On a point of Order. May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House and a great help to hon. Members if you could indicate the scope of the Debate which is possible under the proposal for the setting up of this Ministry. Otherwise it may be difficult for Members to know to what extent they will be able to cover matters which were raised in the previous Debate when the House welcomed the social security scheme. If, for example, there should be any Member who wishes to oppose the setting up of this Ministry, it would be difficult to prevent him giving his reasons for that view, and those reasons might cover the conditions of the general scheme. Therefore, I would respectfully ask you, Sir, to give an indication of the scope which will be allowed in to-day's Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.

This is a machinery Bill, and therefore the subjects which were discussed when the scheme came before the House, are not appropriate for Debate on this occasion. In fact, I think the limits of the scope of this Debate are very well set out in the Amendment which has been put down in the name of two hon. Members, which shows clearly that this is a machinery Bill and not a policy Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I do not think the House will need from me any long speech commending the purpose of this Bill. During the past two weeks the House has discussed and approved, in broad outline, the proposals of the Government on social insurance which have been set out in two White Papers, In due course these decisions of the House will be implemented by the introduction of legislation dealing with the actual provisions of the schemes, or rather of the scheme, because although two separate White Papers were laid, the object of the Government is to bring together in one comprehensive scheme the various provisions which have been made over a long course of years indeed, for insuring the citizens against a number of the changes and chances of this mortal life. The present Bill, therefore, is a necessary piece of machinery, designed to transfer to a single Minister of Social Insurance, powers which are now divided between the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour and the Home Secretary. Those powers are contained in no fewer than 14 Acts of Parliament, and in a great many Regulations made under them.

The House will remember that the Government, in the first Debate on social insurance, reserved the question of whether or not it was desirable to create a new Ministry. Since that time, the Government have given prolonged examination to the schemes, and to the question of how best those schemes could be implemented. In the course of those examinations, they became convinced, as is stated in paragraph 152 of the White Paper, that the appointment of a Minister and the transference of existing powers in this field to him, would ease the transition period between the old scheme and the coming in of the new, and would enable the new scheme to be brought more quickly into legislative form. The new Minister will have the task of framing legislation and of working out the administrative changes. It will be obvious to all that it is desirable that, for these purposes, he should have at his disposal the experience of the trained staff which is now dispersed between various Departments.

I now turn to the general framework of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the appointment of the Minister and gives a broad description of his functions. Clauses 2 to 5 are machinery Clauses, in common form. I observe that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has put on the Paper an Amendment, which raises certain technical points.

Constitutional points.

Technical points. The hon. Member is afraid that the Bill provides for the appointment of an irremovable Minister. I that this fear is based on the fact that the Bill does not, m set terms, state that the Ministers shall all hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. It is true that, up to 1939, almost all, but not all, Acts constituting new Ministries contained these words, but they do not appear in the three most recent Acts—the Acts referring to the Ministers of Works and Planning, of Town and Country Planning, and of Education. The reason for their omission is simple. They are quite superfluous. All holders of offices under the Crown, hold those offices during the pleasure of the Crown, unless an Act specifically provides otherwise.

When did His Majesty's present advisers discover something that was not known to any of their predecessors?

I think it was discovered shortly after 1939; but whether it was a question of the discovery of something new, or merely the discovery that there was no need to waste words, I cannot say. The hon. Member also fears that the Bill will provide for an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries. Here again, precedent has been followed. I am sure that this will appeal to the conservative instincts of the hon. Member. In the last 25 years, four Acts which have specifically provided for a limitation of the number of Under-Secretaries have been drafted in the same way as this Bill. We are following precedent, and also, as democrats, we are following the principle of majority rule. In any event, the point is not one of real substance. No one imagines that a lot of Under-Secretaries will be created. If they are created, the House has it within its power to make their lot unhappy by refusing to pay their salaries.

In his final point, the hon. Member suggests that the Bill makes possible the appointment of a Minister who will be debarred from voting in the House of Commons, owing to the provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. Here, I think he has not read the Statute with sufficient care. That Act applies to certain Ministers, who are named in the First and Second Schedules. It can apply only to those who are set out in those Schedules. It is worth recalling the purpose of that Section of the Act. I can remember the passing of that Act very well. I did not take much part in it, because I was, as Leader of the Opposition, a beneficiary under one of the Sections, but it so happens that I took an interest in this particular Section. Indeed, I think the Section was put in partly owing to representations that I made to the Government of the day. The old rule was extremely inconvenient. It laid down that only a limited number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State could sit in the House of Commons, but that rule did not apply to other offices of parallel importance, such as those of Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal and First Lord of the Admiralty. The result of this archaic rule was to cramp a Prime Minister in the allocation of Ministries between the two Houses. In effect, the purpose of that Act, and the purpose of the law before that Act was brought in, was, by limiting the number of certain categories of Ministers who could sit in this House, to secure that there should be a certain number in another place. By that Act the categories were widened, to bring in Minsters other than Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State and to remove this artificial distinction which had grown up through long years between different Ministries.

The Minister of Social Insurance is outside these categories altogether. As that Act applies only to those named in the Schedules, it cannot apply to him. It is a fact that when the Ministry of Supply was set up, the Minister of Supply was added to those in the Schedules. It might be asked, Why is not this being done now? It has not been done in the case of several recent additions. I think there is no particular point in adding Ministers every time. A number of new Ministries have been created during the war, some of which may survive, others of which may go. Therefore, it will be better to clean up the whole question after the war, when things hove settled down. Meanwhile, I can assure the hon. Member that his fears that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister-Designate of Social Insurance is going to have to pay up£500 a time are quite unjustified.

I come to Clause 6, the main operative Clause. This provides for the transfer to the Minister of certain power and duties hitherto belonging to other Ministers. This is to be effected by Orders in Council, which will be operative from the date named in those Orders. This Clause lays down very definitely which powers are to be transferred, and which are to be retained by other Ministers. Those that are to be retained, although they are contained in Acts that deal with insurance, do not deal with these functions which are to be transferred. For instance, those conferred by the National Health Insurance Act relate to medical benefits, and the provision of medical benefits in this new form remains with the Minister of Health. Similarly, the functions retained by the Minister of Labour, relating to courses of instruction and the provision of training, will not be transferred. The Clause is designed to transfer only those functions dealing with insurance. There are certain powers relating to the enforcement of the law, which will be needed both by the Ministers from whom the functions are being taken, and by the new Minister. This is merely a matter of enforcing the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, will remain in the power of those Ministers. The Act is specific in ordering the transfer of certain powers by Order, and the reason for that is very obvious. If one set out the whole of the powers that are being transferred, one would require an enormous Bill setting out the various Sections of these 14 Acts of Parliament, which would be a great waste of time and a great waste of paper.

As the old principle is that what you do not put in, you assume to be left out, it would seem to me that it is unnecessary to put any in, because they are all covered by Sub-section (2).

It will be done from time to time, but it is a question of getting the time right. The Orders will be laid before Parliament, but will not require a substantive Resolution, nor will they be subject to a Prayer. I am sure the hon. Member for South Croydon will be relieved to know that precedent is being followed.

A very bad precedent.

My hon. Friend is very interested, as we all are, in the question of the proper control of the House over Orders. There is a great range of Orders giving powers to Ministers, and some of them obviously need to be kept under the close supervision of the House, but, in effect, the Orders here do no more than carry out exactly what the Bill says must be done. It is merely a piece of machinery to avoid setting out a large number of appointments in a long Bill, and there is, obviously, no reason why that should be prayed against, or should require an affirmative Resolution. I think that point is, therefore, a false one. There is no real analogy between these and other powers. I know it was done with regard to the Ministry of Supply, but the powers there were different.

There are other points to notice. Subsection (3) provides for the alteration of the constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. That, in effect, merely substitutes for the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Social Insurance. The Minister of Health for Northern Ireland remains. There is also provision being made for making the necessary adjustments in the case of Northern Ireland. That comes in under Sub-section (5).

Sub-section (3) provides for alteration of the constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. We do not know what that may mean. Is there no control whatever over this?

It is merely a shifting from certain Ministers to others.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the Bill?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that small point in Committee. Meanwhile, while preserving the rights of the Government of Northern Ireland, by agreement with the Government of Northern Ireland, an adjustment is made in the contractual relationships between Northern Ireland Ministers, and Ministers of the Crown here. This is obviously necessary owing to the transfer of functions. I have now dealt generally with the Clauses, and I hope I have shown that there is no substance in the technicalities raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon. I believe the House and the country expect the Government to make all possible speed to get the scheme of the White Paper pushed forward, and this little Bill is a kind of pilot engine to clear the line. I hope, therefore, that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he give some information on Clause 3 (3) which says:

"The Minister may appoint such other secretaries and such officers and servants as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine…"

I mentioned the other day a point about the staffs of approved societies. I would like someone, speaking for the Government, to tell us what steps are being taken to equate the claims of these staffs with the claims of the civil servants from the Ministries, with a view to justice being done.

I think that would hardly arise on this Bill. I think we must await the main Bills on the subject before dealing with that point, but I will see if my right hon. Friend who is to reply can give any information on the point.

It is a question of machinery, rather than of policy.

I rise for the purpose of making two main points, but, before I come to them, I would like to say a word about the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

On a point of Order. Is it customary for Ministers and ex-Ministers to reply to a speech that has not yet been made?

I think it is a common practice for hon. Members to refer to a reasoned Amendment which is down on the Order Paper, and, believe me, I have no intention of wasting any time on this Amendment. What I have to say on it will be in two short sentences. This is my hon. Friend at his old tricks, with which the House is perfectly familiar, and the exercise of which we thoroughly enjoy. Secondly, I would say that the Amendment has been effectively disposed of by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and one may hope, in these circumstances, that the hon. Member will forgo his right to make a speech on the Amendment, if it should be called. In any event, it would seem to me that the Amendment is primarily concerned with points which might well be threshed out during the Committee stage of the Bill.

My first main point, which I think is of some substance, is this. The social insurance scheme is not merely a scheme for co-ordinating the payment of insurance benefits. The spirit behind the scheme, if I may say so, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed {Sir W. Beveridge) takes my point of view, is that of doing something which was conceived in the original Insurance Act but was never carried out, that is, the close association of constructive treatment, with payment of benefits. If this scheme of social insurance is to produce the fruits which we hope for, it is quite clear that there must be the closest relationship between those who are engaged on this constructive task—whether rehabilitation, or the prevention of disease, or the prevention of mass unemployment, or ensuring the efficacy of the services for school meals and milk and so forth—and those who have to pay out the money for the defects in our system, in order to carry out the constructive tasks effectively.

As I gather from the Bill—and it is accepted that it is a machinery Bill—the Minister-Designate will not be primarily concerned in these tasks. It would be, I should have thought, fantastic to place in the hands of one Minister the responsibilities for the development of rehabilitation services, school meals and so on, and, apparently, that is not contemplated, judging by what my right hon. Friend said in his speech. But there ought to be some organic connection between Departments pursuing what I would call the constructive services associated with social insurance, and those dealing primarily with the insurance side. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his reply, may be able to deal with that point. I do appreciate that in the Bill the proposals made on the administrative machinery side are flexible and are open to alteration in the light of experience.

My second point is that this is a machinery Bill, which broadly will be acceptable to the House. My right hon. Friend called it a pilot engine but a pilot engine has some steam in it This is an engine without any fuel and power as yet, and while my right hon. Friend has said that this is the first necessary step in implementing the scheme, we have not had much yet in the way of firm commitments about the fulfilment of the proposals which have been shown to be broadly acceptable to the House of Commons, as a result of the recent four days' Debates. I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday speaking on industrial injuries insurance, but I understand from the Press that he did give some indication that there was to be legislation to give effect to those proposals. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I asked a very pointed question last week about implementing these proposals, did not say a word about it. My right hon. Friend this morning wound up his speech by saying that it was necessary to proceed with "all possible speed." The last two or three years have not shown the Government to be in any frantic hurry. We have had discussions from time to time, but surely we now have arrived at a stage when there is broad agreement, on principles anyhow, and everything should be done to get the Measures drafted and placed before the House. When we meet in the new Session Parliament ought to be in a position to deal with definite proposals in the King's Speech as to legislation which will enable my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate and his colleagues to carry out their great duties.

The House is in some difficulty in discussing this Bill, which is drawn very much in the form of a blank cheque, and all the more so since hearing the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Orders in Council which are to carry out these purposes are not to be subject to affirmative Resolution and cannot, as I gathered him to say, be prayed against. The proposals that the right hon. Gentleman laid before us will need to be elucidated a little more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) indicated that there should be some organic connection between this great Department and the other great Departments from which portions are to be torn out, to make the new Ministry. It is too early to call this the bringing together of a number of scattered pieces. That would be Step 2. Step 1 is the tearing out of the scattered pieces. All who have experience of Ministries know how long it takes to put together these pieces and make them into one organic whole.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) asked what would be the scales and positions of those civil servants who will have to be transferred, and he knows, as any Minister or ex-Minister knows, how long it takes for these relations to be thoroughly stitched up. The first effect of such a thing is not organisation but disorganisation. The next step, of reorganisation, is no doubt one which will bring benefits to the people of the country, for such is the intention of the Bill, but it is one which the House will need to scrutinise, in order to see what the proposals as to the Ministry really are. I take it that one effect is, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that insurance is to be divorced from the payment of health benefit, or at least the handling of the insurance finance is to be divorced from the payment of health benefit. It is a little obscure. I read the Bill with some care to see if I could make out what its results would be, but perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will make the matter a little more clear.

What is the relation going to be between my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate, who is, apparently, to administer the general insurance relating to the country, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health? It is not an idle matter, because one of the original purposes of health insurance was, if possible, to press forward this particular question of rehabilitation—a question over which the House spent some time in the last two days in the Debate on industrial injury insurance. That great ideal has never been properly carried out. One of the first things done under the Ministry of Health Act when the Ministry of Health was being set up was to tear out one of the pieces originally put into the insurance scheme—the scheme of medical research. That was torn out and put under the Lord President of the Council. There is no proposal, I understand, that that should be integrated again. You still have three Ministers handling the matter—the Lord President of the Council, whose responsibility is medical research; the Minister of Health, who will be handling the matters of paying out individual bene- fit, as I understand it, and the Minister of Social Insurance, whose field is apparently still a little vague and has to be worked out more clearly.

How is the Minister of Health to pay health benefit?

If that point could be cleared up even now, I should be very glad indeed. I do not wish to waste the time of the House. Perhaps the Minister-Designate or the Deputy Prime Minister could make a further statement on that just now. How is the payment of health benefit to be done by the Minister of Health?

The medical benefit will be retained by the Minister of Health and the payments out of benefit will be done by the Minister of Social Insurance.

Certainly we need to elucidate this a little more. I am still not very clear on the proposal. There is to be divided payment and treatment, as far as I can see, or at any rate a dividing of finance and treatment. This is what happens when one sets up a new Ministry. One very frequently finds that in getting rid of one set of anomalies, one produces another set.

I am more particularly concerned here with the case of Scotland. Here it is not merely a passing thing that is being done, or some casual piece of machinery which is being put through. It is the taking away of powers from an office in an outlying portion of Great Britain, which is the Northern Kingdom of Scotland, and concentrating responsibilities in London. That is what is proposed here and I certainly intend to pursue the matter further on the Committee stage to see whether it is really necessary to do so. We all remember that when the Insurance Commission was originally set up it was drafted as the insurance authority for the whole of the island. Then, both in Wales and Scotland, the tendency to self-government and the desire to handle local affairs locally, led to the setting up of commissions in Wales and in Scotland, and that local administration has persisted from that day to this. It is therefore not simply a matter of mere machinery that can be effected by an Order in Council but a piece of vital administration which has worked so long. Once destroyed the House is to have no opportunity of reversing the decision.

The difficulty is that every time one of those reforms is brought in, it is hailed with acclamation simply because it is a change. When sickness, health insurance and local government were brought together, a cry of acclamation went up, more particularly from the Ministers concerned but generally echoed to some extent by the House. When, under the Ministry of Health Bill, health insurance was united to local government—to housing—it was hailed with great delight by no less an authority than Lord Addison, who was Minister-Designate for that office. Now another cry of delight—at their separation—goes up from my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate of Social Security. This is a kind of concertina—it emits a musical note whether you are pulling it out or pushing it together. We should not be led away merely by our delight in the sounds made by the Ministers responsible. We should examine what is being done, and the things which are being injured as well as the things which are being improved.

