed man from various sources. Hon. Members here wish to examine that argument; and surely it should be thoroughly examined, so that we may make up our minds.

May I assist the Committee? Insurance has always been accepted, not as subsistence, but as a contribution towards it. That is the whole basis of the Insurance Acts.

I have been in this House since 1922, except for four years, and the party on this side have never accepted the contention of the Minister.

It does not matter what any individuals accept. We are discussing insurance; and we cannot go outside that, into the whole question of the subsistence of the people who are covered by this Bill. Hon. Members must keep strictly to the position that it is an Insurance Bill.

Perhaps I may continue. I would suggest that anyone who knows anything about unemployment insurance and the administration of the Fund, whether from the administrators' end or from the receiving end, appreciates that the benefits paid are the total income of the recipients in nearly all cases.

The hon. Gentleman really must not discuss this quest- ion of total income. That is outside the question of insurance.

I want to keep within the Rules of Order, but I want to refer to the inadequacy of 24s. a week as a figure on which to live. I know what it is like to be unemployed and to draw unemployment insurance benefit: I have been unemployed for long periods; and many of my people are still unemployed. These people are living on the benefits; and, in my view, the increase proposed by the Bill is quite insufficient. I find myself compelled to support the Amendment, appreciating that even these increased benefits will be insufficient, as they will be the sole subsistence of these people. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to clear up this position about income, for we cannot divorce this subject from income.

The Minister cannot reply to it.

He should explain it more fully. The Committee does not know what the position is; and, without clarification, Members, if there is a Division, will not know upon what they are voting. Let me say a word about the Minister's apprehension of the likelihood of pockets of unemployment when the change comes. It is because of these small pockets that he justifies this 24s.—

This question of pockets is exactly the one on which I ruled the Minister out of Order.

I think that the Minister was dealing with certain areas. It has been argued that the scales proposed in the Bill would relate only to pockets of unemployment, and not to large-scale unemployment. But we have continuous and permanent unemployment to-day. In many parts of the country there are people who have been unemployed for a long period. They are living on the present scale, and they are looking for better treatment than is afforded by this Bill. I beg the Minister to appreciate that we are not dealing with people who would be unemployed for two, four, or eight weeks, I come from an area where we have, I think, a higher percentage of unemployment than is envisaged in the period of transformation from war production to peace production. Indeed, I believe that in Lanarkshire we have more than one-tenth of the unemployed population of this country, although I question whether we have much more than one-hundredth of the population. Therefore, we have long periods of unemployment for large numbers of people. These people will find it very difficult to live on the scales proposed in the Bill. That being so, I think the Committee should give this matter much thought, and seriously consider supporting the Amendment.

A point has emerged which, with great respect, Mr. Williams, I think requires some clarification to help hon. Members to make up their minds on this issue. It is proposed in the Bill to provide an increase for single men who may be unemployed, which would enable them to receive 24s. a week. An Amendment has been moved which proposes to make a payment of 30s. a week. The Minister resists that Amendment; and, in doing so, seemed to me to indicate—and this is the point that requires elucidation—that the amount of 24s. a week received from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, did not preclude the recipient from seeking assistance elsewhere. That is the point. What does that really mean? It a single person is unemployed, and is receiving the total amount provided under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, that person can apply, for example, to the public assistance committee or Unemployment Assistance Board. The Minister said he had that right. The point we have to consider is whether, having that right, he would receive some additional assistance. I am not arguing the merits of the case, but does the fact of that person being a recipient of unemployment insurance preclude him from receiving any assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, even supposing he makes an application? It seems to me that we require further elucidation, because, obviously, if we were assured that no person, single or married, was precluded from applying, and also, having regard to the inadequacy of the financial assistance provided under the scheme, that such a person would receive additional assistance, it would make all the difference in the world. If the Minister could enlighten us on that point, it would be a very great help.

I regret that some hon. Members were not here in time for the earlier reply. I dealt with this fully in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member took as an illustration the 5s. for a child, and accused me of compelling a child to live on 5s. a week. May I follow up the illustration he put to me? I replied that the Assistance Board rate, which was in the last Regulation I introduced on this subject, lays down 6s. a week up to eight years; 75. 6d. from eight to eleven years, and 95. a week from II up to 16. Therefore, the person who established this case with the Assistance Board would draw 5s. for a child between II and 16 years as insurance benefit out of the Insurance Fund and would be entitled to the Assistance Board payment of 4s., making 9s.

Does that satisfy the need?

