House Of Commons
Thursday, 10th February, 1947
The House met at Half past Two o'clock.
Prayers
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER pursuant to the Standing Order.
British Museum (Petition)
I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have annually to submit to this House, explaining the financial position and praying foe aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried out without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
"Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support toward enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed m them by Parliament, fog the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—(King's Recommendation signified.)
May a question be asked with regard to this?
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.Road Transport Nationalisation (Petitions)
I beg to ask leave to present a Petition -signed by 145,000 persons principally residing in the Metropolitant area, asking that proposals for the nationalisation of transport may be re- jected. The petitioners draw attention to the expansion of road transport under present arrangements, and claim that its growth and efficiency are due to the initiative and enterprise of the persons heretofore engaged in the industry. They fear that nationalisation of road transport may cause a serious loss of efficiency and will result in unnecessary cost. The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
"Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that the proposals for the nationalisation of road transport may be rejected."
I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition signed by over 17,000 members of 28 Chambers of Commerce, users of transport. They express strong objection to the proposals for the nationalisation of transport, which will restrict freedom of choice by traders in the matter of transport facilities, and deny the rights of the users of transport to carry their goods without restriction under C licences. They state that there has been no evidence from industry and commerce in favour of the Measure now before Parliament. The Petition concludes with the following Prayer:
Petitions to lie upon the Table."Wherefore your Petitioner s humbly pray your honourable House to reject the Transport Bill which threatens disaster to industry."
Oral Answers To Questions
Education
Teachers (Equal Pay)
1.
asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement regarding arrangements to implement the policy of equal pay for equal work for members of the teaching profession.
I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) on 19th December last.
May I ask my right hon. Friend if he appreciates that the principle of equal pay for equal work has already been accepted by the Government in the payment of Members of Parliament and even of Cabinet Ministers, as well as in many of lie professions, and, as our new Minister of Education, will he promise to do his best to try to establish this long overdue reform so far as the teaching profession is concerned?
Again, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer previously given, which takes all those things into consideration.
Leaving Age
2.
asked the Minister of Education whether all children who attain the age of 14 years by 31st March will be able to leave school by the end of the term that finishes at Easter, 1947.
A child who attains the age of 14 during a school term is deemed by reason of Section 8 (1) of the Education Act, 1946, not to have attained that age until the end of the term. Any child attaining the age of 14 during a school term which ends on or after 1st April next will have to remain at school to the end of the term in which he or she attains the age of 15.
School Visits
3.
asked the Minister of Education why, under Regulation 18 (3) of the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grants Conditions) Regulations, the consent of His Majesty's inspectors has to be obtained before the secular instruction in maintained schools can be given off school premises.
Since average attendance is no longer a factor in calculating grant to local education authorities, or in determining the grading of a school for the purposes of the head teacher's salary, an important reason for the regulation has ceased to exist. My predecessor had, therefore, decided to revoke it, and I shall shortly be publishing the necessary amending regulation.
The purpose of this change, about which I shall be sending a circular to local education authorities, is to extend to all maintained schools, whether primary or secondary, the freedom, so far as the Ministry's requirements are concerned, in arranging such activities as school visits, that was formerly enjoyed by a limited number of secondary schools under the old regulations for secondary schools.Drinking Straws
4.
asked the Minister of Education if his attention has been called to the difficulty of obtaining straws for children with which to drink milk in the London and extra-Metropolitan areas; and if, for the sake of health and cleanliness, he will take steps to see that straws are supplied to these districts.
Yes, Sir; every possible step is being taken to increase the output of drinking straws for school milk.
College Training (Period)
5.
asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to give effect to the recommendation of the McNair Committee that the period of college training for intending teachers should be at least three years.
I cannot yet say when it will be possible to give effect to this recommendation.
Training Grants
6.
asked the Minister of Education how many ex-Service students are in receipt of grants; and how many have received no payment for the current term.
The number of students in receipt of grants before the beginning of the current term was 18,573; in 15,505 of these cases, payments in full have been made. In addition, 6,930 new awards have been announced; in 2,180 of these cases, payment has been made in full, and, in over 2,000 other cases, a payment has been made on account.
7.
asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that at University College, London, out of 783 students in receipt of Further Education and Training Grants 433 have not yet received their grants for this term although their attendance forms were returned on 20th January last; that at the Northern Polytechnic, N.7, 200 out of 294 students have not yet received their grants although their forms were returned on 13th January; that a similar situation prevails at many other colleges and universities; and when these grants will be paid.
At University College, including the Slade School of Art, and the Bartlett School of Architecture, 578 students were in receipt of grants before the beginning of the term. Certificates of attendance were received on 21st January and payments were completed on 11th February. In addition, new awards have been announced to 92 students, of whom 67 have now been paid.
At the Northern Polytechnic, 132 students were in receipt of grants before the beginning of the term. Certificates of attendance were received on 23rd January, and payments were made on 15th February. In addition, new awards have been announced to 26 students, of whom four have been paid and the remainder are about to be paid Payments have now been made to all students who were in receipt of grant at the beginning of this term, in 456 out of 497 institutions, and the remaining 41 will be completed shortly.8.
asked the Minister of Education what deductions are made from further education and training grants in respect of a student's vacation earnings.
If a student holding an award under the Further Education and Training Scheme earns in vacations, half his earnings are deducted from his grant.
May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in view of the great national need for maximum productivity, we should not encourage the effective use of every pair of hands, and, in view of that, will he consider either greatly reducing these deductions or abolishing them altogether?
I will certainly look at it, but there are more complications than that.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the idea of having this extraordinary means test applied to these grants?
I would point out that it is not so much a question of a means test, as of the varying needs of the students.
Does the Minister recognise that there are very many cases in which these grants are not sufficient for a man during the half-year when the university is not in session, and that, therefore, it is essential that he should be able to earn?
Grants are made to these people on the assumption and on the basis that they will not need to earn, and that is the only basis on which their receipts are taken into account.
11.
asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the necessity for schoolboys to plan their careers, he can give an assurance that grants for ex-Servicemen will he continued for the next five years.
No, Sir. but I expect that an announcement will be made shortly.
Mid-Day Break
9.
asked the Minister of Education whether, as a contribution to fuel economy and a convenience to mothers, he will arrange for the midday break in primary and secondary schools to be from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. instead of from 12 noon to 1.30 p.m.
The arrangements for the mid-day break are within the discretion of local education authorities, governors or managers, as the case may be. I should see no objection to an arrangement of the kind which my hon. Friend suggests.
Transport, Maldon
12.
asked the Minister of Education if he will give further consideration to the possibility of providing special transport for schoolchildren between Bradwell-juxta-Mare and Maldon Grammar School, Essex, since some of them are obliged, by the present inconvenient arrangement, to be away from their homes for nearly 12 hours each school day.
I am looking into the position further in consultation with the Regional Transport Commissioner and will write to my hon. Friend.
While my right hon. Friend is looking into the position, will he bear in mind that some of these boys and girls have to leave home at 6.30 a.m. and do not get back until 6 p.m. or after, and, in such circumstances, how can they possibly be expected to do homework?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Regional Transport Commissioner. Has he not also been in contact with the Essex Education Committee?
Yes, Sir.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if he finds that the reason is that there is not sufficient ordinary transport, he will suggest to the Education Committee that two or three taxis would do these journeys, and will he remember that boys and especially adolescent girls cannot stand the strain of these long hours?
I will take that into consideration when I consult the Committee.
Uncertificated Teachers (Training Colleges)
13.
asked the Minister of Education how many places in training colleges he proposes to offer to uncertificated teachers in -September, 1947; and on what basis the selection of applicants is to be made.
I cannot yet say how many uncertificated teachers it will be possible to admit to special one year courses this autumn. If we fall short of the target of 400 admissions suggested by my predecessor last July, the deficiency will he made good a few months later. The basis of selection will in the main he length of service, subject to the special requirements of particular areas.