As I say, this is a machinery Bill whose purpose is to improve the health and social conditions of the people, a purpose with which we have all the greatest sympathy. I think, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister used a slightly unfortunate metaphor in saying that it is a pilot engine, because the point of the pilot engine is that it does not pull the train. This is an engine scurrying ahead of the main line of wagons, blowing its little whistle and emitting a pleasant plume of steam. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we say that we shall devote more of our excitement to the subsequent inspection of the great haulage locomotive or the long train of trucks it has to carry than this Measure.

The points I would like to raise would more properly be raised in Committee. The point particularly with regard to Scotland, although a great point, is not in the Title of the Bill, which simply says:

"To establish a Ministry of Social Insurance and for purposes connected therewith."

Under that Title, I think it will be possible for us to deal, as a Committee point, even with the great question as to decentralisation of administration—whether the tendency in past years towards decentralisation of administration should be reversed and administration now carried out in Scotland, should be concentrated again in London. That, and many other points, will be examined in the later stages of the Bill.

I certainly think that some form of organic connection, between the new Departments and the old, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has said, should in some way be conceded, either in the form of a Clause or in the form of a pledge. I see no reason, for instance, why the Chief Medical Officer of Health, who is a joint medical officer under the two great Departments of Education and Health, should not in some way or other be found a further place in the structure of the proposed legislation. I view with great apprehension this divorce of payment from treatment. The rehabilitation purpose of insurance has not been carried through, and to that extent the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have fallen down in their jobs. I have held both these jobs, so to that extent I am blameworthy, but I have always felt, when holding these offices, that we were largely wasting much of the information available to us under these insurance Statutes. There is an interesting broadcast by Sir Wilson Jameson, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Great Britain, in this week's "Listener" in which he says:

"We do not know. There is no means of assessing the day-to-day health of over 40,000,000 people."

But after all he is getting medical certificates in every day about millions of these 40,000,000 people. I have always felt that we accumulate enormous quantities of medical certificates, taking up shelf after shelf, of which we have never made proper use. This is not going to improve our use of those medical certificates; if anything, it will push them still further into pigeon holes.

I do not wish to dilate upon these points at present because this is a Bill with a very large number of aspects but it is only by debate in the House of Commons that we can elucidate it. I repeat that the figures in this cheque ought to be filled in with a great deal more detail than is at present proposed, before the House can properly part with this Measure.

I heartily support the introduction of this Measure, and I am only sorry it did not come to us at a very much earlier stage. I hope it will be followed early in the new Session by further instalments of this social security plan, and the country certainly wishes for it. There was some discussion the other day in the House about the reputed parentage of this Measure. We have come now, however, to the christening stage; we have to give the scheme a name. That is very important because a child is often greatly handicapped in after-life by an ill-chosen name, and, while the House may not be the parent, we certainly are the guardians of the child for the time being, and therefore we have to look carefully at its name. It does not seem to me that the term "social insurance" is an adequate one. It seems to me cold, unenthusiastic and quite inaccurate. What the people of this country are looking for is not an insurance scheme, but a national minimum based on subsistence level and related to the cost of living. The Measure itself does not deal solely with insurance. It deals, for instance, with the Assistance Board and the public assistance committees now going in with it, expending£69,000,000.

May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? You gave a Ruling earlier, on the scope of the discussion. I would like to know whether, if I am called, I shall be allowed to discuss all the ramifications of this Bill and health insurance, and subsistence levels?

I thought I had made it clear that those matters are outside the scope of the Debate to-day; otherwise we would get a rambling Debate which might extend over all the subjects debated during the previous four days and there would be no new issue to debate. I think speakers ought to keep to the machinery of this Measure.

I have only made a passing reference, which I thought was in Order. I was pointing out what the scope of this Bill covers, and that the Assistance Board which spends£9,000,000 has nothing to do with insurance at all. Then there are the children's allowances—an enormous new social venture of great expenditure, entirely from the national Exchequer, which has nothing to do with insurance. This will come under the new Ministry. Therefore the term "social insurance" is quite inadequate, and I hope that when we come to the Committee stage, we shall persuade the Government to adopt some term which more properly describes what the Minister is going to do. Perhaps the best phrase would be "social security" as that is what we are pledged to by Article V of the Atlantic Charter. An alternative would be "social welfare." There may be a still better one but certainly "social insurance" is not suitable. Something has been said about training, rehabilitation and medical treatment. It is true that these are not to be administered by the Minister-Designate, but he will be closely associated with them. The right step is shown in Paragraph 385 of the Beveridge Report, where it is urged that there should be close collaboration between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the new Minister of Social Insurance, in the administration of this work. It suggested that joint committees should be set up. It is vital that that should be done, and I hope we shall be given precise information as to the Government's ideas on that subject.

The Assistance Board is to be taken over by the new Ministry, and it is said that that Board will be responsible to the new Minister. What I am anxious to know is whether the Minister will be completely responsible to this House for the work of the Assistance Board. Theoretically, it has not been so in the past. The work has been kept away from the House of Commons.

It was impossible to ask questions.

We remember the new scales which were set up about 1934, and which created a great storm. The House of Commons insisted that they should be taken back and the Minister responsible left office. It is, therefore, impossible to keep a matter of this kind, affecting nearly every person in the country, away from the control of the House of Commons. What many of us want is the same advantage for Members to intervene in individual cases, as exists now in the case of the Ministry of Pensions. Questions can be asked of the Minister of Pensions about any particular pensioner; information from the Minister can be obtained from him at the Treasury Box. Undue advantage has not been taken of that privilege and it has not been abused, and I think careful consideration should be given to extending the same kind of facilities to questions in connection with the Assistance Board in the future. I have heard it suggested in certain quarters that, perhaps, at some stage, all this work should be handed over to some remote board, detached from Parliament. That will not do; the House cannot accept a position of that kind. We want to be kept in the closest possible touch with a matter which concerns our people.

I understand that the Minister-Designate made it clear that the new Minister would be directly responsible to the House of Commons for the administration of the Board.

We want to be quite clear about it. I understand that the position is not changed and that the Board, from the legal point of view, will be in just the same position as hitherto. I hope it will be made clear that that is not so, and that any Amendment necessary to that effect will be agreed to so that contact with the House of Commons can be maintained. That is a vital point, and there is no clarity on it at the present time.

I want to make reference to another subject which is not included in this Measure, although it might have been, and that is the question of the Ministry of Pensions. Arguments for and against bringing war pensions inside this Measure arc set out in Paragraph 385 of the Beveridge Report, and there are arguments both ways. There are certain advantages in that you would avoid duplication in payments being made from different Departments to an individual. One Minister would be responsible for everything of that kind. But on the other hand, I think it is the general feeling throughout the country that Servicemen are in a special category. They are in a contributory scheme, but the contribution which they make is the spending of their life's blood. I believe it will be felt that there are strong arguments for keeping the Ministry of Pensions, which is working so satisfactorily now, and which is subject to Parliamentary criticism, as it is, at any rate for the time being. We hope that with the carrying out of the policy embarked upon at Dumbarton Oaks there may be no more wars in the future. Certainly, that is my hope and belief. In that case, the work of the Ministry of Pensions would die a natural death, because there would be no more pensioners. It may be that we could hand over the Ministry of Pensions not at the end of its life, but half way through it, and embody it in the new Ministry which is now being set up.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has, as usual, put down an interesting Amendment to this Motion, and although he objects to comments on his undelivered speech, I want to say a word or two on the matter. He is always bold and courageous, and I well remember in the Debate we had on the Beveridge Report nearly two years ago he made a speech, in his usual exuberant manner, from which I will make two brief quotations. He said:

"I have no hesitation, in reply to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman … in saying that I think that the Beveridge Report as a whole is a very bad Report. It is very badly written. In no place do you get a convenient summary of the proposals."

It would be interesting to know whether he still thinks it is a very bad Report, and whether he is going to tell his constituents it is a bad Report.

I have done so.

My hon. Friend also said:

"If this scheme is postponed until six months after the termination of hostilities, the then House of Commons will reject it by a very large majority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1943; Vol. 386, c. 2016–7.]

Does he still think that? I do not think his foresight was quite as good as usual. At any rate, for one, wholeheartedly support this Bill and—

Will my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) be allowed to defend himself? If so, the Debate will be exceedingly wide.

I support this Measure and I believe that our people, whether in the factories of Britain, or in the forests of Burma, are determined that when Hitler goes down the giant of want shall go down too.

I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof:

"this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides for the appointment of an irremovable Minister, authorises the appointment of an indefinite number of parliamentary secretaries, provides no parliamentary control of the Orders in Council which may be made under it, and makes possible the appointment of a Minister who under the provisions of subsection (3) of section nine of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, will be debarred from voting in the House of Commons."

I should like to make one comment on the speech that we have just heard. As far as I can make out, the hon. Member thinks that the Bill is an illegitimate baby anyhow; he has doubts about its parentage. I should like to express my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister, who devoted the bulk of his speech to my Amendment before I had moved it, which indicates that he is feeling a little rattled on the subject. There are four points in the Amendment and I will base myself, in part, on the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939. Section 1 (1) reads as follows:

"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Supply, hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Minister, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure."

The right hon. Gentleman said those words were unnecessary because they had been omitted in recent Acts for all of which he was responsible. It is a new theory that, if you commit murder three times running, you are justified in doing it a fourth time. I think it is highly objectionable to leave these words out of the Act. First, they mean in practice that His Majesty, on the advice of the Prime Minister, can dismiss the holder. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, of course it is clear that His Majesty can seek no advice, but the Royal Prerogative remains unchallenged, though rarely, if ever, exercised. But this is an invasion of the Royal Prerogative. I think it is totally improper. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman used the arguments that he did, and I can only express profound regret that none of us were sufficiently vigilant two or three years ago to raise the issue when the first offence occurred. The right hon. Gentleman based his defence on the fact that we have been neglectful, and I hope that in Committee, the Amendments which some of us have put down will be inserted in the Bill, and that, in due course, steps will be taken to correct other Acts which offend a sense of fitness, quite apart from the legal aspect.

I come to the next point, about the indefinite number of Parliamentary Secretaries. Again I come back to the Ministry of Supply Act, which has a special Subsection dealing with the matter:

"The Minister may appoint a parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Supply."

—only one. This Bill does not even create the office of Parliamentary Secretary, so badly is it drafted. There are printed in italics certain words which are not yet strictly in the Bill as we have not passed the Financial Resolution. They are:

"There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament … to any parlialiamentary secretary appointed by the Minister an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds."

The Bill does not even create the office. It provides the salary for an office to be created by the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he becomes Minister. It is he who creates the office, not the House of Commons. The House of Commons authorises the salary of an office to be created by the Minister-Designate. It is a monstrous invasion of the rights of the House of Commons in controlling the appointment of Ministers. I do not think any Act of Parliament has ever contained a sentence so monstrous. It is contemplated that there shall be more than one of these people, for the Bill proceeds:

"Neither the Minister, nor any parliamentary secretary appointed by the Minister"—

not appointed by the Crown, not approved of by the Crown, created by him and not by Parliament—

"shall by reason of his office as such be incapable of being elected as a member of the Commons House of Parliament or of sitting or voting as such a member, but only one such parliamentary secretary shall sit as a Member of that House."

That is the only restriction. In days gone by we have often seen the spectacle of a portly gentleman walking up from the Bar supported by the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, and, as a rule, another portly gentleman. The first portly gentleman being a retired trade union official who has become useless for his job and has a pension, has been elected to this House. I am not reflecting on anyone now present, I am dealing with the past.

Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed even more portly gentlemen who were Members of other parties?

The outstanding characteristic of new Conservative Members is their youth and not their antiquity. The gentlemen of Whom I speak come in when they are quite useless, and take the oath and sign the book, and you, Mr. Speaker, with your customary courtesy, welcome them and they retire to the place dawn-stairs which looks like a Turkish bath, and which is the lower smoking room, from which they emerge only when the Division bell rings.

May I ask you, Sir, what relevance this has to the Amendment or to the Bill?

On Second Reading one is allowed to go pretty wide. The hon. Member, however, does seem to me to be going very wide.

Will it be in Order for hon. Members to defend people who have been maligned and insulted?

The hon. Gentleman has made statements which reflect not merely on individuals but on the conduct of a party. May I ask you, Sir, now that the statement has been made, if in common courtesy you will allow a right of reply?

It is always the case when a statement of that kind is made, that a reply is allowed.

Perhaps we can get a new edition of "Guilty Men" published. I am pointing out that the Bill will have the merit of bringing the process to an end. I cannot understand why a party which has risen to fame by its vigorous denunciation of others is so sensitive to a little leg pulling. Of course in future they will not have to do this when a trade union has decided that its president or secretary has reached the pensionable age. They will be made peers, and will be appointed Parliamentary Secretaries under this Bill, and they will get£1,500 a year without doing any work. It is an interesting possibility. We sometimes insert provisions into a Bill to prevent things that may happen, though not because we think they are likely to happen. When we say the Lord's Prayer we ask not to be led into temptation. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be led into temptation. We do not know what he might do if he was.

Then we come to the important constitutional issue of Parliament and Orders in Council. The Deputy Prime Minister took up an extraordinary attitude. He said that we, the elected representatives of the people, ought to have no power whatsoever about this matter. The document is placed in the Journal Office, which is the formal act of laying it, and we get copies in the Library and in the Vote Office, and that is all there is for Parliament. I am not very comfortable about the way in which Government Departments put things on the Table, and in the Vote Office. We all remember what happened to the Home Secretary last July. The Home Office had forgotten to lay 21 Orders in Council, so careless have officials become of the respect due to Parliament. They beat the record the other day. I have a Question about it down for Tuesday, I think. On 27th June, 1935, the late Mr. Blindell and the present Minister of Pensions signed an Order in Council, called the Pensions Injury Warrant, and it arrived in the Library of the House of Commons on 2nd November in this present year of grace.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot anticipate the answer he will get to his Question, but I can inform him, without any qualification, that he will be completely crushed when he gets my answer.

Since his promotion my right hon. Friend has become rather fierce, but I observe that the Stationery Office, according to mystic symbols at the bottom of the document, did not print it until November of this year. It is dated 1944. My right hon. Friend may have a marvellous explanation of why a Statutory Rule and Order made in 1935 should have the date 1944 on it, but I think everyone will excuse me—

rose—

I apologise. I was led into temptation by the new Financial Secretary, who is a little enthusiastic about his new job. The Deputy Prime Minister said there was no need for the House of Commons to have any control over these Orders, because what is in them was really prescribed by the Bill. Is that necessarily the case? It is certainly to some extent the case under Clause 6, paragraphs (a) to (g), but there always arises the question whether the Order was made at the appropriate time, and that is surely a matter which can be discussed. The initiative as to when the Order is made Must lie with the Government, except in so far as Members, by asking Questions, press them to make an Order at a particular time. Suppose the judgment of the House about an Order for transferring

"any of the powers conferred or duties imposed on the Minister of Labour and National Service by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1940"

differs from that of the Government. It might very well be that at the time in question a serious unemployment situation existed and that a larger number of Members might desire that the powers should not be transferred but should continue to be held by the Minister of Labour. That, surely, is a debatable matter, one upon which the House ought to be entitled to express its opinion. So it is not merely a question of "what" powers shall be transferred but "when" that is of importance. Let me go on to Sub-section (3) of Clause 6, which says:

"His Majesty may also by Order in Council, to such extent as may appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient"

do certain things. There the scope of the Order is left to His Majesty's advisers and is not prescribed by the Act. And with what does that Sub-section deal? The constitution and functions of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking and his reply made it perfectly clear that he had not read or, having read, had not appreciated the significance of the interruption, because here we are altering both the membership and the functions of the Committee. Surely that is something on which the House, as representing the insured people, is entitled to say its word.

Then may I point out that under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of Clause 6 the Order in Council may

"repeal, modify or adapt."

This is extraordinary language. Here is an Order in Council which not merely gives effect to powers under the Act but might amend the Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think the Government of the day are entitled to change existing enactments without this House having an opportunity to say a word? I do not think those words ought to be inserted there. If we want to "repeal, modify or adapt" any enactment the proper way to do so is by a Bill and not by an Order in Council.