It is not a needs test now. The hon. Member should not interrupt. I am asked to give a reply, and I am entitled to do so. I listened to all hon. Members with very great attention. The same thing applies to the rent allowance. It is said that this 24s. is the total income. Under the Assistance Board, in addition to the money payment, the unemployed person can get a rent allowance, and, if the recipient is drawing the insurance, he is still entitled to go to the Assistance Board for the addition. Equally, he is entitled to apply to the Assistance Board for the other kinds of grant which they make in addition to this. But, if he goes to the Assistance Board on the scales that have been quoted—and this is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee)—then he can get nothing from the Assistance Board. That is the law. All the additions, which the Assistance Board allow over and above insurance, are additions which he is entitled to have. I hope I have made the position quite clear. I have taken this attitude all through. If hon. Members had been in the Committee, they would have heard, but perhaps I may be allowed to repeat this with emphasis. Neither I, nor any Member of the Government, has accepted subsistence on insurance—that is, that the insurance satisfies the subsistence basis. So far as I am concerned, as a good Socialist—I am still a Socialist and hope to die one; I have lived one, anyway—I will never accept the principle that, when you lay down a contributory basis, it satisfies the subsistence basis.

I am very concerned about this, and if my right hon. Friend had had the experience which I have had, he might be more concerned, too. Do I understand the Minister to say that, if a single man is receiving, from insurance benefit under this Bill, 24s. a week, he is entitled to go to the U.A.B. and get more—not merely claim it, but get it?

If he satisfies the conditions.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, leave out "one shilling," and insert "six shillings."

I support the Amendment for the purpose of intimating to the Committee that, as we realise that the

I have known scores of cases where men have applied, at my request, to the Assistance Board, and have been told that, as they were on an insurance basis, they could not receive the other.

He is entitled to it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, leave out "six," and insert "ten." What my hon. Friend said in regard to the previous Amendment, applies also to this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, leave out "seven," and insert "nine."

This Amendment corrects a small regrettable slip, for which we apologise.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after "circumstances," insert:

"or that access to the area has been or wag restricted for a prolonged period as a result of war circumstances."

The reason for moving this Amendment, as I stated the other day, is because the Bill as it stands is confined to areas described as evacuation areas, and there are others such as the Isle of Wight and those described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) which have suffered the same misfortunes and disabilities as the evacuation areas. Therefore I think these words should be included in the Bill in order that justice may be done to all these areas which have suffered as the result of the war.

In supporting this Amendment, I add a plea that areas to be included under the Amendment should be included very sparingly, because there are definite reasons why certain areas should receive special consideration. One is, that in certain areas there was a moratorium, and in those areas there was almost compulsory evacuation. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment represents the Isle of Wight, which is in a special category, because there have been very reduced travel facilities to and from that island in war time. I certainly think the Isle of Wight should be included but if we throw the Bill open to all those areas from which there has been voluntary evaculation, the value of the Bill might be destroyed by including so many areas that the special benefit extended to the defence and evacuation areas would be lost. I ask, therefore, while supporting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), that the Government should look twice before including areas other than the Isle of Wight.

I have every sympathy with, and support cordially, the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. I feel that the Isle of Wight should certainly he included and should receive the full benefit given in the Bill to those areas which have not only had moratoriums but also evacuation. I rise merely to ask one question of my right hon. and learned Friend. I take it that Clause 3 with the addition of this Amendment will still apply only to areas where there has been a moratorium. The Isle of Wight had a moratorium. I take it that Clause 1 lays down two conditions—the moratorium area and evacuation. Clause 3 removes one of the conditions, namely, evacuation, but leaves as an essential condition that there has been a moratorium.

I have been turning to Clause 1, with a view to ascertaining whether the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) was quite correct in what he said about a moratorium. Can my right hon. and learned Friend make up his mind on that point now?

The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) is not right. I will explain it when I come to it.

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because it saves pursuing that point on which I was anticipating joining issue with my hon. Friend. I also do not entirely agree with the fears of the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) and, if the Committee will allow me for a moment, to refer to the terms of Clause 3 and the Amendment, I think that his anxieties will be dispelled. Clause 3 provides that:

"Where it appears to the Lord Chancellor, as respects any area which has not been declared an evacuation area for the purposes of the Defence (Evacuated Areas) Regulations, 1940, that extensive and prolonged evacuation has taken place in the area as a result of war circumstances…"

We want to add there:

"or that access to the area has been or was restricted for a prolonged period as a result of war circumstances."