May I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need for as much speed in the execution of this work as possible, as, otherwise, we shall lose the enthusiasm and the urge to train which these young people had when these arrangements were first announced?
I will.
Emergency Training
14.
asked the Minister of Education how many persons have now been accepted for training under the emergency training scheme.
Up to 6th February, 38,399 persons had been accepted for Training under the Emergency Training Scheme.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many are already in training?
Not without notice.
Huts
16.
asked the Minister of Education how many of the temporary H.O.R.S.A. huts have now been erected; and how many it is anticipated will be completed by 1st April and 1st September, respectively.
Several hundred H.O.R.S.A. huts are now virtually complete, except for certain components in particularly short supply, and approximately 60 rooms are finally completed. No additional accommodation in H.O.R.S.A. hutting will he required by 1st April. As I indicated last week to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), every effort is being made to complete the total, namely, 2,545 classrooms and 1,081 practical rooms required by 1st September. 1947.
Could the right hon. Gentleman say what a H.O.R.S.A. hut is?
These are the huts that are being provided under the scheme to enable the age to be raised.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the huts which are not finished, but are waiting for accessories, are capable of being used, or whether they will have to be completed before being capable of being used?
They may be capable of being used, but, obviously, they can be used to better advantage when all the components are in. We are pressing the Department concerned to provide the components.
Local Authority Staffs
17.
asked the Minister of Education the total size of the staff, other than those engaged in teaching, employed by local education authorities today and in the year previous to the war.
The total number of employees of county councils and county borough councils in England and Wales, excluding teachers and trading services, is estimated to be approximately 514,000. Separate figures for education services are not available, nor are the corresponding figures for 1939.
Size Of Classes
18.
asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the fact that the contemplated building programme for 1947, summarised in Circular 134, makes no reference to reduction in the size of classes and large numbers of young children will enter primary schools this year, he will now revise that programme.
Reduction in the size of classes depends largely on the provision of new accommodation, and, for the present, this has to be restricted to the categories set out in paragraph 4 of Circular 134. These include the provision of new schools to meet housing developments and of additional classrooms to prevent serious overcrowding.
Will my right hon. Friend, at any rate, give it the second priority, after getting ready the huts necessary for raising the school leaving age?
I do not know about the second priority. With regard to the equally important priority which has been given, so far as housing schemes are concerned, that will assist to the extent that the children from overcrowded areas may be moving into the new housing centres.
Am I to understand I the right hon. Gentleman as saying that the shortage of teachers is no impediment to reducing the size of classes, and that the difficulty is solely due to the lack of buildings?
I would not say that, but with the number of teachers in training and who are likely to be available in the near future, buildings will be the limiting factor, rather than teachers.
Does not the Minister remember that, in the period of evacuation, every sort of building was obtained by the education authorities in which to house the children for school purposes, and could he not, if he has the teachers, make a real attempt to reduce the size of classes by taking every possible building?
Where buildings are available, I hope to do that.
Is it not a fact that the only buildings which are going to be available are the stables referred to in a previous Question?
Unesco Conference
15.
asked the Minister of Education whether he will publish a detailed Report of the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference held in Paris last November.
Yes, Sir; a report has been prepared which I hope to present shortly.
Leasehold Tenure
19.
asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to introduce legislation to end the system of leasehold tenure.
Consideration is given, as occasion offers, to various proposals for the amendment of the law in relation to leasehold tenure, but I am not convinced that the abolition of this form of land holding, which serves a useful purpose for large numbers of people, would be in the public interest, and there is no present intention of introducing legislation with that object.
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the present system discourages proper attention by those who hold leases and, therefore, is pernicious; and, further, is he not aware that there is a strong feeling throughout the country, and particularly in Cornwall, over this subject?
As Socialists seem to object equally to leasehold tenure and to a man owning his own house, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what land tenure they want?
Before my right hon. and learned Friend answers, does he realise that this is a very complicated subject, and will he, before taking any steps, such as that indicated in the Question, consider setting up an expert committee to review the whole subject?
The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that I do not propose to take the step suggested in the Question.
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, notwithstanding the difficulties and the humour from hon. Members opposite, there is a tremendous demand in the country for an alteration in the system?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman communicate the views expressed behind him to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health?
Trade And Commerce
Bottles (Government Orders)
20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total grossage of glass bottles ordered by Government Departments during the year 1946; and the comparable figures or 1938.
301,200 gross of empty bottles were ordered by Government Departments during 1946. I regret that no comparable figures for 1938 are available.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that there is now a bottleneck in bottles?
The total production of bottles is 17,500,000 gross.
Auctions (Control)
22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the object of maintaining in force the provision under the Auction and Tender Control Orders which forbids a person to have any of his goods sold by auction if he has had cause to allow to be sold by auction other goods, being goods to which these Orders apply, during the six months immediately preceding the date of the declaration which has to be made prior to any auction; and whether he will review this provision with a view to its abolition in the near future.
The object of the provision to which the hon. Member refers is to ensure that advantage is not taken of auction facilities to carry on a business of selling goods without complying with Price Control Regulations, which cannot conveniently be applied to auctions. In bona fide cases of disposal of personal effects for which auctions are primarily designed, exemption from the six months requirement is freely given by licence. I am satisfied that the provisions are still necessary, and the answer to the second part of the Question is accordingly in the negative.
All the same, is this not really one of the petty controls that might well be abolished in the very near future?
For the reasons I have already given, no.
Softwoods
23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts have been made with softwoods exporting countries for sawn softwoods for forward delivery; and how many standards, arid from whom.
I hope to make a statement on the softwood supply position in the course of the next few weeks when the negotiations of the Timber Control missions in North America have been completed. I am circulating the information for which my hon. Friend has asked in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but he will appreciate that the outstanding balances of contracts with European countries at this particular juncture are relatively small, pending negotiations for the 1947 season which are due to take place next month with both Sweden and Finland.
Following is the information:
Standards
| |
| North America (Negotiations are still in progress). | |
| Sweden | 20,000 |
| Finland | |
| Russia | 6,000 |
| Germany (United States Zone) | 100,000 |
| (subject to periodical confirmation of quantities). | |
| Roumania | 10,000 |
| Austria | 17,000 |
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a comparison of the price to the purchaser in this country of softwood in the round and of sawn timber per cubic foot of Scandinavian, German, Canadian and homegrown timber, respectively.
Taking typical specifications of sawn softwood, the comparative prices per cubic foot to a purchaser in this country are: Scandinavian, 6s.; German, 5s. 7d.; Canadian, 5s. 5d. Home-grown 3s. 11d. to 8s. 6d., according to species, length of seasoning and type of mill in which the softwood was converted. Softwood in the round for conversion is not being imported except from Germany; for a comparison of the prices of German logs with home-grown logs, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) on 6th February.
Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the approximate proportions of the different kinds of timber that we are getting?
That is quite another question.
Standing Timber (Prices)
25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis the recent increased prices of timber in the round were calculated; and what factors were taken into account.
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to standing timber in this country. Since the previous prices were fixed seven years ago, the prices of other materials have risen substantially, as have the costs of maintenance of woods and of replanting. In the absence of detailed costings, the matter had to be dealt with on broad lines, and an increase of 25 per cent. was considered to be fair.
But what about the evidence produced to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the cost of production had increased by 40 per cent.? Did he not take that into account when fixing the increased prices?
Certainly, Sir, but we had a lot of evidence of a differing character, and we took it all into account.
Clothing Supplies
26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that there is no danger of clothing supplies being insufficient to meet the present coupons owing to the stoppage of production through the coal crisis.
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my, hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann) on 13th February.
Is the Minister aware that there is a growing shortage of small, sizes in the shops, and will he take steps to remedy that?
That is another point altogether.
Floor Coverings
27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is with his authority that inspectors are visiting shops with a questionnaire as to whether they are satisfied with the quality of floor coverings; and whether they have had any complaints from customers.