I know that in the Emergency Powers Act we conferred that power during wartime. I have always doubted whether it was a wise thing to do, but we all remember the history of that Act. We saw it at about nine o'clock in the evening of 24th August, 1939, and it received the Royal Assent at midnight. I agree that those words are in that Act, but I do not think they ought to be in our ordinary legislation, because it is a monstrous invasion of the rights of Parliament to confer upon the Executive the power to make legislation. This is not varying the details of something that has already been authorised; this is repealing, modifying or adapting an enactment. I feel certain that in Committee a very large number of Members will demand that there shall be inserted in the Bill a provision for an affirmative Resolution or Prayer—for the moment I think a Prayer will meet the case—so that the House shall retain effective control over the Executive.

The real truth of the matter is that the tyranny of Government is becoming too great in this country. The powers of the Executive, to use the old phrase, "have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished." The sole justification of Parliament in the old days was to control the power of the Monarchy; to-day it is control over the Monarch's advisers. With regard to the last part of my Amendment, I am willing to admit that in the technical sense it is wrong—Bills are brought forward in haste and we have. not as much time to study them as we should like, and it is not the case that the Minister would be debarred from sitting—but from the constitutional point of view I am not wrong. The account which the Deputy Prime Minister gave of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, was very incomplete. If hon. Members look at Section 9 of that Act they will see that it says:

"The number of persons entitled to sit and vote in that House while they are Ministers of the Crown named in Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act shall not exceed fifteen."

Then in Part 11 and Part 111 there are added:

"the Lord President of the Council,"

who may be in another place,

"the Lord Privy Seal,"

who may be in another place,

"the Postmaster-General, the First Commissioner of Works and the Minister of Pensions."

The object of Part 1 was not merely to provide that the other place should have its quota of Ministers, but to provide that this House should not be overwhelmed by the number of Ministers, and that is becoming a real danger. The other day the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked how many Ministers there are now as compared with 1939. The increase is very large. We have recently created, including this Bill, at least five new Ministers. For Town and Country Planning there are two. In the case of Civil Aviation, it is true that the present Minister is in another place, but he is a new Minister and at any future time a Minister for Civil Aviation may be sitting here. That is two more. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Ministry of Home Security."] That is a war-time Ministry and I am dealing with permanent Ministries. We have created five new permanent Ministers. I hear an hon. Member near me reminding me that there is also the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in regard to which there was an increase of two Ministers: there are three Ministers, but there was one before, who was Secretary for the Mines Department. When we add up all the Ministers, all the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and all the young Tories who hope to be Ministers we get nearly half the House. It really is a danger.

We all know the immense influence of patronage; how people who disagree with something, nevertheless go into the Lobby to vote for it, because they do not wish to offend the Whips or the Minister, or hope to get a free trip to the United States, or a peerage or baronetcy, or something like that. The power of Government is colossal; indeed, the benches are so crowded that some of the Ministers have to sit over here. I call them the "straddle-bugs", the Ministers who sit on both sides; and they draw salaries for it. The Deputy Chief Whip nearly always sits here. Occasionally he goes over to the other side to join his colleagues when he is feeling lonely. The one most recently appointed sits on both sides of this House. That conceals the numbers which now exist, because we cannot count them, as we do not see them all in the same place at the same time. I think we must impose some check upon the number of Ministers; it is a major constitutional issue; and though I agree that I slipped up in the drafting of my Amendment, I am not in the least sorry that I did so, because it has enabled me to draw attention to what I regard as a major constitutional matter—patronage, jobs.

Many years ago a Bill was introduced to abolish sinecures. We read in the novels of 150 years ago how the great thing was to get Billy a job in the Excise or something, where he got a good salary and did a bit of black market work in addition. I think any Conservative would pay a great tribute to Mr. Gladstone, who, more than anyone else perhaps, swept away those abuses. Now they are coming in again in a new form. I hope that at a very early date the Government will introduce a Measure to amend the Ministers of the Crown Act so as to lay it down that not more than a certain number of Ministers shall be permitted to sit in the House of Commons. Though it is customary now to treat with disrespect the Government which was presided over by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, at least when they introduced the Ministry of Supply Act, they realised that it would add one to the number of Ministers in the House of Commons and provided in that Measure that the list of 15 should be increased to 16. They realised the constitutional significance of the Ministers of the Crown Act, which the Deputy Prime Minister apparently does not. I hope this is the last time we shall have a Bill containing provisions of the kind which I have criticised this morning.

I think the House will appreciate the substance of a great deal of what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has said, although I thought he was unnecessarily offensive in certain of his references. I, as one who never offends in that respect, think that perhaps the hon. Member ought to have desisted. The difficulty about this Bill is that it both says too little and says too much. It is very hard to visualise the effect of certain provisions except against a background of the main Bill. One does not know what is meant by many of these references, and I would have preferred, as think the House would, the Ministry to he set up at the same time as the main Bill was brought before the House. There is no real need to have a Bill of this sort, if subsequently we are to have the main Bill, because it would have been possible to have the main Bill and the actual setting up of the Ministry undertaken simultaneously.

I find great difficulty in understanding what some of the Clauses of the Bill actually mean. For example, I notice, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, that the new Ministry is to have responsibility for the Assistance Board; in other words, the powers of the Assistance Board are to be transferred to the new Ministry. The words do not make it quite clear, indeed they have clearly the opposite sense, that the Ministry is to be directly responsible to the House of Commons for the functions of that Board. This is a very serious matter in a number of respects. Hon. Members will recall that the Act which set up the Assistance Board was a very comprehensive one. I remember taking part in the Debates upon it, in 1934 and 1935, and making quite an obscene number of speeches in opposition to it. The Bill was commended to us very largely on the ground that the Assistance Board was to be responsible for rehabilitation and general social welfare. I remember the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) defending the Bill against my opposition at that time largely on those grounds. We spent many months on those provisions. The fact is that they are a dead letter. They have never been operated. The Assistance Board has been merely a paying out agency all the time—yes, and a pay-resisting agency in many respects—and has never at any time used the powers which Parliament conferred upon it and which, in the first instance, commended the whole Measure to the House.

Why is that? The reason is very largely because the Assistance Board is not directly represented in the House of Commons. At that time we took strong constitutional exception to the idea of taking unemploy- ment out of politics. What happened was that the House of Commons ceased to have any effective responsibility for the welfare of poor people and of the unemployed generally. Had the Minister of Labour remained liable to answer day by day in the House of Commons for the discharge of the functions conferred upon the Board, the Assistance Board might long ago have been compelled, by Parliamentary pressure, to use the powers which we intended it to use. I hope that when we consider this matter it will be possible to make it clear that the Minister of Social Insurance will be responsible to the House of Commons for all the functions of the Board.

I am a little anxious about the extent to which, when we come to consider the main Bill, we shall be limited in discussing it by the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing. Certain Amendments which we may want to make to the main Bill may be ruled out of Order because we shall have limited ourselves in the first instance by the present Bill. That is my difficulty. We cannot at the moment visualise what many of these categories mean, because they will come to life and reality only in relation to the content of the main Bill itself; but we may find out, when we come to the main Bill, that we shall have hamstrung ourselves, prevented ourselves from considering this matter realistically and intelligently. We ought to consider that point.

May I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that a very large amount of the Bill is redundant? I agree that we ought to have a Minister armed with these powers, but the reason for that is not technical, it is political. The reason why I want a Minister of Social Insurance appointed now is because I want to have somebody inside the Cabinet fighting for this principle. My fear is that unless we have a Minister of Social Insurance we shall never get a Bill; we must have a man who has been appointed and whose job it is to jerk his colleagues into action and secure from them facilities for a Bill and subsequent Parliamentary time for considering it—to overcome. by the usual tug-of-war, the resistances inside the Cabinet. A Minister of Social Insurance is absolutely essential, but for political reasons only.

There is no reason why he should have all these powers for the drafting of his Bill. These are powers necessary for the administration of the Bill after it becomes an Act. They are not necessary for preparing the Bill in the first instance. Indeed, it means that all these powers will be enjoyed in their full panoply before ever the Bill is made. We are not to have the Bill for many months, perhaps for at least six months. If all these transfers have to take place, all these officers have to be considered and all these Departments have to be reorganised before we get the Bill, I am frightened when I think how long we shall have to wait for the Bill. Therefore, it is not necessary to do all those things in order to have the Bill; and if that is the case, why have them in this Bill at all? These are things that ought to be in the main Bill, when we shall he able to discuss them very much more intelligently and realistically.

Although I desire on this occasion to support the Government, and I do support the main principle of setting up a Ministry, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for most of the Bill. I would much prefer to have all these things considered as part of the texture of the main Bill. I do not think I am giving political secrets away, as probably it is known as much to hon. Members as to myself, but I understand that some of the Bills necessary have already been half made.

Half baked.

Many Bills are like that, but I hope these will emerge rather better done. I understand that they are in process of formation: If so, it is not necessary to have the present Bill in order to make them. I do not think we ought to get ourselves into trouble merely in order to have a Minister inside the Cabinet.

Does the hon. Member realise that Clause 6 gives the Minister an opportunity to serve his apprenticeship by running all the existing social services without bringing in a new Bill?

I was coming to Clause 6 in a moment or two. I understand that the lawyers like that sort of thing, but as a legislator I find it awfully hard to understand. We are asked to transfer a large number of existing powers to the Minister and then to give general powers to the Government to change any of the powers in the items; then why have the items? We could confer general powers of transfer by Orders, or particular powers of transfer by Orders, but when we put particular ones in and then add a general provision to add any other power, I get muddled. I can see the necessity of building up the Ministry slowly. This will be a very important Ministry and it will not mature for three or four years. Although it may be able to do its simplest job of paying out benefits and collecting contributions, very many of the other advantages which we hope will follow from it will depend largely upon its slowly dovetailing into its structure functions now discharged by other Departments. It will be necessary to consider the Ministry organically, because it will grow organically, once it is formed. This is where I join issue with the hon. Member for South Croydon on this business of Orders.

On a point of Order. We hear that the hon. Member is now going to make an attack upon the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who moved the Amendment which is now before the House. Is it not the case that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is seconding that Amendment?

The Amendment does not need seconding, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), sitting on the Front Bench as an ex-Minister, has the privilege to move Amendments without a Seconder.

I hope I have not been so unclear as to mislead the House about my point of view. I was about to take the hon. Member for South Croydon to task. If it is necessary, as I conceive it to be, that this new Ministry will slowly be assembling itself over the course of three or four years and detaching from other Departments certain functions and integrating them into itself, I do not see how that process can be accomplished except by Orders.

Certainly.

The powers must be transferred from one Ministry to another, but not by means of a Parliamentary Bill, which is much too cumbersome.

Hear, hear.

But I understood the hon. Member was—

I quite agree that the Order procedure is necessary, but I say that this House ought to have an opportunity of discussing Orders.

I agree with that and I am coming on to that point. Let us see how far we can agree. It can be done only by Orders.

Yes.

The next point is, How are those Orders to be considered? I have taken part on many occasions in Debates on this method of legislating by Order in such a fashion that we do not know what is happening. The main difficulty is that the Member of Parliament is overwhelmed by the deluge of Orders, and cannot follow them. I suggested two years ago—the suggestion was eventually taken up by the Tory Reform Committee without any acknowledgment—that we should have a Sessional Committee whose function should be to examine Orders, with a view to putting them into one of two main categories. One category would be Orders so important as to qualify for a positive Resolution by the House of Commons before they came into operation, and the other category, those in the nature of administrative Orders, of a lower rank, which could be made the subject of a Prayer if any hon. Members wished to move one. That Committee is in existence, and is most valuable. I should have thought this was precisely the sort of job the Committee ought to be doing.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon. The language of the Bill in this case is exceedingly wide.

"may repeal, modify, or adapt any enactment."

Any enactment, over the whole field of legislation, is open to be the subject of an Order. That is very wide indeed.

I do not think it will go quite as far as that, without qualification.

The language here is very wide language indeed. If it is qualified in any way, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will state the qualification or limitation when he replies. The language is exceedingly wide, and I am not certain whether it is not too wide. Anyhow, it seems to me that the House ought to have the protection of that Committee in preventing the Government from doing anything other than what is absolutely essential in order to bring the Ministry into full exercise of its powers. Therefore, I commend the Bill because of the principle of setting up a Ministry, but I still doubt whether it is necessary to have so full a Bill ahead of the main legislation.

May I preface my remarks by explaining that when, last week, we were debating the main White Paper proposals, I put my name underneath that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) to a reasoned Amendment, believing that we ought to know a great deal more than we do about the country's post-war financial and trade position, and that the nation in general, and the Servicemen in particular, should have the opportunity of being consulted at the polls before their friendly societies are overridden and a heavy burden of triple taxation is laid upon them. The House showed itself to be almost unanimously of the contrary opinion. It therefore seems to me that the proper function for a Member in a small minority is to make every effort to make the scheme workable, while preserving, as far as we can, the maximum of individual freedom and the minimum of State control. I approach this Measure from that angle. For it was none other than the Prime Minister who said, in his famous broadcast of 21st March, 1943, which is frequently quoted nowadays:

"Of all races in the world, our people would be the last to be governed by a bureaucracy. Freedom is their lifeblood."

Unhappily, the Government have chosen the bureaucratic path in this matter. Here we are setting up yet another Ministry. Only the other day I listened with approval to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) complaining about the multiplicity of Ministries. Yet here we are setting up another, presumably with a staff running into thousands. The Deputy Prime Minister was not very clear on that point this morning, and I shall be glad if the Minister who replies will tell us to what extent additional staff is required, apart from those taken over from other Ministries, I would also like to know the estimated cost, because it is still our duty in the House of Commons to look into that, although it is frequently forgotten. Here we are creating probably thousands of new bureaucrats, and it will be necessary for them to be paid and housed. Whether the cost be large or small, we as representatives of the taxpayers are entitled to ask the question, How much?

Clause 1 of the Bill sets up a merger, The new Ministry is to take over various functions, such as widows' and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and so on. If we are going to do it this way, a merger, of course, is necessary, but I would like to add a word of support to what was put forward by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), with whom I rarely find myself in agreement, when he said that it would make sense in due course if the new Ministry also took over the work of the Ministry of Pensions. Obviously, that cannot be done during the war, but I think it will become practicable after the war. I mention it for another reason. I want to place it on record, in the hope that it may be of some possible value to the economy committee, which some future Government will undoubtedly have to set up when our financial situation becomes revealed in its stark reality after the war. So much for the Ministry.

May I say a word about the Minister? I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister-Designate for being in his place, because I gave him notice that I had a few remarks to make about him. We are proposing to appoint a Minister of Social Insurance who is to be paid at the current trade union rate of£5,000 per annum, which appears to me to achieve a reasonable subsistence level and to be sufficient to secure freedom from want. The Parliamentary Secretary or Secretaries have to rub along on£1,500. These are the current rates. I think that in this matter the Government have missed a tremendous opportunity. To my mind, there is only one man for this job—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge). After all, the Government are adopting his proposals practically in toto. He has lived with this problem for the past four years. He has been studying unemployment and insurance matters for a much longer period. He knows all the answers, and an even mere potent reason for putting him into the Government is that he knows all the questions as well. Why not follow the technique so successfully followed in 1942, when the most dangerous potential critic of the Government returned from Moscow, was absorbed into the administration and has been safely tucked away for the past two years at the Ministry of Aircraft Production? One is inclined to lament with the late Lord Tennyson:

"But O for the touch of a vanished hand, And the sound of a voice that is still!"

Why not bring into the Government the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as the Minister of Social Insurance, thus at once obtaining an expert administrator and silencing a potential critic? If all goes well, who is more entitled to wear the laurel wreath than the hon. Member, and if all goes ill, who is more entitled to stand in the pillory?

Now I come to the Minister-Designate. Let us not turn up our noses at what we have got. The right hon. Gentleman is also a learned Gentleman, and there will be many a legal tangle arising out of the social insurance scheme. But he has a far greater qualification than that. He brings to his tasks a far wider field of political experience than is vouchsafed to hon. Members who have thought it proper to remain faithful to one party in their public life.

What about the Prime Minister?

I anticipated that interjection.

On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in the Bill, and whether, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member's remarks are in Order?