The introduction of those words precludes the possibility of the provisions becoming entirely applicable to any bombed area throughout the country because, in the vast majority of those areas, there has been no restriction for any prolonged period on the access to those areas. Therefore, the Amendment which we are seeking to move is an entirely limited one, and it is intended to clear up any minor difficulties which would, in fact, be major difficulties in the localities concerned. I have in mind particularly two urban district areas, neither of them very large. They are next door to one another with only a small part of a rural area between them. One is within the area as defined by Clause I.

I will not trouble the Committee by going into detailed figures which have just been published, but that particular area covered by Clause 1 sustained throughout the period of bombing a total of about 100 high explosive bombs and considerable damage. The adjoining urban district area, which is not covered by Clause 1, sustained approximately 300 high explosive bombs and substantially greater damage. Therefore it is to clear up that particular sort of trouble that we have in mind the introduction of Clause 3, because these two are urban district areas which were definitely affected by circumstances arising out of the war, in so far as access was prevented to them. They were within certain military defence zones and it was impossible for people in businesses, such as those of hotel and lodging-house keepers, to carry on their businesses. The object of this Amendment is to clarify the position and to assist the local authorities whom this Bill is largely intended to help.

I might, perhaps, clear up a slight misconception in the mind of my hon. Friend, the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). Clauses 1 and 2 lay down a code of adjustment for areas which, having been declared evacuation areas, have, in law, a moratorium in respect of certain debts. Clause 3 enables the Lord Chancellor to apply that procedure to areas which have not been declared evacuation areas and, therefore, have not had, in law, a moratorium in respect of the specified debts. The reason for it was, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, that there has been a certain arbitrariness—I do not use the word in any offensive sense—in delimiting the actual defence areas. In many cases people are perhaps hardly aware that the boundary runs where it does run and, therefore, not only have conditions been the same in certain adjoining areas, but everybody has gone on more or less as if there had been a moratorium, although there was not in law.

It was realised that in order to get the best and fairest procedure for such areas it was necessary to treat them as if there had been a moratorium, and give somewhat wider adjustment powers in addition to the ordinary adjustment powers of the principal Act, as amended. As drafted, the Bill laid down the test of extensive arid prolonged evacuation. My hon. and gallant Friend wishes to add:

"or that access to the area has been or was restricted for a prolonged period as a result of. war circumstances."

My hon. and gallant Friend has in mind his own constituency, the Isle of Wight. We accept those words. I do not want to be regarded as prejudging any question of any particular area, but it is right that there should be words which make it clear beyond any doubt that the Isle of Wight can be considered for the operation of Clause 2. It will not be altogether an easy question to decide whether what has happened really makes it fairer to introduce a national moratorium or not, but as conditions in the Isle of Wight have been exceptional, and have produced great hardship it is right that there should be power given to the Lord Chancellor to consider whether it may not be necessary to extend Clauses 1 and 2 to that and similar areas, if there are any, in order that a fair adjustment may be made.

If the test is extensive and prolonged evacuation, would not that technically apply to the whole of the County of London? Would it not be better if at the commencement of the Amendment the word "and" was used instead of "or"?

I am sure that would not be right. There are two classes of exceptional areas. There is the Isle of Wight and there may be nowhere else quite like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]There may be no other place where the main cause of disaster may be refusal of access. With an island like the Isle of Wight refusal of access was easier to enforce, and it had a most disastrous effect on the life and prosperity of that area. The other case is the opposite, where people are told to get out, and I think the word, "or," will enable one set of circumstances or the other to be considered.

Any additions under Clause 3 will be made very sparingly?

Yes, very sparingly.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes but the Attorney-General referred to this Clause during the Second Reading as an important one which of course it is and all I want him to do now is to couple effi- ciency with generosity and to admit that it would be only right for the Government to accept responsibility in view of the fact that it was not the debtors or creditors mentioned in this Bill who were responsible for the exceptional circumstances in these areas but the Government who quite rightly did what they did for the benefit of the whole of Britain. The Attorney-General said that this was a reasonable concession by the Exchequer and I want him to say now that it is only right that the Government should accept this responsibility and say that for this reason they will not ask for any priority in the payment of debts to the Exchequer. I want them to say that because they accept this responsibility they will accept the same position as an ordinary creditor, so far as debtors in these areas are concerned. This is not only a reasonable concession; it is the right honest and honourable thing to do, because I submit that it was the Government who were responsible for making these coastal areas into defence and evacuated areas. I hope the Attorney-General will agree with me that it is not unreasonable to ask for a little more generosity in his wording of language about this particular Clause.