Yes, Sir. Inquiries have been made by officers of my Department who operate under no powers and whose normal work it is to investigate complaints about supplies and shortages of consumer goods. I understand that complaints of the quality of some of the felt base floor covering being sold have been made by customers to retailers.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that the result of these inquiries will be quite valueless since the ingredients for the making up of floor coverings and linoleum are all in very short supply?
I appreciate that fact, but it is valuable to know the results of what is being manufactured.
Fuel Emergency (Production Allocution)
29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes, in view of the coal crisis, have been made in the allocation of industrial production as between goods for export and the home market; and what effect it can be estimated that such cuts as have been necessary will have on long-term contracts abroad.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) on Tuesday last.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the opinion is gaining ground in the country that his present policy of "exports come what may" is driving the people of this country into abject poverty, and will he look with a friendly eye on the generous offers now being made in the United States and Dominions to help us in our hour of need?
I cannot agree with the analysis of the noble Lord with regard to the effect of the policy which has so far been pursued. Perhaps he will wait until he sees the Paper on Economic Policy before he makes further similar observations.
Children's Clothes
30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of baby linen and small children's clothes in the city of Aberdeen; and if he will increase the supply of these commodities, which are badly needed during the winter, and so alter the points system as to make them available to the public.
Every effort is being made still further to increase the production of baby linen and small children's clothes, and to keep pace with the steadily rising demand. I have no information that the position in Aberdeen is more difficult than elsewhere or that present pointings prevent the public from buying the supplies which are available.
In fixing points for clothing, particularly children's clothing, will my right hon. and learned Friend have regard to the winter climate on the North-East Coast of Scotland?
That is one of the matters to which we have regard.
39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why Brighton shops are so poorly stocked with youths' and boys' outerwear; and how soon can they expect supplies to be improved.
I attribute the shortage, which is confined to the better quality outerwear of the school uniform type, to the return of many schools to Brighton. I hope that some further supplies will reach the shops very soon and that, despite production hold-ups, the position will have eased before the next school term.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this case would not have come to his notice without agitation from the town of Brighton and, in the circumstances, has he not somebody in his Department who watches over these matters?
Certainly, but one cannot have sufficient people to watch every area all the time.
Is any concession which is made to Brighton being extended to other parts of the country?
This is a special question because a number of schools which moved from Brighton have now returned there Therefore, there is a much larger school population.
Are we to understand that whenever we want a thing we have got to agitate before we can get it?
Educational Books
32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that London booksellers are now charging to students for secondhand hooks two or three times the new price; whether he is aware of the hardship thus being imposed upon students; and whether he will, therefore, allocate increased supplies of paper to the publishing trade for printing books essential to university students for the purpose of passing their examinations.
I am aware that the prices of secondhand books are high, but it has not been found possible to make them subject to price control As regards the last part of the Question, book publishers are at present allocated 90 per cent of their prewar consumption of paper; in addition, there is a special, though limited, reserve from which allocations are made for important books for which paper would not otherwise be available. While there is a shortage of educational books, this is due, in general, to a shortage of printing and binding capacity rather than to lack of paper.
Is the Minister aware that students are being examined with text books of which they cannot obtain copies, and will he agree that that is an impossible situation? Also, in view of the fact that the number of students has increased since before the war, will he not agree that prewar standards are not a good guide?
I quite appreciate the difficulty as regards the shortage of books, and the only thing to do is to borrow one if one cannot buy one.
Be sure to return it.
Rationing (Anonymous Letters)
33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many anonymous letters are, on average, received each month by his Department about rationing offences being committed by named individuals; and what action his Department takes over such anonymous communications.
About 200 such letters are received each month and, where they appear to be of substance, the allegations are investigated.
Utility Clothing
34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason for the shortage of clothing workers in the utility side of the clothing industry compared with the abundance of labour on the non-utility side, in view of the fact that no more than 16 per cent. of the production of cloth for the home market is distributed for non-utility manufacture; how this distribution takes place; and what check and control his Department maintains upon it.
The labour force engaged in the production of utility clothing is in general adequate, having regard to the limited supplies of utility cloth and linings available. The relative proportion of utility and non-utility cloth is planned at the production stage and the results of the planning are checked at frequent intervals. The distribution of both utility and non-utility cloth to the makers-up is left to the trade who supply it against coupons.
Does not the Minister agree that as, apparently, far more than 16 per cent. of the output goes to the non-utility producing firms, this is a case for ensuring that all clothing is utility so that the labour goes into the right channels?
No, I am afraid I cannot agree.
Does the Minister tell the House that there is adequate labour in the spinning industry?
No, I have not said that. We are dealing with the making-up trade for clothing.
Mining Areas (Consumer Goods)
35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he is making arrangements to give priority to coalminers in the allocation of consumer goods.
Manufacturers and wholesalers were asked last autumn to increase supplies of unrationed household textiles and other household goods to the main mining areas, and these areas have also received preference in the distribution of Government surplus clothing.
Overseas Trade Fairs
36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why His Majesty's Government have declined the offer of the Soviet Government to participate in the Leipzig fair.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Ramsden Committee, official participation at trade fairs overseas is now undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, and there has been no such participation since the Committee's report was laid before this House last March. So far as commercial participation is concerned, we have only recently learnt that the Leipzig fair is to be open this year to firms from outside Germany and, as the opening date is 4th March, it would scarcely be possible for firms in this country to organise exhibits in time.
Children's Wellingtons
37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the special difficulty in obtaining children's Wellington boots experienced by parents living in remote rural areas who are unable to pay frequent visits to shops in search of these scarce goods; and if, in view of the greater need for such boots in muddy country lanes than in urban streets, he will endeavour to make special arrangements to meet this need.
When supplies of children's Wellingtons improved sufficiently to allow the dropping of formal priority schemes, the trade were asked to pay special attention to the needs of rural areas. I believe that this arrangement has proved generally satisfactory, but I will certainly look into any special cases which my hon. Friend will send to me.
Confectionery Exports (Dollar Countries)
38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the list of countries to which chocolate and sugar confectionery is permitted for export during the first six months of 1947 contains dollar paying countries.
No, Sir, but the matter is being reviewed.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that manufacturers are being asked to deliver to the United States and Canada, while imports are authorised from the same places, and will he consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether this conforms to his dollar policy?
There are other considerations as regards exporting foodstuffs when this country is short of food.
American Shoes
40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many dollars have been allocated for the importation of women's leather shoes from Canada and the U.S.A.; whether a ceiling price has been fixed to prevent luxury shoes being imported; and why these dollars cannot be used for purchasing either hides and skin, or leather, so as to provide greater employment and more footwear in this country.
The value of imports of women's leather shoes from the United States and Canada during 1947 is not expected to exceed £130,000 or approximately 520,000 dollars. A reasonable average price has been agreed with both countries for the bulk of these shoes, although a small proportion will be admitted without any restriction in order that the best of style and design may be available to stimulate our production. These imports do not prejudice our purchases of hides and leather, additional quantities of which are also being imported so as to increase our leather supplies as far as possible.
Will the bulk of those shoes have to come within the utility specifications, and will they have to be sold within the maximum utility prices?
No, they cannot because the type of manufacture is different. Therefore, they cannot conform to the utility specification but, as I have said, reasonable prices have been fixed for the bulk of them.
Is the President of the Board of Trade not overlooking the recommendations of the working party which enjoined that any minimum quality standards imposed upon the domestic industry should be correspondingly imposed upon imported footwear?
We are doing that, and that is why I say arrangements are being made as to quota and price.
Italy
44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in detail the values of goods imported from, and exported to, Italy during the year 1946.
A considerable amount of information about our trade with Italy is contained in the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation. I will send the hon. Member the particulars that were published in the Accounts for December, 1946.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we are importing a certain amount of manufactured goods from Italy, which include very expensive silk clothing, and will he look into this matter to see whether this country still needs Italian silk clothing?
I will certainly look into any matter which the hon. Member wishes to raise, but if he will look at the figures I think he will be satisfied with what is being done.
Pineapples
70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries from which pineapples were imported during 1946, indicating the respective values from each country.