I was just about to remove my rug and rise. The hon. and gallant Member's remarks seem to me to be quite irrelevant to the Bill. The question of the individual concerned is not very relevant to the Second Reading discussion.

May I put it to you, Sir, that the name of the Minister-Designate has been published by the Government and we are authorising his appointment by this Bill?

The Minister-Designate might unfortunately die to-night and so another would become the Minister.

No one would regret that more than me, and I would like him to go to a better place with my words ringing in his ears. If I am not entitled to comment on the appointment, I must apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for taking up his time by asking him to be present. Whatever Minister may take up this office, it will be a good thing to have one who has had experience of more than one political party. If we could select as Minister of Social Insurance one who was returned to the House as a follower of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), one who was schooled in the beginnings of social insurance; if such a man could be available and if he combined with that quality that of having taken a stroll down the road to Damascus in 1929, having seen the light and found that not Liberalism but Socialism was the true faith; if he could have held office as a Law Officer in the Socialist Government and by that means come face to face with the grim unemployment problem, remembering that for every minute that Government were in office somebody was added to the melancholy roll of the unemployed; and if, having had that experience, he was one who in 1931 jumped just in time into the National Government lifeboat—

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you, Sir, have been listening to the last few remarks, but it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member is disobeying your Ruling by subtle means.

Is not the hon. and gallant Member merely setting out the qualifications that are necessary in the Minister?

I am afraid that I was not listening at the moment.

I am drawing to a conclusion. My list of qualifications is almost complete. I would ask for one who has travelled life's road somewhat on those lines and who, in 1931, had the further experience in the National Government of one who, like a sort of inverted Casabianca, fled the burning deck upon which his comrades re- mained standing. Having made these remarks as to the type of Minister one would like to see, I will draw to a conclusion with a final regret that the Government have chosen officialdom in preference to making use of the existing machinery of friendly and approved societies. I hope that they may yet stroll along the banks of the Tweed, where they will find the right man for the job.

I want to deal with a point which touches the people for whom I am responsible in this House and to whom I owe a special duty. I hope that I may be allowed to make a reference to the speeches of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). Unlike the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I do not think this is by any means a premature Bill. Anyone who knows anything about public administration will recognise that the creation of this new Ministry is a very big task. It involves ripping pieces out of other Ministries and bringing them together, and transferring staff on a large scale from one district to another. I should feel much more confident of the prospects of seeing the Beveridge scheme in operation if this Ministry were rapidly created than I should be otherwise. For that reason, I heartily support the general purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Croydon took the view that this Bill would increase the number of placemen in this House. I must say that I share his dislike for the immense increase in the number of placemen in the House during the course of this century. We have now reached a stage when something like one half of the Members of the House are either directly or indirectly in the pay of, or under the influence of, die Government, and that is a very grave situation. It prevents decisions on merit, it determines decision of the House in advance, and they are influenced by patronage, exercised on a very wide scale.

My difficulty is that if we are to do anything about that matter we must do it, not on this Bill, which proposes the creation of a Ministry, but on a Motion similar to that moved some 60 years ago, to the effect that at no time ought the total number of Ministers in this House to exceed a certain number. If ever we get a Motion of that kind before the House I shall join with the hon. Member for South Croydon in very hearty support of it, but I do not see how we can deal with that issue now. The hon. Member had some very unpleasant things to say about retired trade unionists on this side of the House. There may sometimes have been justification for such a criticism, but the hon. Member ought not to make that criticism, for if there is any party in the House to which that criticism applies with greater force, it is the party to which he himself belongs. Perhaps it would be wiser for him not to inject that element into the discussion of this Bill.

The particular point I wish to raise concerns paragraph (3) on page 2 of the Bill, which says:

"The Minister may appoint such other secretaries and. such officers and servants as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine and there shall be paid to the secretaries, officers and servants so appointed such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine."

I do not know whether the House realises in detail what is involved here. I have already mentioned that under this Bill the new Minister will have to draw away sections of a number of existing Departments, and I have no doubt that the people he does so draw away will form a nucleus of his new Ministry of Social Insurance. That is as it should be, because he has a big pool of trained public servants on which to draw. I raised the other day in the discussion of the main proposals the question of the staff of the approved societies. I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an assurance, for which I was very grateful, that either he would try to accommodate them in the new Ministry to the extent it might be possible or, to the extent it was not, he accepted the broad principle of compensation for loss of office. In so far as he uses the principle of compensation these men will pass out of our ken and need not be considered to-day, but to the extent that he draws on that field he must relate his drawing from it to his drawing from the existing field of the public service.

It is very important that that double draw upon different fields should be corelated. I am not at all sure that we are to get that result. I know, for example, that discussions are proceeding with the Treasury, which is one of the authorities here, in regard to the transfer of staff from existing Ministries to the new Ministry. I can see the possibility of approaches being made from the staffs of the approved societies to the Minister-Designate. I will accept that as likely to be the case. I want to know at what point and through what Orders those two lines of approach are to be brought together and co-ordinated to the best advantage, from the point of view of the new Ministry. It is an important point, and I will be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies at the end of the day, will tell us as much as possible on that point.

I join with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in his plea for consideration from the Government for the officers who are to be transferred to the new Ministry. I would be happier still if I felt that so far as friendly and approved societies were concerned that necessity would not arise. One of the reasons I object to the general scheme is the transference of the powers and functions at present fulfilled by these two forms of societies. I think the Government have been quite wise, contrary to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, in introducing this Bill first, that is to say, in setting up the Ministry and arranging that the Department concerned can start fairly soon, because on the whole it is a wiser procedure than waiting and then putting the whole scheme into operation.

It will not have escaped the attention of the House that in calling a count the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) was perhaps relating his action today to what happened yesterday. Not for the first time he has exposed to the House something of a character which we all expect.

To return to the subject of this Debate, I would like to say how much I agree with various hon. Members who have spoken, who have voiced their misgiving on the subject of too many new Ministries being set up. In this particular case it is obviously necessary to have one Ministry, and perhaps a new Ministry, responsible for national insurance. But none the less I think that on every occasion when Parliament is invited to set up a new Ministry we should examine the proposal very closely before by our votes, or by silent assent, we accord the power which the Government desire us to give them. I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in suggesting that this Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading. I think it undoubtedly ought, though there are certain aspects of it which I think are highly undesirable, to one or two of which the hon. Member for South Croydon has drawn attention in his Amendment. It may be a minor matter, but it seems rather wrong that this Bill should give the power to His Majesty to appoint another Minister, but apparently no power to dismiss him, I feel we ought to be extremely jealous of any infringements of the Royal Prerogative, which in these modern days is generally an infringement on the part of the Executive, and we ought to watch them rather carefully. This form of words, it seems to me, is not suitable, and the fact that a precedent has been created in favour of it is no strong argument why it should continue so to be used.

I come to what to my mind is a rather important matter. The reason we are asked to appoint a Minister instead of leaving it in the ordinary way to the King's Prerogative, is, I understand, that if a Minister is to be appointed he has presumably to be paid, and Parliament, being the custodian of the public purse, has to be asked whether it is willing for a new Minister to be appointed. Similarly, when we come to the question of Under-Secretaries, Parliament has to be invited to endorse or approve their appointment. I agree with previous speakers that it is absolutely wrong that we should be invited in this Bill to give the carte blanche to the Government or the Minister concerned to appoint as many Parliamentary Under-Secretaries as they like. That may be common form, but I can see no conceivable reason on the face of it why more than one Parliamentary Under-Secretary should be necessary for a Ministry of this kind. I very much hope that between now and the Committee stage the Government will think over this form of words again, and see if they cannot accept the Amendment which will certainly be moved to limit the number of Under-Secretaries to one, or possibly two at the utmost, certainly not more.

I come to the main reason I had in trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. It is to my mind a very serious infringement of the rights and proper functions of this House to put into this Bill, an extremely important Bill, the right of the Executive to make Orders in Council without corning to this House to give us an opportunity to pray against them. These Orders in Council cannot be discussed in this House at all. It seems to me a very serious infringement of the rights of Parliament. I should not so much object, though I should object to a certain degree, if the matters on which these Orders were to be made were of minor importance. They are not. Let me take a simple case. If the Assistance Board was to be taken over, are we to understand that Parliament would have no say in such a matter? Another very important aspect is that under Clause 6 the Minister is to take over a large number of functions which are at present administered by other Ministers, but it only gives him power to do so, and does not say that he has to do so. It seems to me that Parliament might at any moment very much object to his taking over various of these functions.

On the point about the Assistance Board. Is it not a fact that we shall have to deal with the question of whether the Assistance Board is to be taken over or not by the Minister in the Bill that is introduced, and that that Measure will determine the functions, not the powers given under this Bill? The question of the intentions of the Government about assistance will have to be defined in the general social security Measure.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I am inclined to think that he is right but it certainly is not clear in this Bill whether that is to be so or not.

On a point of Order I must protest. I think it is disgraceful that there are only 15 Members here during the discussion of this important Bill, and I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is not even a quorum present.

I satisfied myself that there was a quorum a few minutes ago, and it is now just a Quarter past One; so we cannot have another count.

According to the rules and regulations I am aware it is within your discretion, Sir, not to call a second count provided you have recently satisfied yourself about the numbers present. I have looked up precedents on this matter and I should like to draw your attention to the latest reference in Erskine May. On 25th February, 1887, which is the last reference on the question of how long is "recently," Mr. Speaker allowed two counts within three minutes, and after two minutes a third was disallowed, on the ground that he had recently satisfied himself that there was a quorum present. If we go by precedents at all, I suggest that considerably more than three minutes have gone by since the last count and therefore a second should be allowed.

I have satisfied myself that there is a quorum present. It may have been more than three minutes ago, but I do not think that the House should be unnecessarily counted in this way. In any case I feel sure that there are further precedents, and the Speaker has refused to have a second count within a few minutes of the first.

As the hon. and gallant Member has called attention to the performance of their duties by hon. Members of this House, may I point out that since the last Recess, I have not noticed the hon. and gallant Member in his place more than a few times?

If you are going to allow remarks like that, Sir, I would like to state that the reason the hon. Member has not seen me is that he has so rarely been here.

We will leave that subject now.

"The Children's Hour."

I have noticed that hon. Members who are rarely here, have often called attention, when they happened to be here, to the fact that there were very few Members present except themselves.

A serious principle has arisen. I desire to discuss that. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that Strangers are present?

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

The House proceeded to a Division, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the "Ayes," Mr. SPEAKER declared that the "Noes" had it.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

I was under the impression that it was important, in the discussion of a serious Bill like this, that we should give it our most careful attention but, unhappily, it has been rather difficult to do so during the last few minutes. I was discussing the right, which the Government seek to take under this Bill, of doing a number of very important things by Orders in Council, which Orders will not come before the House at all for confirmation or for objection. We cannot discuss in this House various matters of immense importance to many millions of people. In addition to those broad objections that I have mentioned, I would like to call attention to the recurrence in its old form of the Henry VIII Clause, which gives power to the Government to repeal, modify, or adapt any enactment, Order in Council, and so on. Under this Bill the Government, if they wish, without coming to the House at all, can repeal any part, or indeed the whole, of a previous Act of Parliament. That, again, seems to me highly undesirable. Such matters ought to be discussed in this House, and the Commons House of Parliament should not have its power filched from it.

On this point, I would like to call attention to Clause 6, Sub-section (6), which gives power to the Government, again by Order in Council, to vary or revoke by subsequent Orders earlier Orders that they may have made. I think that that is extremely important. Suppose that the Minister of the Crown who holds the position of Minister of Social Insurance is so incompetent in his earlier actions, in issuing Orders in Council and in taking over very important functions, that he finds that he has made a mess of it, and then he wants the Orders to be invalidated. He does not come to the House of Commons at all. The House of Commons is totally debarred from saying what it thinks of the Government of the day, and of their incompetence. This means that, under this Bill, the Government of the day can do anything, within a certain specified area, without consulting the House of Commons. That is an extremely dangerous thing, and I do not think the House ought to part with this Bill, before it goes to another place, without seeing that in those particulars it is very stringently amended.

It is no good, I am afraid, suggesting that the Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, of which I happen to be a member, should watch these Orders in Council, which are going to be brought out, because they would be ultra vires. They are presented to Parliament, but it is extremely doubtful, as there is no power of the House to amend or reject them, whether that Committee could or should draw the attention of the House to them. Even if they did, it would be quite useless, because Parliament could not do anything. For those reasons, although I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member who sits for South Croydon, who suggested that we should treat this Bill as a bad cheque and send it back, I think that, before we part with the Bill, we should look with great care into the whole of the questions which have been raised about the arbitrary powers that have been given to His Majesty's Government. I see the reason for the Bill, and, indeed, I think it is necessary, but very serious Amendments ought to be made before we allow it to go to another place.

Before I come to the points in this Amendment with which the House would want me to deal, may I run through, very quickly and very briefly, the other points which have been raised, and indicate that they will receive the close attention of His Majesty's Government? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made two points with regard to the proposals. First, he expressed his anxiety for a clearer and closer co-ordination between the Ministry of Social Insurance and the other Departments which would be engaged in working, for example, the rehabilitation proposals. It is our earnest desire that that co-operation and co-ordination should take place. But I suggest that this Bill is not the appropriate moment for that to be put into form. With regard to speed—his second point—everyone who has spoken on this subject from this Box had indicated the desire of the Government to move with all possible rapidity in this direction. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made two points. He breathed a sigh of regret about the wrenching of the insurance provisions from the Ministry of Health, but he recognised the necessity of the Ministry of Social Insurance being there and being able to function. With regard to the other points, he was good enough to say that it was really a matter which should be considered hereafter. He referred to the question of devolution and regional functioning. I can give him the assurance that what he said will receive the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, and that the importance of the point is agreed.

Can my hon. and learned Friend elucidate a little more fully the provision as to health benefit insurance? I am not quite clear about it, and I think that the House is not clear either.

Let me put it quite broadly to my right hon. and gallant Friend as I understand it. The benefits which are medical benefits are the benefits of a service. They are the provisions of the National Health Service, for which the Minister of Health will continue to be responsible, and which must lie within his purview. What is being transferred under the Bill, and it is set out quite clearly in Clause 6, are the powers and duties with regard to the administration and payment of various pensions and insurance benefits which, at the moment, are given to the Ministry of Health. As I understand it—I hope I have appreciated what my right hon. and gallant Friend had in mind—it was the exception to Clause 4, Subsection (1) (a), which relates to the administration of medical benefits, which was the point he had in mind. That, as I appreciate and understand the matter, refers to this provision of services, as I have explained.

May I take it that, roughly speaking, services in kind come under the Ministry of Health and services in cash are transferred to the Ministry of Social Insurance?

Yes.

Does that apply to children's allowances as well?

Children's allowances are rather a different point. My right hon. Friend is dealing with the medical services under the National Health Service, and, in order to provide that, the Ministry of Health must keep the control and administration of the medical services that I have mentioned. I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind regarding children's allowances.

I was following on the distinction between services in cash and in kind.

My hon. Friend can broadly take it that children's allowances will come under the new Minister. What he has in mind, I imagine, are the functions of the Board of Education and the way in which they will be coordinated, but I would like to look into that and get the exact information for my hon. Friend, if he so desires.

Do I take it that this Ministry is concerned solely with the paying out of money? The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised very pointedly the question of the Assistance Board. Some of us hoped in 1934 that it would do creative work, but, as a matter of fact, it does not, and has only a paying-out function. It looks as if all this new Ministry will have is a paying-out function.

I cannot, of course, go into detail. There will obviously be legislation dealing with children's allowances, and this matter is being fully considered at the present time. But I rather deprecate the idea that this Ministry will only be concerned with payments out, because, as I said yesterday with regard to Part II and I do not want to repeat it, I envisage that this Ministry will be engaged continuously in trying to co-ordinate the services that are provided by other Ministries with the information and experience which this Ministry gains in its work. I should not like the otherwise helpful interjection of my hon. Friend to give the impression that this Ministry is merely a paying-out machinery.

If I may interrupt once more, I am wondering why the White Paper says that when the scheme is in operation the position will be reviewed. We remember that, in February, 1943, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were convinced that this Ministry was not necessary. This is a conversion, but is it a complete conversion?