I think there is a lot to be said for the view that Hitler was responsible rather than the Government. It is quite wrong to personify the Government and suggest that this is something out of which we get a great deal of pleasure and ought to give away the taxpayer's money in consequence. But I do not want to quarrel with my hon. and gallant Friend about words. When I said it was reasonable, I thought I used a word which more or less satisfactorily covered the ground. If he wishes me to add that I also think it is right, I am perfectly prepared to do so. I think it is always right to do what is reasonable.

I am not at all satisfied with what appears to be the machinery set up by the Government to ensure that ex-Servicemen including disabled men are treated fairly in their re-establishment in civilian life. I am sure that it is the desire of all of us that at the end of the war, and during the period before victory comes, ex-Servicemen returning to civilian life shall be protected against putting their capital, or any gratuities that they may receive, into businesses which do not provide for them a profitable livelihood, and there must be certain safeguards for old established businesses, which will also have a right to carry on in the post-war world. I should like to tell a story to illustrate my point that, at the moment at any rate, the machinery established by the Government is quite inadequate and that it must be thoroughly well examined in order that justice may be done. An air gunner who had his spine broken in two places and will have to spend the rest of his life in a steel jacket has set up a garage. Under the arrangements entered into between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Fuel and Power the following provisions have been agreed between the Departments:

"A petrol allowance is granted by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to any disabled ex-Serviceman where the Ministry of Labour and National Service recommend that work as the owner-driver of a hire car offers the best possibility of his satisfactory resettlement in civil life. In such cases allowances are granted irrespective of whether the existing hire-car facilities are sufficient to meet the essential transport needs of the neighbourhood. In the case of all other classes of applicant, petrol allowances for the starting of new hire-car businesses or for the extension of existing businesses are only granted when, after inquiry, it appears clear that the essential transport needs of the locality are not being met by the existing hire-car businesses."

That on the face of it sounds a very satisfactory arrangement, but under it ex-Servicemen are put down into the very lowest category. It may be that throughout the country there will be established a large number of one-man car hire businesses, but when the basic petrol ration is re-introduced, and when civilian life gets back to some form of normality at the end of the war, these ex-Servicemen, who will have spent their pitiful little capital in buying cars or taxis, may find themselves unable to make a livelihood. I absolutely refuse to accept that it is fair and just to ex-Servicemen that they should be automatically put into the lowest category. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend could come to accept such a position. On my raising this point, the Minister of Fuel and Power wrote:

"There are thousands of one-car owner-driver hire-car businesses up and down the country and the petrol allowance granted to these businesses is found sufficient to give their proprietors a reasonable livelihood."

I would like to know whether the Minister has made an investigation into that statement. All my experience and all the evidence I can get from well established taxi-cab owners shows that it is impos- sible for a one-car owner-driver to make a reasonable livelihood on the amount of petrol allocated to him for the purpose of his business. In any event there may be thousands of one-car owner-drivers throughout the country. But there are thousands of innkeepers who can make a livelihood out of giving 5s. meals. In their case, however, we have provided in legislation for war-time purposes that where a restaurant has certain overhead charges which cannot be met by providing 5s. meals they can make a house charge in addition. I re-emphasise that it is not right that an arrangement should be made which automatically places an ex-Serviceman into the lowest category.

When an ex-Serviceman has petrol for one car, and he wants to go further and have more than one car, he is transferred from the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to that of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I submit that the Minister of Fuel and Power has no responsibility departmentally for protecting the interests of ex-Servicemen. In the case I am raising he takes refuge in the fact that the decision rests on the Newcastle Watch Committee. That Committee has certain responsibilities, but it has not the responsibility for protecting the interests of ex-Servicemen or disabled men returning to civilian life. It is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government as a whole, and that responsibility has, for administrative purposes, been accepted by the Minister of Labour. This system of handing the baby from one Government department to another is vexatious and monstrous.