Total imports of pineapples in 1946 amounted to £153,000, of which all but £1,000 come from the Azores.
Does the Minister think it was essential for this country to import pineapples at a cost of £153,000, in view of the fact that, though I. too, am a lover of fruit, I am not able to afford the price of pineapples at 20s. each? Will he restrict the imports of these pineapples?
Quite a number of pineapples, I understand, have been sold off barrows to people who are not very rich people; and they do give some variety to the diet.
Does the Minister disagree that pineapples are being sold at 20s. each? Does he really think the working class can buy them at that price?
I am afraid I have not seen any at that price.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should ask his wife.
In any case, it is a question for the Minister of Food.
Fuel Emergency
Warnings
46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the information services at the disposal of the Government took adequate measures during December and January to prepare the public for the difficulties that would arise out of the fuel shortage, even in the event of favourable weather conditions; and what steps he proposes to take to strengthen these services.
Ample warning of the danger of a coal shortage arising this winter, and the consequences of such shortage on industry and the domestic consumer, were given well in advance of December and January; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power recapitulated some of the warnings given during the Debates in this House on 7th February and 10th February. In January when it became necessary to restrict supplies of coal to industry and to introduce the Fuel Allocation Scheme, my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Fuel and Power held a Press conference on r3th January at which the situation arising out of the fuel shortage and the need for fuel economy was fully explained.
Surely my right hon. Friend agrees that the public did not realise how serious the situation was, nor did they realise the absolute necessity for saving the maximum amount of fuel in their own homes? Does not that mean that the Government information services need strengthening so that people can be fully informed of these things before they happen?
There have been criticisms in this House that there are too many people in the information services.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was not the information services which were at fault, but that it was a case of the inefficiency of the Minister of Fuel and Power and of the Government?
Will my right hon. Friend consider reviving and filling the office of Minister of Information so that the Government's case will not go by default, as it has done, as a. result of the Opposition Press activities?
Ministerial Co-Ordination
48.
asked the Prune Minister what co-ordinating machinery exists between the Minister of Fuel and Power, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply; and whether some explanatory statement will be made showing the Government's comprehensive plan to clarify the future position, and to get industry again into full operation.
In order to deal with urgent inquiries about the application of the recent restrictions on the supply of electricity to industry a special committee, with representatives of all the Departments concerned, has been in daily session, and I myself preside over a committee of Ministers which keeps the general situation under review. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made to the House yesterday.
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is never too late nor too early to speak the truth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There was nothing in that remark which was discourteous. Hon. Members have not understood what I am saying. I am asking whether the Prime Minister is not aware of that. Would it not be better for the Government to take the full blame for all that has happened, rather than put it all on the shoulders of one Minister?
There is no suggestion on this side of the House that everything should be blamed on or put on the shoulders of one Minister. He is not responsible for the weather.
Armed Forces (Land Requirements)
49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will assure the House that a statement will be made on the future of Service training areas before the Debate takes place on the forthcoming Army Estimates.
I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I propose to make on Tuesday next.
Employment
Labour Permits (Italians)
50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give special consideration to the issue of labour permits to Italian citizens who are married to women of British birth, and whose wives cannot leave this country for domestic and compassionate reasons.
Sympathetic consideration is given to these cases.
Demobilisation
51.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the signing of the peace treaties and the manpower shortage, he expects, shortly, to be able to announce a further substantial acceleration of demobilisation.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the "Statement Relating to Defence," Cmd. 7042, which has just been presented to Parliament.
But is not my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern caused by that statement, and the announcement in it that more than a million men will still be in the Forces at the end of March, 1948; can he not say anything further; and is he bringing constant pressure on the Service Departments and on the Foreign Secretary, from his particular point of view?
I cannot say anything further than what is contained in the statement itself. Surely, the hon. Member does not want an opinion from me?
Disabled Persons
52.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Servicemen in receipt of disability pensions are unemployed; and how many of these are in receipt of unemployment allowances.
I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. The total number of ex-Servicemen on the Disabled Persons Register who were unemployed at 20th January was 43,819.
53.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the results achieved by the recent exhibition in Oxford Street, which showed the disabled at work.
Yes, Sir. The exhibition was open from 8th January to 1st February and, despite the inclement weather, was seen by 62,786 visitors, including large numbers of employers. The object of the exhibition was to bring home to the public, and particularly to employers, what is being done to re-establish disabled persons in useful employment; and I am convinced that it was successful. So much so, that I would like to take this opportunity of appealing to all employers and managements to give the disabled every chance to use their gifts, and to show that they can hold their place in industry alongside their able-bodied fellow workers.
Is not it a fact that for a long period of years the employers of this country have made every possible effort to provide work for men and women in the category to which he has just referred?
I will be fair. A great number have, but a great number have not. I must say, since the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act has been passed there has been a very genuine effort on the part of employers.
Will the Minister indicate whether it is the intention to extend this exhibition to the provinces?
We will have a look at it as soon as the better weather comes, to see if we can do anything.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some employers are unable to secure sufficient disabled trainees; and is he satisfied that the arrangements are sufficiently satisfactory to enable employers to obtain the services of these men?
I am totally unaware of the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If he will give me any instances of employers who have been unable to get the services of disabled workers we will take it up. As for training facilities, I am satisfied they are quite adequate.
Displaced Persons
57.
asked the Minister of Labour how many Government representatives there are at present in Germany interviewing displaced persons with a view to placing them in employment in this country; how long the Government's representatives have been in Germany; and how many displaced persons they have so far found suitable for employment in this country.
Under the scheme for recruiting displaced persons for hospital domestic work, hitherto in force, two officers of my Department have been engaged in interviewing displaced persons since September, 1946. One thousand three hundred and seventy-two women recruited under this scheme have already started work in British sanatoria and hospitals, and several hundreds more, who have been passed as suitable, will be brought here as soon as possible. The inflow is being stepped up by some hundreds a week, and there are prospects of the demand being satisfied at an early date. The organisation for classifying and selecting displaced persons for employment in this country, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred on 18th February in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), is being set up, and officers of my Department will be allocated for the purpose.
Will their power be limited to interviewing, or will they have additional powers of recruitment?
Under the new scheme they will be given power to find out the capacity and to bring persons over here, if there is available employment for which they are suited without further delay.
Can my right hon. Friend say how many aliens there are now in this country who are forbidden to work owing to the terms of their entry permits, imposed by the Home Office; and when he is considering the question of bringing in aliens for permanent employment, will he consider whether the restrictions upon those already here may not now be reconsidered?
I could not give the information asked for in the first part of the question. I certainly give the undertaking asked for in the second part.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in our Colonies, notably in Malta, a number of people who are unemployed who would like to come to this country; and would he consult with the Colonial Secretary before proceeding, in order to take people from those countries first?
That is an entirely different question. I think I have answered very fully the Question put to me.
Control Of Engagement Orders
54. Mr.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is intended to modify the terms of the Control of Engagement Orders, in view of the changes in the age of call-up of men to His Majesty's Forces which have been in operation since the beginning of this year.
Yes, Sir. I have made an order, with effect from 24th February, abolishing all control of engagement except in relation to agriculture, coal-mining and building and civil engineering, in which industries the existing control of engagement continues unchanged.
Railway Clerks' Wage Claim
56.
asked the Minister of Labour if the Railway Clerks' Association was represented at the National Joint Advisory Council meeting which issued the statement in Cmd. No. 7018; and if he will make a statement on the association's demands for a 35-hour week and £1 wage increase.
The statement to which the hon. Member refers was issued by the Government, but with the endorsement of both sides of the National Joint Advisory Council, which consist respectively of members representing the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
Does the Minister think that in our present economic crisis the country can afford a 35-hour week?
It is not a matter of what I think. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If negotiations are going on between a trade union and employers it would be quite wrong for the Minister of Labour, who ultimately may be called upon to negotiate between the two parties, to say what he thinks.
Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that the claim represents an effort to introduce order where chaos now prevails, and is in respect of the hours of employment of clerical and administrative workers in the railway services of this country, which have resulted in huge withdrawals from the services?
Dock Workers (Decasualisation)
58.
asked the Minister of Labour when he now expects to publish notices of the Draft Order and permanent schemes of decasualisation under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act. 1946.
I expect that the prepartion of the final draft will be completed by the end of this week. Actual publication may, however, be delayed, as the process of duplication of the necessary number of copies depends on electric current which is subject to the current cuts. If these cuts continue, a period of about a fortnight will be required for duplication.
Does my right hon. Friend anticipate there will be any difficulty in bringing the permanent scheme into operation by the date mentioned in the Act, namely, 1st July of this year?
No, Sir. I think we can keep to that date. We have had informal conversations with both sides of the industry, and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I think we have prepared a scheme which will not give rise to many objections; at any rate, we hope so. We will keep that in mind.
National Finance
Savings Bank Withdrawals
59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the figures for Post Office Savings Bank withdrawals for the past six months; and whether these are bigger than the deposits.
These figures have already been published by the National Savings Committee; I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
Can the Chancellor say whether he contemplates any reduction in the rate of interest?
Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question on that.
Has there been any marked increase in cashments during the past fortnight, since the severe increase in the number of unemployed?
I think that question might be put down. As a matter of fact, it is very good to see how the national savings have kept up, in spite of all the circumstances.
In spite of the right hon. Gentleman.
Commodity Subsidies
60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what articles of food and other commodities are not included in the £364,000,000 subsidy; and what is their respective cost to the taxpayer.
Utility clothing, £14,500,000; and leather, £17,500,000.
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a clear statement as to what extent the taxpayers are subsidising the food prices, and to what extent the purchasing power of the pound sterling is being upheld by the Government?
Clear statements to all these questions are repeatedly given, in every possible form of combination, when the hon. Member puts down his Questions.
The right hon. Gentleman did not give a clear answer.
Currency Export
62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he is aware that £4,500 has recently been sent to Soviet miners as a gift from the National Union of Mineworkers; and, in view of the fact that export of money from this country is restricted, why permission was given for this amount and for this purpose.
No, Sir. And that is a clear answer.
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a permit to export a similar amount to the dispossessed millionaires of America? May I have an answer to that?
Sterling Balances (Negotiations)
63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the negotiations with the Government of India for the payment of sterling balances, His Majesty's Government reserves the right to present a counterclaim for the defence of India during the war; and whether such a claim has been definitely put forward in the present negotiations.
The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." In reply to the second part of the Question, I cannot add anything to the agreed communiqué which was issued at the end of the recent conversations in India.
Is the same principle to be applied to debts owing to other countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless these debts are scaled down, even though they are funded, it will mean that 500,000 British workers will be producing for the next 25 years goods on which there will be no return whatsoever?
I am very glad to have evidence of support from hon. Members opposite in the battle I shall be conducting for some time to come to prevent the British taxpayers having to bear grossly heavy burdens.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question? Is this principle of getting these debts scaled down, to be applied, not only to India, but to Egypt and other countries defended by us during the war?
The day before yesterday I gave an answer to a supplementary question by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) in which I said:
"In all negotiations about sterling balances account must be taken of the comparative war effort of the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February 1947; Vol. 433, C. 978.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the assurance that that statement has full endorsement from this side of the House?
Argentine (Financial Arrangements)
64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total involved in the adverse balance of payments between this country and the Argentine for 1946; and that anticipated for 1947.
£50 million in 1946. I cannot yet usefully give a figure for 1947, which must depend on a large number of uncertain factors.
65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total revenue received from British investments in the Argentine for 1945 and 1946, respectively, and that anticipated for 1947.
£12,500,000 and £13,000.000 respectively. Revenue in 1947 cannot be estimated.
66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the agreement concluded with the Argentine for the purchase by that country of the holdings in Argentine railways held by British investors; and if he will make a statement.
Yes, Sir. The agreement is subject to approval by the shareholders of the companies.
Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that of the £15o million paid, £125 million has simply been redeemed by the proceeds of sterling balances, and that this is the perfect example of no counter claim being made, and that for £25 million of Argentine currency we are selling our most: valuable assets in South America?
One might have a considerable Debate on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I was asked whether the Government are satisfied, and my answer is "Yes, we are." But when I speak of that, I think, of course, of the whole of the Argentine Agreement of which this is only one part.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible time.
Fuel Emergency (Industrial Losses)
67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the question of compensation to those firms required to pay guaranteed-week wages; and if he will make a statement.
68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will consider compensating those who cannot claim unemployment benefit, such as proprietors of businesses, doctors, dentists, newspaper proprietors, musicians and other professional men and women who suffer loss owing to the fuel shortage.
I regret that any such arrangements would he quite impracticable.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case of some small firms that give a guaranteed week?
I am afraid it really would be impracticable to pick out firms here and there. It would be quite impossible to draw a line and say, "Thus far and no farther."
In view of the tact that the whole of this loss is due to the inefficiency of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to surcharge Ministers' salaries to pay for this?
Civil Servants Blackpool
69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants, permanent and temporary, respectively, are now working in offices in Blackpool; how many he plans to have working there on 1st January, 1948, and how many on 1st July, 1948; and whether he will circulate a table showing the numbers in each Department, separately.
Two thousand four hundred and fifty permanent and 8,070 temporary. I expect that the total figure will have been reduced by nearly 40 per cent. early in 1948 I cannot give a closer forecast at present I will circulate the required table in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
Following is the table
| CIVIL SERVANTS WORKING IN BLACKPOOL (EXCLUDING PURELY LOCAL OFFICES). | |||
February, 1947. | |||
| Department | Permanent. | Temporary. | Total. |
| H.M. Customs and Excise. | 191 | 118 | 309 |
| Ministry of National Insurance | 1,380 | 3,800 | 5,180 |
| Ministry of Pensions | 750 | 3,500 | 4,250 |
| Ministry of Transport | 129 | 652 | 781 |
| Total | 2,450 | 8,070 | 10,520 |
Electricity Supple
German Submarines
72.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether before the 100 German submarines were sunk by the Admiralty in 1946, any consideration was given by his Department to the possibility of using these submarines to generate electricity at appropriate ports and seaside towns in Great Britain.
No, Sir
Was no consideration given at all to the possibility of these valuable generating plants being used in crisis such as this?
I must inform the hon. Member that, under the Potsdam Agreement, these submarines should have been destroyed in February of last year.
Is any effort being made to use submarines for this purpose?
An effort has been made quite successfully.
Have the submarines been destroyed?
I cannot say, but the Agreement was that they should be.
Would it not have been possible, within the limits of the Agreement, to have taken the generating plant away before the submarines were sunk?
Industrial Premises, Surrey (Cuts)
75.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority sent out representatives on 10th February in the Dorking area to enter many industrial premises without notice to the occupiers to remove the fuse gear; if he is aware that this action caused much resentment to the occupiers concerned; and on what statutory authority such action was taken.
The London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority interpreted the original instructions they received as requiring them to cut off supplies to industrial consumers and regarded themselves as covered by Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I understand that the supplies were reconnected on Tuesday, 'Ph February.
Is it not rather a pity that the Minister did not give clear instructions, so that we should not have this high handed action?
The instruction was sent out by the Electricity Commissioners under statutory authority.
76.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that, on Saturday, 8th February, the Capel Laundry Company, Limited, Capel, Surrey, were informed by the Board of Trade that their electric supply would be maintained as an essential service, but that on Monday the supply was cut off as the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority had not received any instructions as to giving such priority; and if he will make a statement on the subject.
I am informed that the supply of electricity to the Capel Laundry Company Limited was disconnected on Monday, 10th February, before the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority had received instructions that laundries were to be regarded as an essential service but that the supply was reconnected as from 4 p.m. on that date.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the supply was cut off again on Tuesday morning?
I am not aware of that, and as this is regarded as an essential industry, it ought not to have been cut. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me information about it.