I do not know if my hon. Friend heard the Lord President of the Council introduce this Bill, but though it is difficult to pick up every point, if he reads again the words with which my right hon. Friend introduced it, I do not think he need have any fear on the score which he has mentioned. My hon Friend who has asked these questions has mentioned one point which has exercised other hon. Members, the question of the Assistance Board. At present, under a decision of some ten years ago, the Minister of Labour is responsible only for general directions to the Unemployment Insurance Board, and it is responsible for particular cases. I want to make it quite clear that this Bill makes no change in that position. It is simply a transfer of existing functions, and it is not within the terms, which I know are rather shortly expressed by reference to other Acts. It is simply transferring the existing position to the Ministry of Social Insurance. I do not think it would be in order for me to discuss the desirability of that at length at this moment, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling as to this being a machinery Bill.

That brings me to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). My hon. Friend makes four points, and he bases himself largely on the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, which I have beside me here. The first point is the omission of the words "during His Majesty's pleasure." The House may take it that, if there is one thing that is perfectly clear, it is that any servant of His Majesty only holds his office at the pleasure of His Majesty and is, in the absence of statutory words, liable to dismissal.

That has been laid down by the Courts many times.

It is a principle, and I hate to think how long it goes back in our law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to put in a provision of this kind—"during His Majesty's pleasure." It was put in on some occasions a few years ago, but it was thought that it was unnecessary to repeat the insertion. There is no doubt about that position, and, in fact, I should have put the argument the other way to that used by the hon. Member for South Croydon. He suggests that the omission of these words is an inroad on the Royal Prerogative. I submit that their insertion is, if anything, an inroad on the Royal Prerogative, because they seem to doubt the principle that His Majesty can dispense with any of his servants. My hon. Friend's second point was that this Bill provides for an indefinite number of Parliamentary Secretaries. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the precedents. Let me put, it on the ground of the realities of the situation. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that only one such Parliamentary Secretary shall sit as a Member of this House. That leaves the possibility of a Parliamentary Secretary being appointed who would sit in another place. This House has its answer to that, in that it could, if it disliked that idea, refuse to vote his salary. Really, when we come to the realities, and knowing what the possibilities are, I suggest that that point goes.

Now we come, if I may say so without disrespect to the hon. Member for South Croydon, to a more serious point, to which the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has referred, about Orders in Council. The control of the House over all subsidiary legislation, and, indeed, over Ministerial action, is a vital part of our constitution, and one which we all value, but the position here is that there is a transfer of powers. This House, by passing the Second Reading, is approving of the general principle of the transfer of powers. It is, then, a matter for the Government during what period and at what time these powers will be transferred. I do, however, join issue—I very seldom do on points of procedure—with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth when he says that the provisions of the Orders in Council cannot be debated in this House. Is not the real point this—that a Prayer cannot be moved, but that any hon. Member can put down a motion with regard to the Order in Council, though his real difficulty—I am trying to face realities—would be in getting Parliamentary time. He would have to go through the usual channels in order to get Parliamentary time, and I agree that, in substance, that might be a difficult matter. But I put it absolutely positively to the House that, if there were a sufficient body of opinion against the timing of the transfer of any of these powers, and a sufficient number of names to the Motion, hon. Members could get the time and Parliamentary action could be taken.

May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend on that point? The argument which he is using in favour of not making these Orders subject to a Prayer could be used with regard to all forms of delegated legislation. If his argument is that every single piece of delegated legislation could be dealt with in this way, it need never come before the House at all.

I take it that my hon. Friend agrees that, as a mere matter of procedure, my argument is right. I cannot see any answer to it, and nobody has suggested that there is one. If I may try to meet his point, I would say it is a perfectly fair argument, but my answer to it is that this is merely the putting into force of specific powers laid out in the Bill, the transfer of which has been approved by the House, and that, as regards the timing of the transfers, it is really an administrative matter which can be left to those essential powers of the House that I have mentioned, and does not need the special requirement of an affirmative or negative Resolution. That is the answer to that point. I am very glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has come back.

I apologise.

My hon. Friend will understand that I had to go on to deal with his points. Both my hon. Friends raised the portly ghost of his late Majesty, King Henry VIII, and regretted the provisions of Clause 6, Subsection (4, a). I should like my hon. Friends to consider the introductory words to Sub-section (4):

"His Majesty may by Order in Council make such incidental consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any provision included in an Order in Council by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision"—

which is what I have just read—

"any such Order in Council may."

"Such Order in Council" refers to the Order in Council dealing with the incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions, and these are, therefore, limited to provisions which are either incidental or consequential or are necessary to an Order in Council making the transfer. It is only for that limited purpose that the power to repeal, modify or adapt an enactment may be brought into force. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon does not think that I am going to burke the point. He has in mind that in regard to an Order in Council the courts do not interfere and they cannot say as to whether it is incidental, consequential or supplemental. I should like to tell my hon. Friend that during five years and a quarter there is no example of the House reproving the Minister for overstepping vires. I put this for his consideration. I do not think that when we are limited to incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions there can be a very formidable inroad into the privileges of the House, and what we are really doing—and my hon. Friend discussed this matter on the Works and Planning Bill some time ago—is the task of tidying up the stray ends. I ask my hon. Friend to consider this because it is an important matter. If it is limited to tidying up stray ends, it is going to save an enormous amount of the time of this House and increase its ability to produce the legislation that the country wants.

One of the difficulties I have in mind—and I do not think I emphasised the point properly in my speech—relates, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, to Sub-section (1) of Clause 6. It is not a proposal that all the powers are to be transferred, but that any of the powers can be transferred, which means that executively the Government can select which powers to transfer. In the partial transfer of powers all sorts of difficulties will arise. The transfer of some powers of the Ministry of Health to the new Ministry and some powers from the Ministry of Labour to the new Ministry means doing all sorts of things of a legislative nature in repealing or modifying an Act. It is that which worries me.

I have considered the point my hon. Friend has put, but I find it very difficult to envisage the state of mind of one who, having approved of the transfer of the powers, thinks that it requires separate legislation, with all the time that that involves, to deal with the timing of the transfers of the powers, whether taken together or separately. However, my hon. Friend has made his point and I have given him my answer with regard to timing. I do not know whether he heard it all, but I know that he will consider that point, and there will be another opportunity for considering the matter if he is not satisfied.

We are very near the end of the Session and I understand that His Majesty's Government want to get the Bill through. There have been a large number of Amendments already tabled. Some of them the Government might decide to accept but I hope that they are not going to say on Tuesday, "We would accept this, but we want the words altered." If they are going to accept our Amendments I hope that they will let us know about any difficulties in drafting—I know that this is an unusual request—so that the Amendments can be put on the Order Paper in proper form.

My hon. Friend's point will be duly noted and considered. That leaves only one point in his Amendment and that is that, if a new Ministry is created it ought to be put in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. We have during the war been compelled to have many war-time Ministries. They have been accepted by this House, and whether my hon. Friend agrees with them all or not, he loyally accepts them in that sense. We have now to set up certain Ministries, looking to the post-war period. If my hon. Friend will go through a difficult course, starting with the Ministers of the Crown Act and coming on to the Emergency Powers Act during war and various Defence Regulations, he will find that the clear-cut conception of the Act of 1937 has gone. I ask him to consider—I do not reject his view and I shall consider it, and I know that he will consider what is put to him—whether the appropriate time to amend the Schedule and bring it up-to-date is not at the end of the war, when the war-time Ministries disappear. That is the answer to the real point which he desired to make.

Do I understand that when my hon. and learned Friend says that war-time Ministries will disappear he is announcing a statement of Government policy or his own aspirations?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for not leading me to the edge of the hideous cliff. Obviously, certain Ministries which have been created for war-time purposes will, in the nature of things, go and I am not making any announcement as to what Ministry will go.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any inside information?

I am afraid I cannot pursue that fascinating subject any further. I want to say one or two words with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I think that in the end his speech came to this. "I do want a Minister to fight for these schemes but I do not think the Minister needs all these powers at the moment." I agree with him heartily that we do want the Minister, and as far as the Minister-Designate is concerned—and I am sure this would apply to anyone who would be Minister—his desire would be to get to work as soon as possible, to get these new powers as soon as he is ready to take them over and do the work. Therefore, on the premise that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale takes up, the logical answer is that suggested by the Government, that the powers should be taken for transfer by Order in Council as soon as they are ready. I do not want to spend time on the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) because Mr. Speaker ruled that his attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister-Designate was not in Order and, therefore, it would not be in Order for me either to defend my right hon. and learned Friend or even to comment on the taste of the attack made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman attack somebody?

I think that in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has asked and of what was said by Mr. Speaker earlier, when an attack is made some reply is permitted, I should be allowed to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has now worked for three years on the hard and ill-appreciated task of preparing for these problems coming into the light of discussion with a view to their being incorporated in Bills. His colleagues at least know what he has done and how he has worked. I leave the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on other matters to the appreciable fall in even to-day's cold temperature with which they were greeted by the House when they were made.

That leaves me with the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) made with regard to the question of staffs from both the Civil Service and from outside. At this stage all I can say is that my right hon. and learned Friend, on the 'assumption which perhaps he can make, will certainly give full attention to that point and consider it. I hope that my hon. Friend thinks that I have dealt sufficiently with the points he has raised. I think I have covered them all in dealing with the Amendment. I have tried to do so and to put the view of the Government on these points. After that consideration of the very interesting points raised in this Debate, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

The House need not be afraid that I am going to embark on a discussion of this Measure. I really came here this morning thinking that I might find something upon which to criticise the Government, but after hearing almost every speech I find myself once more in a way in entire agreement with the proposals of the Government. May I say to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that as one who believes in Parliament and takes some interest in Parliamentary procedure, I appreciate a good deal of what he does. One does not need to agree with him in regard to Orders in Council and all that, but one does agree with him in his watchfulness over certain particular matters. Might I ask him, on the next occasion when he goes for my Labour colleagues, to choose a better opportunity so that we can reply in kind, on the question of how big business and money interferes with the Tory Party, and all sorts of other things. I did not think this was quite an appropriate time—

All the big money to day is in the hands of the co-operative societies and the trades unions. There is none in the Tory Party.

I am the chairman of a small union of skilled workers and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have very little money even after five years of war. As regards the Measure itself, I was concerned with one aspect of it but I understand that the question will come up in general legislation. I welcome the Measure to-day for two reasons: one is that it has been brought in properly; the second is that it certainly denotes the Minister who is responsible for this task of social insurance. To that extent, I welcome it, and now that we shall soon have the Minister, I hope he will vindicate himself on what has been said to-day. I am a little disappointed at the attendance to-day—not that I am a critic on that score because I am often absent myself, but I would have liked to see this Bill passed with a proper attendance in the House of Commons giving it a better start. I wish the new Minister well in his performance of his task.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

This sub-paragraph deals with the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry at a salary of£1,500 per annum. I want to give the Minister in charge the opportunity to explain to the Committee that this provision is adequate and suitable to obtain the services of a person to fill what is going to be a very important function. It is perfectly true that the Amendment in my name is to leave out this sub-paragraph, which would have the effect that no Parliamentary Secretary would be appointed. I have moved that because if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be appointed at an adequate remuneration to enable the most suitable person—no matter whom he may be, and financial questions apart—to accept that position, then, for my part, I would prefer that a Parliamentary Secretary to this Ministry were not appointed. This question has been raised before, and I have always understood that the Prime Minister sympathised with the point of view that I wished to express, but has been unwilling to make any alteration during the war.

The Bill with which we are dealing today is essentially a peace-time Bill, and it therefore seems to me to be a suitable opportunity to come back to this question. The salary of£1,500 per annum mentioned in the Bill would mean that after paying tax, which I estimate would be some£600, it would be reduced to£900 and, deducting a reasonable amount for expenses as a Member of Parliament—a further£300, for which he is not allowed to claim relief—it appears to me that the actual net salary he would re- ceive under the Government's present proposals would be some£600 per annum. I hope the Minister will not reply by saying that this is in conformity with other salaries which are at present paid to junior Ministers. We are all quite well aware of that but, taking this as an example, I believe it is contrary to the public interest that so inadequate a salary should be offered to a person who is required to fulfil a very important office.

I also believe that, generally speaking, Under-Secretaries are quite inadequately paid compared with Ministers. In my view, they should receive salaries at least half of those paid to the Ministers. Generally, an hon. Member of this House has to serve a term as a junior Minister before he becomes a senior Minister, although there are notable exceptions during the war. If he is ambitious in that direction and intends to place his services at the disposal of the State as a Minister of the Crown, he has to rearrange his whole life and any other means of livelihood he has will have to be put aside. Although there are still young men with means who, no doubt, would gladly accept the provision which it is proposed to make, and have accepted it in the past, I do not think so many will be available in the future, and I do not think it is the desire of this House, or of the country, that the opportunity to accept positions of this kind should be confined mainly to young men who happen to be supplied with adequate private means, or else to other persons without, possibly, any very great experience in life outside this House and who have never been in a position to earn any very high rate of remuneration.

It seems to me that in the future, more than ever, we shall require to encourage the ambition of persons with varied experience and ability who can command a certain figure of remuneration, either in the professions or in other enterprises outside this House, and who, not being—as they should not always be—just young men who come into this House to make it a very honourable but nevertheless professional career, have gained experience outside and, in the gaining of it, have assumed certain responsibilities. It appears to me that this type of person is also very desirable and, without inflicting upon their families a very great hardship, they would be unable to leave their exist- ing callings in life and take office under the Government on the kind of terms which they are now offered. I have no hope that anything can be done to-day, but it seemed to be an opportunity of bringing this matter once more to the notice of the House, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bring it again to the notice of the Prime Minister so that in the near future this matter, which I consider to be of great public importance, may receive further careful consideration.

We object very strongly to this Amendment and are amazed that it is being moved. It is an extraordinary thing, in the creation of a great new Ministry which is to take over from other Government Departments vast volumes of work, and one which will be looked up to by millions of working people of this country, that its Minister is to be denied a Parliamentary Secretary. What are we to do if he is ill, or called away, or things happen so that he is not able to keep on top of his work? He must have a Parliamentary Secretary.

I ought to point out that this Amendment is not denying the Minister a Parliamentary Secretary, it is simply refusing to pay him.

That is worse than ever. He will probably be the most bard-worked Parliamentary Secretary in the whole outfit and will have no salary.

I only desire that he will get a proper trade union rate of pay.

I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) made his purpose tolerably clear. His view is not that there should not be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary nor even that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the new Ministry should be unpaid. His case was that Parliamentary Secretaries generally, and this one in particular, are a underpaid class of human beings. This is a very delicate topic, particularly for an Under-Secretary to deal with, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not expect any pronouncement of policy on this matter from me to-day. This matter has been raised before, I think upon the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937, and it has been raised at Question Time and, I think, in the Debate on the King's Speech at the commencement of last Session.

And it has been raised by old age pensioners.

I am afraid I do not follow the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks.

This is a very delicate point and I think we must refrain from going into the wide principles of it and, particularly, from going off to other matters.

I was certainly not intending to diverge from the matter immediately before the House, and I was going to conclude my brief observations by saying that what has been said by my hon. Friend will be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Opinions differ greatly about many aspects of the problems of post-war Germany and our treatment of the German people, but there is, I believe, almost complete agreement on three points. The first is that Germany should be completely demilitarised; the second is that we must see that there is complete elimination of the Nazi party and all Nazi laws and manifestations; and the third is that there should be fit and proper punishment for all those responsible for the appalling and almost incredible crimes committed by the Nazis in their attempt at the world conquest.

What I want to do to-day, is to ask the Government to enter immediately into consultations with our Allies with the object of widening the category of war criminals. At present, war criminals are considered, I believe, both in the public mind and in the plans of the Allied Governments, to consist of those who have been responsible for the mass executions in Russia, Poland, South Europe, France and elsewhere, those responsible for the death and torture of Allied nationals in any part of Europe, contrary to the provisions of international law and to the recognised standards of decent behaviour. There is no doubt at all that literally millions of people in Europe have been the victims of bestial and foul treatment at the hands of Nazi sadists, and although I do not believe every atrocity story which I read in the newspapers, I am convinced that, generally speaking, so far from there being any exaggeration of the war crimes. of the Nazis, they have, in fact, been understated. The people of this country in particular, and the world in general, do not appreciate to the full, even yet, either the degree, character, or number of the crimes which have been committed by the Nazis in their attempt to conquer Europe.