To get back to my story. My ex-air gunner buys a garage on mortgage and as his finances stand with his petrol allowance for one car he is making a weekly loss of between £2 and £4—I forget the exact figure. He gets his second car, and he applies to the Ministry of Fuel and Power for petrol to run an additional car. The Ministry refuses to grant it, stating that he has received petrol for one car as agreed between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Labour. When a protest is raised that this man, having incurred considerable overhead charges, could not possibly make a livelihood with one car, this is the letter that he gets from the petroleum officer. I should say, in fairness, before I read it, that I received an apology from the Minister of Fuel and Power. I agree that the human machine sometimes fails, but I am not going to accept an apology from a Department which writes a letter of this type. It is-from the petroleum officer of the Northern Region, and says:

"I acknowledge receipt of correspondence referring to Mr. J. Muris of Heaton. I would point out that it is contrary to the general policy of this Ministry to grant new hire-car allowances, but in view of the fact that the applicant was a disabled ex-Serviceman, sympathetic treatment was given to his case and an allowance granted for hire work. Application has been made for fuel for an additional vehicle, and refused, as I consider that Mr. Muris has already had generous treatment."

Who on earth is a petroleum officer to say whether an ex-Service disabled man has had generous treatment or not? It is monstrous that anyone could put that record on paper about a man who has served his country and who is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour. He does not even go on to tell the man that he has the right, if the Newcastle Watch Committee will back his application, to obtain additional petrol. We have had a lot of trouble up my way with regard to petrol for taxi-cab owners. I had a letter from the Minister of Fuel and Power saying that if the Newcastle Watch Committee liked to make a recommendation that extra petrol was necessary for taxicab owners the petrol would be released. The Newcastle Watch Committee, through the town clerk, has written a letter saying that it is not within the power of the Newcastle Watch Committee to do anything about it, so that apparently they are unaware of the responsibility which the Minister of Fuel and Power says is theirs.

We have this position of a disabled ex-Serviceman coming back from the Air Force, putting everything that he has into a business, and yet there is not one Government Department that will stand by him arid give him a chance of really making a livelihood. That is my case. I have been on this case for about five weeks and have had to write a considerable number of letters to Ministers about it. If it is going to take a Government Department five weeks to discuss one case, and it then gives an adverse decision, all I can say is that it is a pretty poor outlook for the future and it does not give me any confidence that the Government are really going to do their job by the men who are returning from the various theatres of war. I have put it very strongly because I think it is a matter which needs putting strongly. There may be all sorts of arguments about Mr. Muris. It may be that there are sufficient taxicabs in the district to do the work. I would not know, and certainly neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Fuel and Power would know. But somebody has to accept the responsibility. While this man has been waiting for me to raise the case in the House he has been losing, week by week, a substantial sum, and nobody will accept any responsibility or do anything about it.

I am not prepared to say that the responsibilty for looking after ex-Servicemen and protecting their interests has to be left in the hands of a Department unless that Department is really going to take effective action. Up to the moment the Ministry of Labour have tried to put it on to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who have tried to put it on to the Newcastle Watch Committee, and they have repudiated responsibility. The Minister of Fuel and Power refuses the additional petrol, and nothing is going to move him from that position, because he is not concerned with protecting the interests of ex-Servicemen but only with looking after the allocation of petrol. It does not matter to the Minister of Fuel and Power whether this ex-Serviceman "goes down the drain" or whether he does not. According to the letter which we had from the petroleum officer it looks as though he, too, is in the same position, because he refers to this man having been treated generously. What he imagines generous treatment of ex-Servicemen to be I really do not know.

I come back to my point, which is, What are we going to do to establish adequate machinery for the future? I have just come back from a pretty wide look at Servicemen in various theatres of war all over the world, and I am absolutely certain that we civilians here at home have to accept the responsibility of seeing that, when they come back, whether they are physically all right or not, they are re-established satisfactorily in civilian life. It will not be a very easy job and if, at the very first moment, before the ordinary men start to come back, we have a case of this kind, all I can say is that the machinery is extremely bad. I am really raising this to know how we are to protect the interests of ex-Servicemen in the future.

I think I have said all that I need, but unless the Government can do something to meet this particular kind of case—and this case will be a test case—it will be known all over the Northern area in what an ineffective way ex-Servicemen's interests are protected. I believe that the Government are all out to do everything they possibly can, but it is so ingrained in Departments to take the attitude "Passed to you, please," that it seems impossible for them to get out of it. I should very much like to know conclusively how the machine is to work in the future and what redress a man of this kind is to get, and also whether we are to set up in the regions a committee, preferably of responsible people, to look after the interests of ex-Servicemen. Such a committee would not have allowed the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Newcastle Watch Committee to get into this difficulty. I shall be very grateful indeed if the Minister will tell me what sort of machine he proposes to set up to cover the kind of case I have raised.