Coal Industry
Exports
77.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, arising out of the official figures which were issued in connection with the export of coal from this country overseas, amounting to some 8,000,000 tons for the year 1946, and the total stock shortage figure which was given as 3,000,000 tons, steps will be taken to reduce the export figures for 1947 by 3,000,000 tons so as to make provision for an adequate coal stock reserve figure.
The total exports in 1946 referred to by the hon. Member were divided as to approximately half for ships' bunkers at United Kingdom ports and half for cargo exports. Moreover, cargo exports included supplies to bunker depots and H.M. Forces overseas, the great bulk of the balance consisting of very inferior qualities. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) on 14th February.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government to give him some powers to deal with the allocations of the European Coal Board, and will he say why coal needed so urgently at home is being sent abroad?
That is another question.
European Coal Organisation
78.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now make a statement showing the present membership and stating the functions of the European Coal Organisation; the effect the organisation has upon the allocation of coal produced in this country; and the extent to which the export of British coal is dictated by this organisation.
As the answer to the first part of the Question is a list, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the remainder of the Question, there is no change in the position described in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 28th May last, in which I pointed out that the European Coal Organisation is not concerned with either the quantity of coal used in the United Kingdom or its distribution.
Is it not an astonishing fact that a big international body is allowed to allocate coal which is badly needed at home, and we have no control over it whatsoever?
Only a very small proportion of our coal goes abroad, and it is a very negligible portion of the amount used by the European Coal Board.
How does the amount of coal exported abroad compare with the amount that has been saved in the last ten days?
I have given the reply to the Question. The figure of exports for last year is about 8 million tons, and about half of that was for bunkering, which cannot he avoided. For the rest, it is regarded as inferior coal.
What have we saved during the period of restriction?
That, of course, is another question
It is another question, Out it is one which urgently requires a reply.
Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman regards it is urgent, he will put clown a question.
Following is the list:Member Countries: Belgium, Czecho slovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.Associatied Countries: Finland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland. Full members of the Organisation, which have so far been confined to United Nations, include both supplying and importing countries. Certain other European countries, dependent on imported coal supplies, participate in the Organisation and are known as "Associated Countries." In addition, arrangements have recently been made for South Africa, which exports relatively small quantities of coal to Europe, to be represented at appropriate meetings of the Organisation.Business Of The House
May I ask the acting Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?
Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 24th February—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions. Tuesday, 25th February—A Debate on Palestine will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Wednesday, 26th February—There will be an opportunity for a Debate on the resumption of industry and domestic fuel distribution on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Thursday, 27th February—First allotted Supply day. Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, 1947–48—Committee stage. A Debate on foreign affairs will take place. Friday, 28th February—Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates contained in Paper No. 46, beginning with the Control Office for Germany and Austria; Diplomatic and Consular Services; United Nations; Assistance to Greece, and progress with other outstanding Votes in Committee and on Report. During the week we shall ask the House to agree to the Report stage of Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates, 1946–47.No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Business of next week, and the Business the House will have to do when we come to consider the Government's White Paper on Economic Policy, is of outstanding importance. Will he reassure us that some reports we have heard of the possibility of Standing Committees meeting in the afternoon will not, in any circumstances, take shape while the House has to deal with matters of this urgency at this particular time?
I appreciate the tact that Members are working hard on Standing Committees, but the King's Speech laid down these Measures, and we must proceed with them as quickly and expeditiously as possible, having regard to the ordinary decencies of full discussion. That does not necessarily mean that we can always give up Sittings of Committees in the afternoon. I appreciate the importance of the Debate to which the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition pay a good deal of attention, and we will give that Debate a proper chance. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss, through the usual channels, whether satisfactory arrangements. can be made for the conduct of the Committees, I shall be happy to do so.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there really is no precedent for asking Standing Committees to meet in the afternoons, except in the closing stages of the Session to finish a Bill? The only assurance I am asking for is that we should make quite certain that Members of this House will he free to discuss the most important subjects which can come before it.
I have said that I am prepared to consider that, in a most friendly way, with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a question of lateness in the Session, but a question of pressure on the Government and the time available, having regard to the character of the Measures.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are precedents for Committees sitting in the afternoons even when we are not near the end of the Session?
Will an early opportunity be given to the House to consider the Denning Report on divorce; and will such Measures as are necessary be put into effect?
I really cannot hold out any opportunity of bringing in any more legislation, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal.
Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Business, in which he says he will ask the House to agree to the Report stage of the Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates, 1946–47, he will understand that there is an item of some importance, the expenditure of some £20 million of the taxpayers' money, in the Army Supplementary Estimate, about which we are awaiting a satisfactory answer. May I ask for an assurance that this will be taken at a reasonably late hour?
I am perfectly well aware of the anxiety of the House; perhaps we can come to an agreement on the matter through the usual channels.
Has not the acting Leader of the House announced an entirely new departure in respect of Standing Committees sitting in the afternoons, otherwise than for the completion of business at the end of the Session? Is not this process going to lead to a grave contraction of Parliamentary effectiveness? In the first instance, Measures are sent up to the Standing Committees and the House is deprived of an opportunity of discussing them in Committee of the Whole House, and then these Committees upstairs are made to sprawl over the afternoons, so that Members will not be able to return to the discussion of the Report stage of other Measures which have been disposed of equally summarily in Grand Committees. Is this not a shameful rupture and restriction of the long-established Parliamentary processes of debate?
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not had an extensive experience of Standing Committee work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. This is not a departure in principle at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Hon. Members now on this side of the House have in the past been punished by a very hard, bitter and vicious Conservative Government in regard to sittings in the afternoons, and when I have been in Opposition I have raised the same matter myself. I have made an offer to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this question, and I am prepared to discuss it through the usual channels. I am bound to say that I have objections to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, starting a Debate on a matter which is obviously one which ought to be discussed through the usual channels, with a view to causing the minimum inconvenience to the House.
Is it not a question, not of starting a Debate on a new topic, but of whether the right hon. Gentleman has announced a new departure? If he has announced no new departure in principle, and if it is only a question of some easement being required, then it is proper that such discussions should be through the usual channels. But if, first of all, he is going to send great Measures upstairs for prolonged discussion there, which will mean that Members will be locked up there in important Debates, with the result that the House of Commons will he mutilated for the sake of the Standing Committees upstairs, then this is the proper place to discuss such a matter.
Any Government determines what Bills should go to Standing Committee. That is the Government's right, and we shall retain it. [HON. MEMBERS "The House's right."] So long as we command the majority, it is the Government's right. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a departure in principle, but we are prepared to see what we can do for the easement of Members of the House in a matter which affects far more people on this side than on the other side. We shall do our hest, through the usual channels, to see how we can make the Committee system work to the best advantage.
Before the Estimates are discussed next week, is it the intention of the Government to make a statement about battle training areas, and to publish a White Paper on the matter?
I believe that a Question about battle training areas is due to be answered some time next week.
Will the acting Leader of the House make it quite clear that the Government will have no nonsense in this matter of Standing Committees, and that they are determined to have the Transport Bill at the time at which they have decided—
Nazism.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lich-held (Major Poole) is now discussing a matter of which we have disposed.
In regard to Tuesday's Business, I gather that there will be no objection to suspending the Rule, in view of the important statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week?
I do not want to be unreasonable, and if it were the view of the House that a slight extension of time was required I should be prepared to consider it sympathetically.
On a point of Order. I want to ask whether it is your Ruling, Sir, or a new departure, that the Leader of the Opposition may be allowed to put half a dozen supplementaries while the ordinary back bench Member is to be deprived of the opportunity of asking even one supplementary?
The reason why I took exception to the hon. arid gallant Member's supplementary, a few moments ago, was that I understood that we had disposed of that matter.
Reverting to the question of Standing Committees sitting in the afternoon—
I have just said that we have disposed of that matter.
On Thursday's Business, in view of the importance of the foreign affairs Debate will my right hon. Friend consider extending the time for it by one hour?