But it is not only Allied nationals who have been the victims of these crimes. There are others, equally innocent and equally worthy, who have been victims. There are German nationals who, through their love of freedom and democracy and hatred of the Nazis, have been tortured, imprisoned and killed by the Nazis not by the tens of thousands but by the hundreds of thousands, or even, possibly, by the million. Outside Russia and Poland, there are probably more anti-Nazis in Germany who have suffered at the hands of the Nazis than in any other country in Europe. These people have suffered because they have supported our cause. Many of them have fought as heroically for that cause and as selflessly as any citizen of any one of the Allied countries. The murder of these anti-Nazis, most of whom have not been able to take up arms and whose sole crime has been that they have expressed anti-Nazi sentiments, have spoken up boldly in favour of freedom, democracy and the decencies of life, and have been considered to be dangerous people who might help to upset the Nazi régime, is every bit as vile a crime as the murder of people in France, Belgium or Yugoslavia, who have done exactly the same thing, and no more. The guilt of the persecutors of these innocent people is equally great and the retribution to be meted out to those persecutors is equally necessary.

I do not hold the view, the ridiculous view—and I hope nobody in this House holds it either—that the German people as a whole are responsible for these crimes. To start with, a vast majority of the German people know nothing about them. There is no word of them in the German Press, or on their radio, and they are not able to read the Press of any foreign country. It is, therefore, impossible for them to know about them. Indeed, when any such crime is committed which may possibly filter through to the German people, Dr. Goebbels takes great care that the story is so distorted that the German people shall not know the truth about it, because, presumably, he fears that they might adopt some form of anti-Nazi action if they do hear about it. When the last major crime of the Nazis was committed, the killing of all those interned in the Buchenwald concentration camp, the Nazi Government stated that those people had been killed as the result of bombs dropped by Allied airmen. They feel it necessary, in case the German people should hear about what they were doing, either to hide the accounts of their crimes or to colour them out of all recognition. Indeed, if the German people did get to know about them, there is nothing they could do. As the Prime Minister said the other day, the efficiency of the Gestapo is such that any individual in Germany, trying to take action against the German Government, is immediately shot by the authorities.

Moreover, if one accepts the doctrine that the German people as a whole have to be punished, then one must ask how that is to be carried out. So far as I can see there are only two possible ways. One is by the complete dismemberment of Germany, and the other is by keeping the German people in perpetual impoverishment. If Germany is to be dismembered there will be created in Europe such permanent and deep feelings of injustice and grievance and discontent that there will never be any peace in Europe. If Germany is to be completely impoverished, including the children who are not yet born, that means impoverishment of Europe as a whole, including this country. It is impossible to have a prosperous Europe if, in the centre of Europe, there are vast populations who are suffering unemployment and starvation. The only sane policy is to seek out those who have been responsible for these crimes—it may not be easy—and punish them certainly and swiftly. As I have said, it may be difficult to find many of these criminals, but I hope that the same thing will not happen as at the end of the last war, when so much public attention was diverted to the question of the punishment of the Kaiser that attention was diverted from much more important social problems.

I referred just now to the shooting at Buchenwald. We know about it from German sources, because the German Government announced that all the inhabitants there had been killed as a result of an Allied air raid. In fact, there was no raid near Buchenwald, as we have been told by our Government. What happened was that Socialists, Liberals, Jews and anti-Nazis of all sorts in that camp were deliberately shot because the German Government thought that many of them were potential leaders of democratic Germany, and that they should be put out of the way. Many of the individuals in that camp—there were about 7,000 there, I believe—were among the distinguished fighters for democracy. They were people whose names are famous throughout Europe for the struggle which they made, both before and during the war, for the principles in which we believe. There was for instance Herr Breitscheid, a man whose name was honoured throughout Europe for his democratic principles.

Are the perpetrators of this mass murder to go free? Will the Allied Governments say, "We shall wash our hands of this because the victims happened to be German nationals and not French, Belgian or Polish nationals?" Are not these crimes every bit as vile, whether they are perpetrated in German territory or in any other territory, or whether the victims are German nationals or the nationals of any other country? There is no distinction at all between the vileness of the crimes, either on territorial or national grounds. These victims were just as much friends of our cause as the victims of German sadism in other parts of Europe.

This is not a national war; it transcends frontiers and national conceptions. It is essentially a war of ideas. On the one side there is the idea of the Herrenvolk conquering, or attempting to conquer, the world, trampling ruthlessly on minorities, ruling by tyranny and lies, and destroying those principles of decent behaviour and individual freedom which we believe are the essence of civilisation. On the other hand, there is the idea of the equality of all peoples, the right to live their lives and develop their cultures according to their own ways and feelings, the establishment of the rights of man and the sanctity of the human being. In this bloody battle of ideas which is raging in Europe and throughout the world, nationals of most countries are fighting on both sides. There are tens of thousands of Allied nationals, who believe in the Nazi doctrine and who have been either fighting with the Nazis or helping them.

In most countries of Europe there have been quislings with thousands of supporters who, it may be honestly, have believed in the Nazi principles. On the other side, there have been tens of thousands of Germans who believe that the Nazi doctrine is so vile that they will take up arms and risk their lives to destroy it. Thousands are fighting with the Allied Armies, doing most courageous work, in order that the ideas in which they believe may be victorious, and that the ideas held by the Nazis may be destroyed. Therefore I say again that the crimes committed by the Nazis against individuals who oppose them, are equally vile and merit equal punishment wherever they may be committed and whoever the victims may be, irrespective of their national origin.

There are, moreover, apart from these general considerations, two specific and practical reasons why the Allies should quickly take action in this matter and make some public pronouncement. One is drat there is a possibility—I will not put it higher—that if a statement were made by the Allied Governments, to the effect that they will consider crimes committed in Germany against innocent victims as being as serious and as worthy of punishment as those committed outside Germany, some of those crimes might be abated or moderated. I know that in the past threats of punishment against German criminals have had little effect, but now that the war is drawing to a close and the outcome is certain, there may be doubts and hesitations in the minds of many Nazi leaders and their supporters and, if a firm declaration along these lines were made, it might, possibly, make many of those who may have ordered, or who may even be given orders for these mass executions hesitate two or three times before they carry them out. Even if there is a reasonable possibility that these people might be deterred by fear of the consequences and the certainty of punishment by some public court after the war, it would surely be well worth while making such a pronouncement, because you would be saving it may be the lives of tens of thousands of our friends and our allies, the very people who one day may be able to build up a democratic Germany again.

There is a second practical and specific reason why these people who have committed crimes inside Germany, on German nationals, should be tried and punished after the war. It is essential, in the post-war period, immediate and long-distance, that these criminals should be totally eliminated from the European scene. These men have had their minds distorted by the Nazi creed and by Nazi training and it will be impossible to build up a peaceful Europe as long as they remain in it. Therefore I ask the Government to consider whether from that angle—of the necessity for eliminating these evil minds completely from Germany and from Europe—it is not most important that steps should be taken to see that these men are brought to trial as quickly as possible, and given the punishment which they merit if they are found guilty.

I know it will be argued that there are technical difficulties. It may be said that these men are not, technically, war criminals in the sense that they have committed crimes outside Germany; that up to now the Allies have considered this class but that we have no evidence about their guilt. But surely the difficulties can easily be overcome, if the Governments of the Allied Nations desire to overcome them. We may not have the evidence now of who are guilty, but it will surely be forthcoming—or much of it will—at a later stage. We shall have ample to start with, in order to try many of the worst criminals. We may not be able to catch the lot but if we get the majority of them, it will be better than nothing at all. I cannot see that the technicalities are very difficult and I cannot see why these crimes committed on German soil should be considered in any different category from those com- mitted elsewhere. But, whatever the difficulties, I plead with the Government to do all they can to get into consultation as quickly as possible with our Allies, and to say to them, "These crimes have been and are being committed and are likely to be committed even on a bigger scale than ever before. Let us, therefore, declare to the world our firm intention that those responsible for crimes inside Germany, on German nationals, shall be treated in the same way as those responsible for crimes outside Germany; and let the German people be warned, and potential criminals be warned, that it is the firm and resolute determination of the Allied Governments that those responsible for these crimes shall surely meet swift trial and certain punishment as soon as the war is over."

The hon. Member is fully entitled to put the view that he has put, but it would be most undesirable that in an Adjournment Debate like this no one should speak from this Box in support of the Government's policy. The result of the Under-Secretary replying, and the Debate being otherwise left in the hands of those who differ from the Government's policy, would be to give the impression abroad that there was a serious difference of opinion with the Government. I stand here as a whole-hearted supporter of the Government, and I should like to give my reasons for differing from the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). I think the first and most important point to be made is that we are not discussing this matter in vacuo. It is not merely the Government who are responsible for Allied policy. The Government, in circumstances of great difficulty—this equally applies to the position of the other great Allied Governments—have to try to devise, in consonance with the Allied Governments, a common policy, and I think the Foreign Secretary is greatly to be congratulated on the measure of agreement that has been reached in this matter. Above all, we have to remember the position of our other great European Ally, Soviet Russia. I do not think the views the hon. Member has enunciated are at all in accord with those put forward by Premier Stalin. They are indeed in almost complete disaccord. Let me deal with his first point, that responsibility does not rest on the German people as a whole. That is a matter that cannot be stated in a blunt way. I think it is subject to very considerable qualifications. Certainly Premier Stalin has made it clear that the German people cannot be absolved from complicity in the crimes that have been committed. This is not a question, as some of the rather sentimental friends of the German people suggest, of a handful of Gestapo carrying out crimes. It is a matter of literally millions of German soldiers and police, not only in Germany but in every country in Europe, committing crimes, the bestiality of which has never been equalled. Can it be said that, in all those millions, there are none who have the moral courage to say, "I will not stand by and see people having their finger nails torn out, or their tongues impaled, or being placed on red-hot bricks"?

What evidence has the Noble Lord that these crimes have been committed by millions of people? All the evidence I can get is that most of them have been committed in concentration camps by a small number of people, and often there has been violent opposition. That is clear from many declarations by prisoners of war.

The hon. Member is like many sentimental people during the last war, who did not believe it when they heard of crimes committed by German soldiers, which they were often not even ordered to commit—brutal and horrible crimes which only brutal and horrible people were capable of committing. I have French friends who have been tortured by German soldiers, and then it is said, "It is not the dear, kind German people, but a handful of the Gestapo." I cannot accept that aspect of the case, and it is certainly not accepted by the Russian Government, or by Premier Stalin, or by millions of Russian citizens. I am only arguing that it is not a fair assessment of the situation to say that the German people as a whole bear no complicity for the crimes that have been committed. That is certainly not the point of view of any of the Allied leaders. Another thing the hon. Member said was that the crimes committed upon individual German citizens before the war by the Gestapo and police did not meet with the approval of the German people. I knew only one Nazi, in the person of Herr Ribbentrop when he was their Ambassador here, but I knew a great many Germans. Again and again, they said to me in a half-ashamed way, looking over their shoulders, "We are not Nazis; we do not like all that the Nazis do, but the Jews thoroughly deserve the way they are treated." That was said by hundreds of thousands of Germans. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member; I am afraid there is a sadistic trait in a great number of Germans.

The hon. Member's next point was that this was not a national war. I agree that in the first instance it was of a rather different character from what it is now. I think the Prime Minister used very wise words when he said the war was beginning to take on a less ideological character than it had some time ago. The fact is that to-day with rare exceptions, all Germany is fighting against the Allies, and the Allies are fighting against all Germany. It has always seemed to me highly infructuous to discuss whether we can exterminate Germany. Literally, we cannot exterminate 80,000,000 people, but Germany is having and is going to have increasingly in the next few months, one of the roughest forms of treatment, the most severe punishment that any country has had in history. Let the House face the situation as it is to-day. I think the Germans have brought it on themselves. Millions of Germans are being rendered homeless and hundreds of thousands are being killed. Germany is going to have this winter the greatest punishment that has ever been inflicted on any nation. In these circumstances, for us to repeat that we have no quarrel with the German people is to say something which is hypocritical. If we have no quarrel with them, we ought to make peace with them to-morrow. It is hypocritical to say that we have no quarrel with the German people, and it will certainly be greatly resented in Russia, and by all our Western European Allies.

I think that the Noble Lord is really rather distorting what I said. My sole argument in this respect was that it was ridiculous to suggest that we should punish the whole German people for the war crimes which have been committed in Germany or outside, both on moral grounds and because it would be impossible.

If that is so, why are we doing what we are doing? We are now punishing the whole German people in our bombing. If we destroy hundreds of thousands of people, and make them do without gas, electricity and transport, and cause them to tramp out into the snow, that is punishing them. If it is not punishment, what is it? If the hon. Member and other people do not want to punish the whole German people, it is their duty to oppose the Government's policy.

The Noble Lord is distorting my argument completely. I am talking about post-war punishment. I do not suggest, nor does anybody else, that we should stop fighting until victory is won. My whole argument was in regard to the procedure for post-war punishment of war crimes.

Then the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that Germany is now suffering the greatest punishment that any nation has ever had, that it is right in war-time, but that it would be wrong in peace-time.

Not as punishment.

I agree in the sense that we shall not after the war carry out the same sort of treatment that is being carried out now, or even carry out the treatment advocated by some people who hold a more extreme view on this question. Here again we have to be careful not to give a wrong impression. It seems to be as certain as anything can be—and the process I am suggesting will come within the description of punishment—that Poland is going to have, with the support of Soviet Russia, a large portion of East Prussia. It seems to be equally certain that Holland will have portions of Germany in retribution or recompense for the damage done to Holland by flooding. It seems to be certain, too, that Alsace-Lorraine will be taken away. Let me give a friendly piece of advice to my hon. Friend without appearing to be presumptuous. If he and others say that we must not punish the German people after the war, he will be asked by the good, kind Germans of the sort he has described why, if that is so, large portions of German territory are being taken away. That is the dilemma in which my hon. Friends will find themselves. They want to be extremely careful, because public opinion in this country, on both the Left and the Right, is going to be very stern after the war. The Left are not going to take upon themselves the responsibility of opposing what are obviously the views of the U.S.S.R. Therefore, we want to be careful when we say that there is to be no punishment, because if huge chunks of territory are to be taken from Germany there will be punishment.

If I understood my hon. Friend rightly, I think that the Noble Lord is arguing at cross purposes. I thought that my hon. Friend was putting the point that it is a right policy to make a list of German war criminals who have committed crimes in countries outside their own, and he was suggesting that there should be added to that list a list of Germans who committed crimes against their own nationals. I hope that will be so. I knew the President of the first International which I ever attended, and he was brutally murdered, and I should like to see those responsible for that crime punished.

I am not speaking on the question of the punishment of war criminals. I am talking on the point that there must be no punishment of the German people as a whole after the war, and I am suggesting that it is most dangerous to say that, because exactly the opposite is going to happen. Undoubtedly Poland, with the support of Soviet Russia, is going to take large chunks of East Prussia, Holland is going to have part of Southern Germany, and Alsace Lorraine will be returned. I think that we shall find that the policy of the Soviet Government will be much more in favour of drastic action against Germany after the war than some Members of the Labour Party seem to think, and that this policy is more in accord with that of some prominent members of the Trades Union Congress. It is very dangerous that it should go out from this House that there will be no punishment of Germany after the war. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those who have committed crimes against humanity within Germany, should be brought to book, as well as the people who have committed crimes outside Germany. That is not the only point, however, because I think I sometimes detect in the opinions of some who speak on these matters a greater regard for the minority Germans who have been tortured, than for the Frenchmen, Russians, Poles and others. I hope that that is not so, because a crime is just as great whether it is committed against German nationals or against people outside. I do not think anyone differs upon that.

Will not the Noble Lord admit that the punishment for crimes against German nationals is the business of Germany itself, and that it is not our responsibility? When peace is concluded and the Nazis are exterminated, we shall see whether the Germans have supported Hitler or not, by whether they rise and punish the criminals who have been responsible for crimes against their own nationals.

That is exactly the opposite position taken by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. I agree with him that if possible, we should also punish crimes against German nationals. I agree that many people take the opposite view and say that that is the duty of the Germans themselves.