I am very interested in this case because I have one which is similar to it, and I want to know what is to happen. It is the case of an ex-Serviceman making application for petrol to start a taxi business, who finds that he is up against the Regulations that have been quoted by the hon. Lady. Petrol may be granted to him as a car-owner if it is deemed that there is a reasonable prospect of success. They are not literally the words that were used, but they give the effect. This man has been looking ahead and he has three cars. As a matter of fact, two men propose to commence a business in a place where no provision exists for taxi services. I would like clarification on one point. When the Ministry of Labour have decided whether this man is entitled to a certificate under the Regulations and in the particular circumstances, will the man be restricted to petrol as a driver and car-owner in respect of one car only? If so, that will be very limiting to the business which he hopes to build up. Can I have some assurance that this severe limitation will not be imposed upon his chance of a livelihood? After the certificate has been received, we wish to proceed to the regional petroleum officer in the North. I take it that if the Ministry of Labour grant a certificate the Ministry of Fuel and Power will not then be sticky about allowing a reasonable amount of petrol for this man to build up a business in a locality which lends itself splendidly to the purpose.

The hon. Lady has raised this matter in very general terms. She herself defined it, I think, as wishing to ensure that ex-Servicemen, and disabled men in particular, are treated fairly in their re-establishment in civil life. That, of course, is a principle which has the full agreement, sympathy and determination of everyone in the country. I myself have on more than one occasion, and in this House, expressed the view that on the way we treat our disabled ex-Servicemen coming back into civilian life our generation may be judged by the generation's following. Therefore, the Government have been very much concerned all through the war with the problem which was likely to face them towards the end of the war about persons disabled through war service. The House will be well aware that disabled persons, whether ex-Service or civilian, are dealt with during the war under the special arrangements started three years ago, on the introduction of our interim scheme. These include special interviews by our officers while the disabled person is still in hospital or under treatment, and then interviews at the employment exchanges by a specialist officer—we term him the disablement rehabilitation officer—whose study is this question of the rehabilitation of a disabled person, in order that we can determine the most suitable employment, considering the disability of the person concerned and his personal wishes.

We have made special provision too, as the hon. Lady knows, for training—industrial rehabilitation courses—and these are being extended and developed as much as is possible and necessary at the present time. Experience of the scheme shows that the very great majority of disabled men and women, both ex-Service and otherwise, are capable of employment under ordinary working conditions if they have had proper treatment, proper study of their case, proper rehabilitation courses, and the proper entry into in- dustry. In general, I may say confidently, we have up to now had very little difficulty in finding these disabled men work. That is, of course, under war conditions, and we recognise that in the postwar world it may not be so easy in the normal way, to find employment in the ordinary forms for these disabled persons. It was for that reason, as the House knows, that our Disabled Persons Bill was introduced, and became an Act of Parliament, and now there is a specific obligation on employers of more than 20 persons to take a recognised quota of disabled persons on to their books before they are allowed to recruit any additional labour.

In that way we shall be able, with a flexible machine, to make sure that all disabled persons, ex-Service or otherwise, who are able and desirous of entering the civilian employment field, shall have the right to enter that field in preference to those who are fully able bodied. In that way there should be no difficulty after the war in providing employment for all those who are able to take it. In addition to that, as the hon. Lady knows, for those who are so severely disabled that they cannot really do a competitive day's work, we have under the Act special facilities for setting up non-profit making organisations to employ these people.

What about the rehabilitating staff? Where do the personnel to rehabilitate these men come from? Has the hon. Gentleman's Department discussed this matter with the War Office?

Indeed yes, and all the arrangements are being made. If the hon. Member would like to put down a Question 1 will give him a full answer.

I am not trying to be tricky, but a short time ago I had an interview with the Ministry of Labour, the War Office and the Ministry of Health about this matter of training physiotherapists, and the War Office were so helpful that they insisted that physiotherapists should occupy a status subordinate to that which they have in any part of the British Dominions!