May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether, apart from the usual channels, the House itself will be given an opportunity of discussing any proposal that Standing Committees should sit during the afternoon?
We have already passed from that question.
Can the acting Leader of the House say something about the Business for today? There is a large number of Orders on the Paper. Can he say how far the Government hope to proceed?
I hope we shall be able to dispose of the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill in a fairly reasonable time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak tip."] I am sorry, but I have a cold; in any case if Members would be a little quieter they would hear me better. I was saying that I hoped that the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill would not take an unduly long time. It may be that the House does not want to sit too late tonight, but we must make substantial progress. If the House should look like sitting extremely late, however, then the Chief Whip or I might move the Adjournment, on the understanding that we get through the rest of the Bill in a reasonable time.
The rest of what Bill?
I was thinking primarily of the Polish Resettlement Bill.
India (Government Policy)
Change Of Viceroy
I deire to make a statement on Indian policy.
It has long been the policy of successive British Governments to work towards the realisation of self-government in India. In pursuance of this policy an increasing measure of responsibility has been devolved on Indians and today the civil administration and the Indian Armed Forces rely to a very large extent on Indian civilians and officers. In the constitutional field the Acts of 1919 and 1935 passed by the British Parliament each represented a substantial transfer of political power. In 1940 the Coalition Government recognised the principle that Indians should themselves frame a new constitution for a fully autonomous India, and in the offer of 1942 they invited them to set up a Constituent Assembly for this purpose as soon as the war was over. His Majesty's Government believe this policy to have been right and in accordance with sound democratic principles. Since they came into office, they have done their utmost to carry it forward to its fulfilment. The declaration of the Prime Minister of 15th March last which met with general approval in Parliament and the country, made it clear that it was for the Indian people themselves to choose their future status and constitution and that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the time had come for responsibility for the Government of India to pass into Indian hands. The Cabinet Mission which was sent to India last year spent over three months in consultation with Indian leaders in order to help them to agree upon a method for determining the future constitution of India, so that the transfer of power might be smoothly and rapidly effected. It was only when it seemed clear that without some initiative from the Cabinet Mission agreement was unlikely to be reached that they put forward proposals themselves. These proposals, made public in May last, envisaged that the future constitution of India should be settled by a Constituent Assembly composed, in the manner suggested therein, of representatives of all communities and interests in British India and of the Indian States. Since the return of the Mission an Interim Government has been set up at the Centre composed of the political leaders of the major communities exercising wide powers within the existing constitution. In all the Provinces Indian Governments responsible to Legislatures are in office. It is with great regret that His Majesty's Government find that there are still differences among Indian Parties which are preventing the Constituent Assembly from functioning as it was intended that it should. It is of the essence of the plan that the Assembly should be fully representative. His Majesty's Government desire to hand over their responsibility to authorities established by a constitution approved by all parties in India in accordance with the Cabinet Mission's plan, but unfortunately there is at present no clear prospect that such a constitution and such authorities will emerge. The present state of uncertainty is fraught with danger and cannot be indefinitely prolonged. His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that it is their definite intention to take the necessary steps to effect the transference of power into responsible Indian hands by a date not later than June, 1948. This great sub-continent now containing over 400 million people has for the last century enjoyed peace and security as a part of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Continued peace and security are more than ever necessary today if the full possibilities of economic development are to be realised and a higher standard of life attained by the Indian people. His Majesty's Government are anxious to hand over their responsibilities to a Government which, resting on the sure foundation of the support of the people, is capable of maintaining peace and administering India with justice and efficiency. It is therefore essential that all parties should sink their differences in order that they may he ready to shoulder the great responsibilities which will come upon them next year. After months of hard work by the Cabinet Mission a great measure of agreement was obtained as to the method by which a constitution should be worked out. This was embodied in their statements of May last. His Majesty's Government there agreed to recommend to Parliament a constitution worked out, in accordance with the proposals made therein, by a fully representative Constituent Assembly. But if it should appear that such a constitution will not have been worked out by a fully representative Assembly before the time mentioned in paragraph 7, His Majesty's Government will have to consider to whom the powers of the Central Government in British India should be handed over, on the due date, whether as a whole to some form of central Government for British India or in some areas to the existing Provincial Governments, or in such other way as may seem most reasonable and in the best interests of the Indian people. Although the final transfer of authority may not take place until June, 1948, preparatory measures must be put in hand in advance. It is important that the efficiency of the civil administration should be maintained and that the defence of India should be fully provided for. But inevitably, as the process of transfer proceeds, it will become progressively more difficult to carry out to the letter all the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Legislation will be introduced in due course to give effect to the final transfer of power. In regard to the Indian States, as was explicitly stated by the Cabinet Mission, His Majesty's Government do not intend to hand over their powers and obligations under paramountcy to any Government of British India. It is not intended to bring paramountcy, as a system, to a conclusion earlier than the date of the final transfer of power, but it is contemplated that for the intervening period the relations of the Crown with individual States may be adjusted by agreement. His Majesty's Government will negotiate agreements in regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power with the representatives of those to whom they propose to transfer power. His Majesty's Government believe that British commercial and industrial interests in India can look forward to a fair field for their enterprise under the new conditions. The commercial connection between India and the United Kingdom has been long and friendly, and will continue to be to their mutual advantage. His Majesty's Government cannot conclude this statement without expressing on behalf of the people of this country their goodwill and good wishes towards the people of India, as they go forward to this final stage in their achievement of self-government. It will be the wish of everyone in these islands that, notwithstanding constitutional changes, the association of the British and Indian peoples should not be brought to an end; and they will wish to continue to do all that is in their power to further the well-being of India. This concludes the statement on policy. The House will now wish to know of an announcement which is being made public today. Field Marshal the Right Honourable Viscount Wavell was appointed Viceroy in 1943 after having held high military command in South-East Asia, the Middle East and India with notable distinction since the beginning of the war. It was agreed that this should be a wartime appointment. Lord Wavell has discharged this high office during this very difficult period with devotion and a high sense of duty. It has however seemed that the opening of this new and final phase in India is the appropriate time to terminate this war appointment. His Majesty has been pleased to approve, as successor to Lord Wavell, the appointment of Rear-Admiral the Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, who will he entrusted with the task of transferring to Indian hands the responsibility for the government of British India in the manner that will best ensure the future happiness and prosperity of India. He will remain on the active list, in accordance with his wish that his future employ- ment in the Royal Navy shall not be prejudiced. I feel sure that the whole House will wish Lord Mountbatten well in his great task. The change of office will take place during March. The House will be glad to hear that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the conferment of an Earldom on Viscount Wavell.Will the right hon. Gentleman lay before the House the reasons for the termination of the appointment of Viscount Wavell at this particular moment? Will he indicate to us, as it is essential to our comprehension of the position, what differences, divergences or disagreements have arisen between the Viceroy and His Majesty's Government?
No, Sir. I have made the announcement with regard to the termination of the Viceroyalty of Lord Wavell, and I do not propose to add anything to it.
Surely, we are entitled to be treated in a reasonable manner. Is it not a fact that if Lord Wavell's Viceroyalty had ended with the war, it, would have ended 18 months ago, and that had it ended after three years, it would have ended in June last? What, then, is the reason for this difference and disagreement which have lead to the removal and dismissal of a Viceroy in the full conduct of Government policy?
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Lord Wavell was not appointed for a fixed term. As has been stated, it was thought that in the changing phase of the Indian problem, it was a suitable time to make a change. I do not propose to add anything to that statement.
May I ask, in all humility, because the House is entitled to a reasonable explanation, why has this moment been chosen for this momentous new departure? There must be some reason. Is there any reason why it should be concealed from the House? Why should we not be told the truth?
I have already stated the reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "What reason?"] Will hon. Members wait a moment. I have already stated the reason in the statement I have made, that we regard it as a suitable time to make a change, owing to the change in the phase of the Indian problem. I do not intend to say more than that. I am not aware that there is any precedent for such a request.