I only rose for the purpose of saying that it is not fair to charge the British Government at this moment with weakness or instability on this question. In a very difficult situation they are endeavouring to find accommodation between the different views of the Allies. I would once again, with great respect, repeat the warning that we want to be extremely careful at this moment, to avoid giving the impression that we intend to be lenient, either to Germany or to the German people. Such a view is most unpopular throughout the Soviet Union, and it is certainly not popular in America. I would go so far as to say that it would be greatly resented by thousands of people in this country. who know the appalling crimes that Germany, in two wars, has, by her own volition, brought upon Europe.

Like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I was not aware that this subject was to be raised to-day, but as it has been raised I cannot keep silent because it is a subject on which I have thought long and, so far as I am capable of doing so, deeply. I really rather wonder what the difference of view is between the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), who started the discussion, and the Government, and I think perhaps some rather unnecessary heat has been brought into the controversy by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton).

The hon. Lady is one of those who if a person in expressing his views puts his points directly, immediately say that he is introducing heat. I resent that suggestion. I put my point of view, which is different from the hon. Lady's, and there are people outside this House who deeply resent her attitude on this matter.

I need look no further than my own heart for a justification of my views on this matter, and I do not think it is an accusation of a crime to accuse an hon. Member of introducing controversy in his speeches. I am thinking of the merits of the question. I begin within the narrow issue that was raised originally, and I would remind the House of the reply given by the Secretary of State, to a Question by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. It was:

"The crimes committed by Germans against Germans are in a different category from war crimes and cannot be dealt with under the same procedure. His Majesty's Government have this matter under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present."

I agree with that, as I do not think that the crimes of Germans against Germans can be dealt with under the same procedure as crimes of Germans against members of the Allied Nations. There are reasons, which ought to commend themselves to the hon. Member for North Lambeth. Obviously, war crimes in the ordinary sense can be dealt with only by the victorious Powers, and by the law courts they set up. Would he not agree that crimes of Germans against Germans ought to be dealt with by a different kind of court, because, as far as possible, Germans ought to be used in the procedure? What I envisage is different courts. I do not think there is anything in the Secretary of State's reply which rules out that a separate kind of court will be called into existence to deal with crimes such as that of Buechenwald. I think it would be a mistake if such courts are not set up. We know there is a department considering the future of Allied control of Germany. When I heard the Noble Lord say that we should let the Germans themselves punish criminals, I could not help wondering when that is going to be possible. I believe that the school of thought to which he belongs contemplates a very long occupation of Germany. When is he going to allow this to take place? I would like to see it.

I said I was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for North Lambeth that it should be done, if possible, by a different process. Of course, crimes committed by Germans against Germans should be punished by the Allies. I said that specifically I agree with the hon. Lady. I do not think it should be done by the Germans. It may be desirable, but I think it would be very difficult.

I feel myself in the most unusual position of actually agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing. There is growing testimony that a large number of people of German origin will be able to give very valuable help in this matter. Only the other day I had a copy of an anonymous article, sent to me by the author who is doing distinguished academic work at Oxford. In it, he analyses very closely the characteristics and the background of the men who took part in the attack on Hitler's life on 20th July. He showed, contrary to what some people have tried to maintain in this country, that they were an extraordinarily mixed bag. They included Junkers, distinguished generals, fervent Catholics, members of the professional army, Prussians, South Germans, trade union leaders and a good many Jews. It went to show that the attempt had been planned very carefully, for a very long time, not by a few people who felt that Hitler had managed the war badly but by a group of people who had, probably, been working and planning together for some years because they disapproved of the whole of Nazidom. I hope we shall be able, in those post-war trials, to use Germans of that type, who really know the kind of people with whom they are dealing.

I want to go on to rather broader issues which were raised in the subsequent part of the discussion. There, I confess, my views are almost entirely similar to those put forward by the hon. Member for North Lambeth. First, I want to protest against those who, like the Noble Lord, represent me, of all people, as one of those sentimentalists who want to pardon the Germans for their crimes and who underestimate the strength and extent of those crimes. Why, my principal occupation, outside my constituency duties, for the last five years, or longer, has been to try to save the victims of German cruelty and to help them to escape. Every night for an hour or so, it is my painful duty to read almost unreadable accounts of the brutal cruelties committed by Nazis against innocent victims, Jewish and others. I under-rate their crimes? If anyone underrates them it is not myself.

I want two things. First, I want justice. One must be just, even to enemies with whom we are at war. The second thing I want is to bring this war to a conclusion as soon as possible, and to make it as unlikely as possible that there will be another war. As an advocate of justice, even towards our enemies, and as an Englishwoman who is proud of her nationality and loves it better than all other nationalities put together, I often ask myself this question: What would you feel, if you were a German, passionately anti-Nazi, but at the same time, a patriotic German, and who could not help remembering that Germany has produced some of the greatest philosophers, musicians, scientists and soldiers that the world has ever seen? What would I feel, in spite of all the crimes committed—and which I should be the last to belittle—and in spite of the deep feeling of shame and horror at the disgrace that had been brought upon my nation to-day, if I were still a lover of my native land, and wanted nothing so much as to cleanse its name for ever, from the stain that had been put upon it by Hitler and all his gangsters?

Would I not feel a dividing line? Should I not be torn asunder if I thought that, as a result of Allied victory in this war, not only were those who had committed crimes to be punished, not only was Hitlerism to be destroyed and its repetition made impossible, not only were the German people to be re-educated into a very different mentality, but Germany was to be torn into fragments, permanently ruined and deeply humiliated? If I felt that that was going to be the result of the war, should I not feel: "I cannot fight for Hitler; in a sense I must welcome the victory of the Allies, even if it means the ruin of my beloved country; but neither can I fight for the Allies." I should feel deeply divided. Through the kind of attitude represented by Lord Vansittart—to whom I have a right to refer not as a Member of the Upper House but in reference to his published writings—I believe we have lost a splendid opportunity of creating in Germany a great fifth column of the right kind, a column that would be fighting for us all the time. One of the earliest and best books on this subject was written in the spring of 1941, when the blitz was at its height. It was written by a pure Prussian, an Aryan Prussian called Sebastian Haffner, and its title was "Offensive Against Germany." It concluded with these words:

"I long for a British victory"—

we then had no other Allies, we stood alone—

"because I see in that the only hope for the reconstruction and regeneration of my own people."

As I said before, how can these people fight for us with a good heart if their country is to be torn into fragments, if they are to be humiliated and kept down for generations? There is another aspect of the matter.

Before the hon. Lady leaves that point, I would like to ask her how she proposes to prevent the Germans from starting another war. Surely that is our main consideration?

I was about to deal with that point. I can only do so very briefly or I should detain the House far too long. The point is really this: Will it make for permanent peace, if that kind of a peace follows? There may have to be transfers of territory. A great deal is due to Holland, a great deal is due to Poland, especially if large parts of Poland are to be annexed by the U.S.S.R. There are many claims, but I aim not at all sure that, in the long run, we might not be creating a GermaniaIrredenta, which will fight against us for generations, if we first tear off huge fragments of the old German Reich, and then plunge into the shrunken Reich, millions of people. I will take only one of the results. It is proposed by many that the Sudetenland should be kept, as I think it should be, as part of Czechoslovakia, because it is necessary for their strategic frontier. But if 2,500,000 Sudetenland people, pure Germans by origin who have lived in the Sudetenland for generations, are to be dumped into a shrunken Germany, what an economic problem will be created. I doubt whether great transfers of territory, accompanied as they must be by great transfers of German population into a shrunken country, will make for permanent peace.

My last argument deals with those who claim that there are no signs that any considerable part of the German people are anti-Nazi. Here, again, I often ask myself this question. Suppose I am a strongly anti-Nazi German and from 1933 onwards I had protested in quite a different way from that in which I did protest. Suppose you were in the position that existed in the early years after 1933. There was not nearly enough courage among the Germans about protesting then. I know that a good many clung on and did not protest openly against the Nazi machine, because they felt they could do more from inside than outside. I have often longed to ask Lord Vansittart, whom in many respects I admire, whether he never had same kind of scruples when he remained in the Foreign Office year after year, knowing that he deeply disapproved of the policy of the Government as it then was. No one can suspect him of any unworthy motive. If ever there was a disinterested man it is he. Did he not think, "I can do more to modify this policy, and perhaps help towards getting it changed, as Permanent Head of the Foreign Office than if I went outside"?

It may be that millions of Germans felt similarly that if they did not become open enemies of Nazidom in the early years they would have a better chance of opposing Hitler. Then as Hitler became stronger and stronger, there was another consideration. I ask myself this question. Suppose you passionately believed that Hitler was bringing disgrace and ruin on your country, but you knew that if you got up and said so, if you protested, if you even communicated your plans for resistance to someone who was a Nazi spy, you would die and die by torture, and your wife would be thrown into a concentration camp, perhaps tortured, and that your children would be ruined; am I or are any of us quite sure we should have been quite as courageous in open opposition as we now feel ought to have been the case?

One can always use the argument that if one speaks too soon, one will destroy the chance of successful resistance later. Do let us show a little imagination. Let us ask ourselves what the Germans must have felt, who hate Nazism but who were always torn asunder between their desire to oppose it and the fear of terrible consequences for themselves and their people. That is an excuse for which there was much justification for those who said, "Let us wait; the time has not yet come, but the time will come when we can overthrow Hitler, and if we attack too soon, we shall destroy our own chance." I beg the House and the British public to bear all these considerations in mind when they give free vent to their detestation of German crimes, because I am so afraid, knowing my own people, knowing how kind-hearted they are, that the same thing may happen as happened at the end of the last war. There was then the cry of "Hang the Kaiser." One great friend of mine told me, "I would not hang the Kaiser. Hanging is too good for him." Two or three years after the war all that had gone, and we became ashamed of the heavy reparations which had been demanded from Germany, and gradually we gave way to sentimentality, which manifested itself in pacifism. I never found myself so unpopular in my constituency as when I told them they were sentimental fools if they joined the pacifists. I say no more except that I feel that this is a question which deserves a much bigger attendance in the House, and a much more carefully thought-out Debate than is possible in a discussion on the Adjournment.

I have listened to the hon. Lady with the greatest interest, and I must say that I admire her for the manner in which she comes to this House and champions minorities on all occasions. But on this particular occasion, I feel that we cannot consider German minorities too much at the expense of future world security. That, I think, must be our primary consideration. The hon. Lady had something to say about the dismemberment of Germany. She rightly pointed out to the House that a certain amount of dismemberment would take place anyhow. We were told yesterday by the Government that, in all probability, a large portion of Germany is to go to Holland to compensate that country for the devastation that has been created by the Germans. Again we have heard the Prime Minister state that France may have to go to the Rhine. Already the Allies have stated that Austria is no longer to be a part of Germany. It has been accepted that the Poles will have to move West, right into Germany, taking a considerable part of that country, up to the River Oder. I expect, and I think that most Members would agree, that after this war Schleswig-Holstein will have to go back to the Danes. It was Danish before, and there is a demand for it by the Danes.

So it all comes down to this. Whatever the sentimentalists, or idealists, in this House like to say, Germany will be partially dismembered anyhow. Therefore, those of us who consider ourselves, rightly or wrongly, to be realists say that it is far more humane, if you dismember a body, to do away with the trunk as well. What is to happen if we leave just a small portion of Germany? We shall create a centre where Germans will be free to get together, to think about the revenge that they will have in the next war, and to plan for it. There are a few of us in this House, and there are many in the country, who say that the only real solution that presents itself for preventing another war in the near future with Germany is that Germany should be divided up between all the States around. When I have put forward that point of view to some people they have said, "We cannot do that: it is far too extreme a solution." I have replied, "What do you then suggest?" The usual reply is, "We must have a military occupation of Germany until such time as we feel that they can be trusted." What a dangerous proposal. Our memories are apt to be so short. Look at what happened after the last war. We had military occupation then. It was not very long before we and the Americans drew out. What is to happen if we have military occupation of Germany after this war? Suppose that we get in this country, in years to come, a weak, "forgive and forget" Government—can we ensure that we shall not?—a Government who will say, "After all, the Germans are human beings like ourselves; why should we hold them down any longer?" Out comes our army of occupation. I believe that, long before that, the isolationists in America will see that their army of occupation comes out of Europe. "Get our boys away from European entanglements" will be a very popular cry. Then, what will happen? It may mean that the Russians will be left in control, which will lead to the Russians controlling the whole of Europe. If that is wanted by hon. Members who put forward the proposition that there shall be military occupation of Germany after the war, well and good; but I think that that it a most dangerous suggestion and is not calculated to prevent future wars but I know that that is very likely to be the plan that is adopted after this war.

I see the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place. I would ask him to give us an assurance that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will not come down to this House to announce a fait accompli—in other words, to say, "This is what the leaders of the great Powers have decided to do with Germany after the war." This House, comprising the representatives of the people, has a right to be consulted first on such a vital matter. It seems to me, as things are now that this House is not going to be consulted until the leaders have made up their minds. An assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point would be something.

I have mentioned one of the solutions which are put forward for preventing Germany from waging war again. There are others, and we have heard something of them to-day. My hon Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr G. Strauss) has intimated that after this war we should educate the Germans.

I never said anything of the sort. I do not believe it is possible for one nation to educate another. The education must be left to Germans, as soon as we find people capable of doing it.

I am very glad to have elicited that. I am sorry to have misunderstood my hon. Friend. I was going to say that that was one of the most absurd suggestions I had ever heard. You might just as well try to educate 80,000,000 baboons into giving up their baboon habits. I feel strongly that we should deal with the Germans in a realistic way, not in an idealistic way. So many people are putting forward plans, hoping for the best, but knowing perfectly well in their heart of hearts that these plans will not work. Therefore, I trust that on some future occasion, as has been suggested by the Noble Lord, there will be a full Debate on this subject, in which Members of Parliament can put forward their views and say what they think their constituents believe should be done as far as the future Germany is concerned. That would be some indication to our leaders of what the country wants when they go to discuss this matter with the leaders of other countries.

I did not think, earlier to-day, that I should find myself in agreement with so much of what the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) would have to say, but, in the main, I would prefer to support what he has said, rather than what the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) put forward with so much passionate sincerity. I thought that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) was quite right in his thesis. May I, in passing, congratulate him on the 40th anniversary, to-morrow, of his entry into this House? I think that those who feel as we do have very much more solid grounds for the view they take than the hon. Lady has for her view.

The hon. Lady has for many years put forward the view which she holds with such earnestness, but she completely ignores one very important thing—that is, the lesson which history teaches. We need not go further back than the 18th century. From that time we can follow the rise of the Prussian military spirit in Germany, which has been the cause of not one war, but five, wars in 80 years. In the 18th century, the petty princes of Germany used to sell their men to be soldiers. From that moment, the rise of the Prussian element in Germany was traceable, even if you do not go back into the dim Middle Ages. During the 19th century, with the immense economic power which Germany gained by the industrial revolution, it was perfectly plain that that power was going to be used by the dominating spirit in Germany for purely military motives.

Let us take the recent history of Germany. I remember, not so very long ago, in my home in Cornwall, picking up a book called "Degenerate Germany" by a German. It was not a very good book; it was exaggerated in many respects. But it had a very curious introduction. It was dedicated—I cannot remember the exact words, but, broadly, it ran like this—"To those lessening members of the British public, who still retain the curious idea that Germans are misguided, music-loving people, only misled by a vicious Government." That was published, not during this war, but in 1915. We had exactly the same views put forward to-day and after the last war, by certain kind, friendly, liberal people in this country, who had the idea that there was a sufficiently large number of kindly Germans actuated by the purest principles of democracy, and who were anxious to press, push and mould their country into becoming a good citizen of Europe and a good neighbour.

The anti-Kaiser Germany.

Yes, the anti-Kaiser Germany. What happened after the last war? We had an incredible weakness shown towards Germany. Some people maintained that the Treaty of Versailles was stern and hard. It was not stern and hard; on the contrary, I believe that it was due to the weaknesses of that Treaty, to a large degree, that the rise of the Prussian military caste occurred in the 20 years after 1918.

We have always been told, and we were told aft the beginning of this war, that there was a large body, largely mythical, I think, of good Germans anxious to rise, and that we ought to give every form of encouragement to these people. Why? The hon. Lady said that, from 1933 to 1939, it was too dangerous, because they might take the view that their wives and families might be subjected to persecution. But where were they from 1918 to 1933? Did Scheidemann and Ebert, and the succession of Governments and Reich Chancellors, show any particular enthusiasm for trying to bring Germany back into being as a respectable member of the nations of Europe? There was not a sign of it. On the contrary, all those Governments, one after the other, and the prominent members in those Governments, made it possible, in conjunction with the Junker class and big business in Germany—the cannon lords of the Ruhr and other places—for Hitler to come in once again. They may not have known what they were doing, but the effect was inescapable, and, in the whole of this war, there has been no sign of any change of heart at all.