The hon. Member has raised a question quite different from that raised by the hon. Lady. If he had given me notice I would have dealt with it, but I have no knowledge of the meet- ing to which he refers. The specific case to which the hon. Lady addressed her-self, and on which she hung her indictment of the Government, was one of a disabled ex-airman who wished to enter the car-hire business. Where it is thought, on discussion with the men by our rehabilitation officer, that work on their own account might be desirable and they express a wish that way, we have made arrangements with the Departments most intimately concerned; and who have the data at their disposal, to see the ex-Service disabled man gets into a one-man business on preferential terms. For example, with regard to applications from disabled ex-Servicemen to enter retail non-food trades, there was a very full answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 26th September, 1944, in which he said:

"I have decided that in future a disabled ex-Serviceman, who was formerly a retailer, shall be granted a licence to open a shop in any area or line of business, provided that the grant of a licence in an area, other than that in which he wed to trade, would not prejudice the interests of others on the Board of Trade register. Disabled ex-Servicemen, who were not formerly retailers, will be treated in the same way, except that the licensing Committees will consider, with the advice of the Ministry of Labour, whether, in each individual case, retail trade affords good prospects for the applicant. I have also invited the British Legion to nominate a representative…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th September, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 9.]

And so on. We have discussed the matter with regard to food retail distribution with the Minister of Food, who has very special knowledge of this subject. He gave an answer as recently as 11th October, in regard to the same question. He said:

"I made arrangements some time ago for putting ex-retail food traders discharged from the Services into the priority class as regards the issue of licences to re-open their former businesses. As regards disabled ex-Service persons who were not previously retail food traders; I am at present engaged in making arrangements to enable suitable applicants to be given a preference in the granting of licences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th October, 1044; Vol. 403, c. 1756.]

The position, therefore, is not as the hon. Lady suggested, that they are put in the lowest possible grade. These disabled ex-Service men are given exceptional privileges to enter those fields which are not open to any other persons.

May I intervene for one moment? Is it not a fact that as between the Ministries of Labour and of Fuel and Power the arrangement is for the ex-Service disabled man to go in only as an owner of one car, which surely is the very lowest grade? Taking the taxi-cab industry as a whole, they are only allowed to go in on the very lowest level.

The hon. Lady, if I may say so, is rather impatient. I was endeavouring to explain what we do in the case of disabled ex-Servicemen. I have not got to the Ministry of Fuel and Power yet. She has made one speech, and if she will allow me to make my speech she can come back at me if she wishes, but it will be better if she allows me to make my own speech first. Our advice to the Ministry of Food, the Board of Trade, or the Ministry of Fuel and Power, takes the form of giving information with regard to the disability of the men, the prospects of finding employment, and of expressing our rehabilitation officer's opinion on whether it is desirable, in view of the man's inclinations and his prospects, that he should be given a chance to enter this line of business on his own account. But we cannot do more than express an opinion, and we cannot possibly guarantee that a man will make a success in any business which he undertakes, and we cannot possibly protect completely any man or woman in this country from putting his money into any business.

We can set up, and we wish to set up, as full and complete a service of advice as possible; but, human nature being what it is, we cannot make sure that our advice is followed. Therefore, the hon. Lady, who says that she wishes to make sure that the disabled ex-Serviceman is protected from putting his money into a "dud" business, is asking something that we cannot do and that is beyond the power of anybody. We can offer the best advice if he will come to us and ask for it. Because of that, as the hon. Lady knows, we are setting up these re-settlement advice bureaux all over the country, with a trained staff, and inviting ex-Servicemen and women, disabled or otherwise, to come and get all the skilled advice that can be provided, on the prospects of trade and industry, on the person's business, and so on. I have here an advance copy of the booklet which we hope to issue—it is not quite complete yet. We wish people to come along and consult our advice service, where they will get the best possible advice that we can obtain for them, not only with regard to matters which concern Government Departments but with regard to matters on which voluntary societies might help them, although the Government could not. We are trying to meet, to the best of our ability, the point that the hon. Lady made, and to prevent the men and women putting their gratuities into "dud" businesses.

If the Government are now going to give advice about how people are to invest their money, are they going to limit it to ex-Servicemen? Some of us might like advice.

I imagine that the advice would be more of a negative than of a positive character. I cannot imagine anybody telling a man categorically to invest his money in a business. A man must make up his mind himself on that. But it is right that the ex-Serviceman should receive all the advice that is available. I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised this matter, because it emphasises that the final responsibility for investing his money or for choosing his job must rest with the disabled person. If he invests his money unwisely and it is lost, no Government Department can be held responsible.