May I ask the hon. Member a question? It is perfectly true, as he says, that the period of the Weimar Republic was a period when those in control in Germany did their best to strengthen Germany. But can my hon. Friend imagine that our country, or any other country in Europe, would not have done the same after a frightful defeat? There is no proof that the Weimar Republic was aiming at a policy of aggression; but they did want to be able to hold up their end of the stick.

There was no doubt about it, of course, and we can well understand that they wanted to hold up their end of the stick. When they did hold up the stick, for what purpose was the stick going to be used? To my mind, the Germans have not changed. I remember that, at the end of the last war, I was in a regiment which happened to be part of the advance guard which was pursuing the German Army, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was the doctor in that regiment. We heard rumours of an armistice in the early part of November, and every one of the officers in our mess said unanimously, "We hope there will be no armistice, but that we shall be able to go on into Germany and that terms of peace will be dictated from Berlin; and, furthermore, that Prussia will be split up from the rest of Germany." I cannot think for one moment that, if that had been the policy—which millions of people in the Allied countries supported—which had been carried out then, this war would ever have happened.

These people are dangerous, and it is unwise to put into the hands of any Germans these dangerous toys. Therefore, without any savagery or any injustice, at the end of this war, we must see to it that it is really impossible for war to happen again. There is, at least, one measure we could take, by splitting off Prussia from the rest of Germany. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities will say that this will only encourage them to come together again, but even so, it would make a further stage in the resurrection of Germany before they could build up their Army again. Further, when that step is taken, supposing that Prussia wishes to join up with the rest of Germany, the red light goes up at once for Europe, and we can take, if we have the sense to keep ourselves militarily strong, all the steps that we believe to be necessary. This is an extremely important thing that must be done at the end of this war.

I do not wish to suggest other measures which many of us think will be vitally necessary in order to see that this terrible world conflagration does not occur again, and that it does not, at any rate, start in that very dangerous cauldron which we call Germany. At least, I think, this is the first measure we can take. The second—and here I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone—is obviously the military occupation of Germany for several years. That is absolutely necessary so that, not only may we in the Allied countries feel assured of our safety during that difficult period, but so that we may see to it that the measures which should have been taken after the last war are, in tact, taken after this one. These are the first measures—the splitting of Prussia from the rest of Germany and seeing that the disarmament of Germany is so complete that she has not got a ship, a man or a gun in any of the three services.

Will my hon. Friend allow me? He says that he thinks it is essential that there should be a military occupation of Germany, but he has not answered the question what would happen if, in a short time, a few years, that occupation finishes because those troops are withdrawn on the instructions of a weak Government over here.

I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend interrupted me on that point, because I was in danger of forgetting to deal with it. I can see that, after the war, there may be a dangerous possibility that, in this country and in America, we may have what you call a "sob-sister Government," which will say: "Oh, well, Germany is coming back into the fold. There are nice Germans. Look how they talk about Goethe, and the rest of it. Then look at the cost of the Army of Occupation." This may lead the country, as well as the Government, into taking that extremely unwise step of withdrawing the Army of Occupation. But, even if we keep an occupation army there for only five years, what an immense gain that will have been.

Why was it that Germany was able, within a short space of time, to build up an army, a navy and an air force at the end of the last war? It was because under the Versailles Peace Treaty she was allowed to have an army of 100,000 men, and she simply kept all her best officers and N.C.Os. and was able to build up the gigantic structure from the effects of which the world has been suffering for the last five years. If you at once took away those 100,000 men, if you did not allow one man, if you broke the German general staff from top to bottom and saw to it that she was not allowed any army, navy or air force and then if, even at the end of five years, Germany should wish to start again, how incredible it would be for her to do it. Anyone who has organised a new army knows how hard it is if there is no nucleus upon which to build and work. That is the real answer to the danger, rightly pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone, that in future years, after the war, at the end, say, of five years or ten years, the Allied Governments may be so weak as to allow the military recrudescence of Germany and to take away the army of occupation.

We are very wise in this House to consider these matters in time and to ventilate them as openly and as fully as possible. Although the (Government have their own ideas on these matters, they may conceivably be divided, as this House is divided, and therefore it is essential that in this House, the forum of the nation, it should be possible now to exchange views to endeavour to destroy each other's arguments and to endeavour, if you like, to understand each other so that we can come as far as possible to a common conclusion which will be of material benefit to the world.

I think that the House will be interested to see the new Penryn-Marylebone combination. It is one that we have not seen before and it is always interesting to see new combinations in this House. In dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) first, I would ask him if he has ever thought who did rebuild Germany after the last war. It was not the Members on this side of the House who rebuilt Germany; it was not the trade union movement in this country. It was Vickers and other armament works that rebuilt Germany. It was the money given from the banks of this country.

Is the hon. Member really going to deny that the two loans—the Dawes and the Young—were raised under the aegis of the League of Nations; and does he not admit that he and his friends, in common with everybody in the House, backed this up?

Certainly, they may have had a great deal to do with it, but does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the banks in this country were only too willing to lend all the money possible to Germany provided they got interest and security?

If they had refused to do so, would not they have been denounced on every platform by the Socialist Party?

That is purely a hypothetical question. The fact is that they lent the money and were only too willing to lend it. But here is a point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny. Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forbidden to have tanks and that is a policy which I am sure would meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. But if one looked at the advertisements in those days in the German papers he would see advertisements of British tanks inserted by Vickers Works. That has nothing to do with the Dawes loan.

Is the hon. Member talking about help as far as armaments are concerned, or other forms of assistance?

I am talking about assistance which enabled Germany to start another war, something we are all anxious to prevent happening again.

Is the hon. Member suggesting that any arms could be exported from this country without a licence from the Government of this country, and was any question ever raised in any part of the House that licences were improperly issued for arms in Germany, which, under the Treaty, was allowed to have arms?

All I am suggesting is that the firm of Vickers-Armstrong, a very important firm, with wide ramifications, inserted these advertisements and I fully believe that Vickers-Armstrong do not insert the advertisements for amusement. They hoped that in the end the Treaty of Versailles would be modified and they would be able to sell those tanks.

I understand the hon. Member to say that there were advertisements inserted in German newspapers and if that is all the argument to be brought against us let us know. It is a very different thing from tearing passions to tatters as has been done for so many years.

I am interested to see how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's passion is torn to tatters. He has reacted strongly and one does not get a strong reaction unless one has touched a chord. I would ask this too. There were visits to this country from time to time by eminent Germans and there was, of course, always present the German Ambassador, Von Ribbentrop. I have never heard of the German Ambassador finding friends among Members on this side of the House but I have heard of him finding plenty of friends from Members opposite. For hon. Members to stand up, as did the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, and talk about the need for stem measures and blame people on this side of the House for the German resurgence is absurd when the facts all point to Members opposite in helping to supply Germany with arms.

The hon. Member said that they were advertisements.

The hon. Member says that Members on this side of the House were supplying Germany with armaments, but how are we to know whether the board of Vickers, which I think he has quite unjustly attacked, are Conservative, Liberal or Labour? There are Labour directors of big companies as well as Conservative and Liberal directors.

I would like to continue my speech and it is difficult with so many interruptions. The policy pursued by Governments in power in the 20 years between the two wars, which were Conservative Governments, with only three years of Labour government, did in fact contribute much towards the rebuilding of Germany's armed strength. The friends of Fascism in this country have never come from the Left; with very few exceptions they have come from the Right.

Has the hon. Member ever heard of Sir Oswald Mosley?

Oswald Mosley went out by way of the Tory Party.

He was a Labour Minister.

He was a Tory too. I would ask hon. Members whether they want to envisage a Germany completely destroyed, with every one of the 80,000,000 people killed, or a Germany with which we can live after the war? Let me say this, and here I shall get the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) and no doubt of others. I am in favour of a stern peace, make no mistake about that, and I am in favour of a peace which will give just retribution to Germany, even if it means taking off large slices of Germany and giving them to Holland and to Poland, and I am not afraid to say so. However, that is not the real issue to-day—at least it is the issue brought into the Debate but it is not the original issue. The original issue was that protection should be given not to those men whom the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has denounced so rightly as torturers but that it should be given to the tortured. That is all that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) is asking.

I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the argument of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). It was diametrically the opposite. His argument, obviously, was that we must not impose a peace upon Germany which involved the dismemberment of Germany, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot help it.

My argument was nothing of the sort. I brought a simple and narrow issue on the Adjournment, which was that it was desirable for the United Nations to declare their policy, that among the war criminals, to be tried and punished would be those responsible for crimes in Germany as well as outside Germany. In my argument, I mentioned, in parenthesis, that it was ridiculous to suggest that all Germans should be punished for the crimes—we must concentrate on those we find to be guilty—but my point was merely the limited one of including the war criminals responsible for crimes on Germans amongst the others. That was the matter I raised on the Adjournment.

If I may be allowed to interrupt here, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to come to what I consider to be the radical question raised. The issue is that there are a certain number of Germans—maybe a very small number—who have been so brave as to stand out against Nazi tyranny, and that is a very hard thing to do. Let us suppose, first of all, that the number is small. Hon. Members will ask what evidence there is that there are any at all. I will give such evidence as I have though I admit it is difficult to prove conclusively. Much of the evidence comes from the German wireless, but nobody will say that the Germans themselves are deliberately going to say that they have traitors, and to describe non-existent traitors, because there is no point in doing so, particularly if they are mentioned by name.

The first is the case of Leuchner, a social democrat who was previously a Minister in the Baden Government. Whatever his record may have been when he was a social democrat Minister, whatever he may have done or left undone to prevent Hitler coming into power, the fact remains that when Hitler came into power he continued to fight agaiinst him. He was executed not very long ago for trying to make contact with the Allies through neutrals. Is that a crime for which we consider a man should be deserving of execution? Do we want to afford any protection for men who want to do this, or do we not?

It is an offence in this country under Regulation 18B.

The Noble Lord says it is an offence in this country. Certainly it is, but surely we are only too glad to have the Germans themselves commit that offence as often as possible. Surely that is an argument with which no hon. Gentleman on any side can conceivably disagree?

But how can you punish a person—

May I be allowed to continue, because it is really getting rather difficult with such a large number of interruptions? I will continue with one or two more people. Friedrich Lübel, Albert Brust and Heinrich Hase were executed for listening to broadcasts from London and for helping foreign workers in Germany to listen to those same broadcasts. Are those people not worthy of some praise, that they dared to listen to broadcasts from London, that they dared to help foreigners in Germany to listen to those same broadcasts? What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Information giving these broadcasts if we give no support to the people who listen to them?

There are others as well. There is the case of a Catholic priest, Dr. Karl Renner, who was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment for what the Germans call "black listening." Finally, I would give the case of the brothers and sisters Scholl from Dusseldorf. They studied in Munich and were betrayed by the university in Munich. Their father, who was a doctor, shot himself from grief. What happened to these people? Their case went before the People's Court and the chairman called the 21 year old girl to attention, whereupon the girl answered that she would not stand to attention, she was not interested in the proceedings because she said, "In the same place that I am standing here, my judges will be standing in future." That is a brave girl, that is the kind of girl we want to protect, and, quite apart from the question which has been introduced into this Debate as to what our treatment of Germany shall be after the war—and I have made my position on this quite clear—I maintain that these people are deserving of our protection on two grounds.

The first is the ground of practical common sense, because these people are helping us and it is up to us if we can, to give them some assistance so that they will continue to help us. The Prime Minister once said that the best thing that could happen to the Germans would be that they should tear one another asunder—I think that was his phrase. Well, the best way we could help them to do that would be to help those who are trying to tear the Nazi party asunder, and those are the people I have described to-day. More than that, I believe that we who are fighting for democracy and for humanity and for the four freedoms, should support the cause of humanity by showing what support we can to these people who are dying in the cause of freedom and humanity just as bravely as many of our own men are dying to-day.

I only rise because a number of hon. Members have spoken about the future treatment of Germany and related it directly to the policy of this country. I think we ought constantly to bear in mind the fact that we shall not be responsible for the whole of Germany. So far as one can understand the statements which have been made already by Members of the Government, and Press forecasts, we shall only be responsible for the North-Western section of Germany, the Russians for Germany east of a line roughly through Berlin and, at any rate to commence with, the United States for the South-West of Germany. In all these problems concerning the future treatment of Germany, we ought to direct our attention from now on principally to the part of Germany for which we shall ourselves be concerned. Then, having laid down our plan and considered our policy in that direction, we ought to do our utmost to see that the other members of the United Nations are agreed with us as to our own solution and are prepared to carry it out in the parts for which they are respectively responsible. If we have differences as between one Ally and another as to the treatment of occupied Germany, that will be a very fruitful cause of disunion between the United Nations arising immediately at the conclusion of hostilities.

Why does the Noble Lord take it for granted that we are only to be concerned with one part of Germany? Surely no official policy has been put out to that effect?

I am doing no more than making certain assumptions from what one has seen in the Press. It seems to be tacitly accepted by hon. Members that this country will be responsible for the whole of Germany, that we shall impose certain terms upon the whole of Germany. The more correct view in my opinion is that we shall be directly concerned with a part of Germany and jointly with the United Nations with a policy towards the whole of Germany.

It is quite clear that we are only going to be directly responsible for one part of Germany, but if Germany is to be divided into three parts control will have to be unified. I cannot imagine one policy prevailing in one part, and a different policy in another part. Is it not important that we should stand up for justice and say to our American and Russian friends, whether they like it or not, "We go this far and no further. What you are proposing would not be just"?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. It is intended that there should be a unified policy, and that was given effect to in the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of friendship, but at the same time one cannot help noticing that the policy of the Russian Government at the moment is to encourage a German officers' league in Moscow, while our policy at the moment is to secure that there shall be no kind of German military control in the part of Germany for which we shall be responsible after the war. I use that illustration to indicate the sort of difference in treatment which might arise, and I urge the Under-Secretary to give his full attention—as I am sure he does from day to day—to this kind of problem, in the hope that we can arrive, at an early stage, at some joint solution as between ourselves, the United States and Russia of the problem of military control of Germany after the war.

Before the Noble Lord sits down—

I think it would be better if we allowed some of the speeches to stop.

The Noble Lord has been rather negative in his remarks. Would he enlighten the House as to what he thinks should happen to Germany after the war?

I want to intervene in this Debate for only a short time mainly because I interrupted the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in a way which led him to indicate that I was unnecessarily heated about it. If that is so, I regret it very much, but it seemed to me that when he spoke I was listening to an argument which was fundamentally fallacious, and that he was doing his utmost to destroy his own case. People speak as though Hitler came into power immediately after the Treaty of Versailles, and that he has been ruling that country ever since. What came into existence then was the Weimar Republic, which received the utmost support and sympathy from the progressive as well as the reactionary Members of this House, and from supporters of the Left who did not hesitate to denounce France in the most unmeasured terms because she was at that time adopting methods of security which seemed to them to bear too close a resemblance to the methods she is advocating now.

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted me perhaps he will allow me to interrupt him to ask him whether he seriously maintains that the assistance that Germany received stopped immediately Hitler came into power?

I shall come to that in a moment. What I am talking about now is the building up of Germany, about which the hon. Member brought an accusation, particularly against Members on this side, in an extremely wounding way. I would like to point out that Hitler seized a going concern when he came into power. That going concern is exactly what the hon. Member for West Bromwich wishes to see re-established after this war. I would like to say, agreeing so far with the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone), that it will be very difficult to withstand the argument that a shrunk and impoverished Germany, as she called it, should be denied all possibility of being built up again after the war.

The difficulty this House, this country and the world is in is that that was the way things started last time. It was in this way that Germany was supported and built up. The hon. Member for West Bromwich spoke about the loans make by bankers of this country to Germany, and I interrupted to point out that the big loans made to Germany were the Dawes and the Young Loans which, although I do not want specially to refer to it now, were made under the auspices of a Socialist Government.

It was a carry-over.

Does the hon. Member denounce it now? I challenge him.