What happened in the case of the ex-airman to whom the hon. Lady referred? This is a sad tale of a very gallant airman, a man whom we would wish to assist to the very best of our ability. The normal rule followed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power is to allow new car-hire businesses to be set up only where there is "a proved transport need," but they have arranged to modify that rule, and to authorise the issue of petrol coupons for a car-hire business in favour of a disabled ex-Serviceman where the Ministry of Labour have recommended that that type of work would offer prospects of resettlement. We did so advise in the case to which the hon. Lady has referred; and, in the light of that advice, petrol coupons, not on the lowest scale but on the highest scale—the highest number issued for any car in that horse-power category—were issued to that man. But we did not recommend, and I do not think that the Ministry of Fuel and Power contemplated, this man buying at very great expense, on mortgage, a garage, which, I understand, was subsequently requisitioned, which, anyway, he was not going to use until the end of the war, and on which the mortgage was so heavy that he could not meet it and, running a private-hire car, make a living. It seems to me, on reading the papers, that the tragedy is due to whoever persuaded this man to buy on mortgage, for a very large sum, a garage which was not essential for this one car which was recommended by us. I am not going into questions of whether the petroleum officer at the Ministry was wise or unwise in writing a letter. The hon. Lady has now, I believe, received an apology; and I should think that the question might be left there.

But because this man has bought a garage the Government cannot be blamed. All we can do is to beg and beseech a disabled ex-Serviceman not to rush in and buy a garage because someone tries to put it up to him. Everyone knows of tragedies of that sort happening in the last war. I do not believe that the Ministry of Fuel and Power or the Ministry of Labour can be blamed in this case. We recommended this man as suitable to drive a private-hire car. The Ministry of Fuel and Power gave him petrol, exceptionally, to the very highest limit. We are continually trying to see how we can improve the quality of the advice that we can offer these ex-Servicemen and women, and especially disabled ones; and also what assistance we can give them in starting life again, in business or in some other way. Our plans are laid, but we can by no means say that they are the last word. Active discussion is going on at present with regard to starting people in business; and we will, of course, look at all cases that come up where a tragedy has occurred or is likely to occur, to see what Went wrong and whether it could have been prevented, and whether any alteration or extension of our plans could help the ex-Serviceman. On the special point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) put to me, he does not expect me to reply, and I do not know the answer. But if he wishes to press it, my right hon. Friend will give him a reply.

Is my hon. Friend quite right in saying that petrol was granted at the maximum, and not at the minimum? The agreement between his Department and the Ministry of Fuel and Power was that petrol could be granted for only one car. That running of one car is not granting petrol on the maximum: the maximum would be perhaps 50 cars or 100 cars. The point is that the Ministry of Fuel and Power limited the ex-Serviceman's right, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Labour, to one car. Therefore, is my hon. Friend not misleading the House? There is another point. What is going to be done in this specific case to get over the difficult position in which this man finds himself?

To answer the second part of the hon. Lady's question first, there is no way in which the Ministry of Labour can advise the ex-Serviceman about his garage which he has unfortunately obtained on mortgage. That is beyond our capabilities, but it is apparently the difficulty which he is under at the present time. With regard to the general question, we naturally advise that an ex-Serviceman in this position who would be suited to drive a private-hire car should, if he wishes to set up on his own, have his own car; but to set up as the head of a large company, employing other labour to drive cars, is entirely a different matter, and surely not one on which we should advise.

If we are going to help ex-Servicemen, and if there is to be a very narrow ruling on owner-drivers, I do not think we are going to help them as we expected to help them. The case I raised is that of a man who wants to start a taxi business. He is not going to make much out of it if he has only one car and has to drive it himself. Is the ruling always on the narrow point that he is only allowed petrol for one car?

May I deal with that point? As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are two methods of approach. The first is where a disabled ex-Serviceman—as in the case under discussion at the moment—wants either a car for hire purposes, or indeed to buy an existing concern with two or three. The only test is that of the transport needs of the locality, not, as the hon. Lady put it, whether the transport facilities are adequate, because, in war time, circumstances are different. What one would like would be complete transport facilities, and I do not have to explain that, in war circumstances, that is not possible. The other point is where a disabled man, under an arrangement made between the Ministry of Labour and my Ministry and others, becomes a special case in which the Ministry of Labour certifies that the most suitable way for him to enter civil life is for him to have a hired car. In these exceptional cases, a licence is given. In this particular case, the maximum petrol given to a hire car is given to this man. If he then enters the pool of hire car drivers in that district, and if, in due course, application is made for further hire cars, by him or anybody else, the application is examined on its merits. Once he comes into the pool, the matter is examined on its merits. In the case referred by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor), the question there is whether, in that district, and in the existing circumstances, the transport facilities are inadequate, and I can assure my hon. Friend that if they are regarded as inadequate, the most sympathetic consideration is given.