What are the reasons which make this time appropriate for a change? There must be some reason. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman did not wake up one morning, and say, "Oh, let us get another Viceroy"? It must have some purpose or reason behind it, and we have a right to know what is that purpose or reason.
Answer.
is it the Prime Minister's intention to give a full opportunity at the earliest possible moment for Debate on this very important statement? That obviously cannot be this week, but can we have an assurance that it will be next week? Are we to understand that the purport of the statement that has been made amounts to this—that the Government have now fixed the definite date of June, 1948, as the day on which they will transfer the government of India to the people of India, whether or not agreement has been arrived at between Congress and the Muslim League?
The Government are perfectly willing to have a Debate and indeed will welcome the opportunity for full Debate on all these matters. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) asked a question?
I did ask that some reason or explanation should be given for the extremely important executive action which the Government have taken, and which must have been animated by some motive accessible to human intelligence.
When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister he made a great many changes in both military arid civil appointments. I never understood that there was any obligation on him to give an explanation why those changes were made.
May I ask this question? Here we are dealing with a great policy which is unfolding before us. Are we not dealing with an officer who has been serving the Government in the most intimate relations? Now he is dismissed. May we not know what are the differences which have arisen to lead to the dismissal of one Viceroy and the appointment of another? Surely that is a matter which, in the history of either House of Parliament, has never been denied fair discussion.
Arising out of the point made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not appreciate the extreme complexity of the issues involved, and the utter impossibility of dealing with them in an orderly fashion within a fixed time limit in the presence of so many uncertain and unknown factors, including the uncertainty which must continue over a prolonged period—
On a point of Order. May I submit that we appear to be anticipating the Debate?
I have the point in mind.
I was asking whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciated the many unknown factors in connection with this subject, including the uncertainty which must obtain for a considerable period, as to whether it will, in fact, be possible to hand over responsibility to an authority capable of dealing with India as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about the uncertainties, and one of the reasons for this statement is to try to remove uncertainty. It is a fact that despite all the declarations we have made, there are still people in India who think they can hang on and let things drift. We are against drift.
Scuttle.
We want to bring this uncertainty to a close, in regard to this matter.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not dealt with my point about a fixed time limit? How can that be reconciled with the uncertainty that must continue for a prolonged and unknown period?
That is the reason why we put in a date. I think that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman would be far better developed in a Debate rather than by question and answer.
Is it a fact that His Majesty's Government, while very anxious to fulfil the promise of self-government which the Coalition Government gave to India, do not seek to abandon all responsibility for the security of India?
No. I have made it perfectly plain that it has been our constant endeavour to have settled government in India. We shall not obtain that by long continued uncertainty, and as it is the policy of this Government and I think of this House that the Indians should become responsible, I think it is time for them to face up to the fact that that responsibility is now upon them.
With reference to the question of date, is it the Government's intention to bring legislation before this House at a date prior to June, 1948; and if so, does not that give less than a year for all the Indian difficulties to be resolved; and if they are not resolved is it still the intention of the Government to go ahead with the fixed date and hand over power to small units without proper consideration of the central government, and, in fact, hand over India to chaos?
It is not the intention to hand India over to chaos. I really think that the points which are now being made would be much better developed in a Debate. They are perfectly legitimate points for which we have a full answer. It does not clarify the matter to try. o deal with it by question and answer.
Is there no answer to be given to the question of whether there have been any differences or divergences between His Majesty's Government and the Viceroy?
We have had quite a number of questions and answers, and I think this matter might well await the promised Debate.
On a point of Order. I wish to ask a question which has really nothing to do with the subsequent Debate if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow me. Does not the Prime Minister realise that his reluctance to answer the reasonable—
When I called the hon. Gentleman I understood that he had a fresh point which he wished to raise, but the one he is now raising is clearly one which can be disposed of in the Debate which has been promised.
Very respectfully I would ask your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to conclude my question, and you will see that what I am asking is a fresh point. I am asking, does the Prime Minister realise that his refusal to answer must lead to the conclusion that sharp differences of opinion have arisen and in view of that are we to understand that Lord Wavell is or is not to be permitted to make a public statement?
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in keeping with the Rules of Order and procedure of this House that the Leader of the Opposition should be able to ask the same question 15 times, while the Leader of the Communist Party cannot ask one simple little question?
Reflection on the Chair.
In view of the point that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, is it not possible to ask whether any labour or trade union leader was considered for this important appointment?
rose—
Unless there is a point of Order I think we should get on.
On a point of Order. Am I not perfectly entitled, in view of the momentous statement that has been made by the Prime Minister, to ask him if he will answer the question put to him by the Leader of the Liberal Party, as to whether Lord Wavell will make, or is to be permitted to make, a public statement?
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask for your Ruling? Time and time again we have an important statement made from the Front Bench by a Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—that involves matters in which hon. Members on all sides of the House and of all parties are vitally interested. Time and time again also—today being a case in point—a very large part of the time available is taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) repeating the same question. Whenever he rises, no look is cast by him towards the Chair—a fact for which many other hon. Members can vouch—
Reflection on the Chair.
If the hon. Member has any general comment to make, I think it would be much better if he addressed it to Mr. Speaker when he is in the Chair.
Business Of The House
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
Division No. 86.]
| AYES.
| [4.14 p.m.
|
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | McLeavy, F. |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V | Evans, John (Ogmore) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Mann, Mrs. J. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Ewart, R. | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Fairhurst, F. | Manning Mrs. L (Epping) |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Field, Capt. W. J | Martin, J. H. |
| Attewell, H. C. | Follick, M. | Mothers, G. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R | Foot, M. M. | Medland, H. M |
| Austin, H. Lewis | Forman, J. C. | Mellish, R. J |
| Awbery, S. S. | Gallacher, W | Messer, F. |
| Ayles, W. H. | George, Lady M. Lioyd (Anglesey) | Middleton, Mrs L |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs B | Gibbins, J. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Gibson, C. W | Moody, A. S. |
| Balfour, A. | Gilzean, A. | Morgan, Dr. H. B |
| Barstow, P. G. | Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) |
| Battley, J. R. | Granville, E. (Eye) | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) | Mort D L |
| Bellenger, Rt. Hon F | Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood) | Moyle, A. |
| Benson, G | Grey, C. F. | Murray, J. D. |
| Berry, H. | Grierson, E. | Nally, W. |
| Beswick, F. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Bing, G. H. C. | Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) | Neal, H. (Claycross) |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Gruffydd, Prof. W. J | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) |
| Blyton, W. R. | Gunter, R. J. | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) |
| Boardman, H. | Guy, W. H. | Noel-Buxton, Lady |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W | Haire, John E. (Wycombe) | O'Brien, T. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Hale, Leslie | Oldfield, W. H |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) | Hall, W. G. | Oliver, G H. |
| Bramall, Major E. A. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R | Orbach, M. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Hardman, D. R | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Hardy, E. A. | Parker, J. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Harrison, J | Parkin, B. T |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) |
| Bruce, Maj. D. W T | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Paton, J (Norwich) |
| Buchanan, G | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Pearson, A. |
| Burden, T. W. | Herbison, Miss M. | Peart, Capt. T. F |
| Burke, W. A. | Holman, P | Perrins, W. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | House, G. | Piratin, P. |
| Byers, Frank | Hoy, J. | Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Hubbard, T. | Popplewell, E. |
| Chamberlain, R. A | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Porter, E. (Warrington) |
| Champion, A. J. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Porter, G. (Leeds) |
| Chater, D. | Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W | Pritt, D. N. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Cobb, F. A. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Pursey, Cmdr. H. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Irving, W. J. | Randall, H. F |
| Coldrick, W | Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A | Ranger, J. |
| Collindridge, F. | Janner, B. | Rankin, J. |
| Collins, V. J. | Jay, D. P. T. | Rees-Williams, D. R |
| Comyns, Dr. L | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Reeves, J. |
| Cook, T. F. | Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) | Reid, T. (Swindon) |
| Cove, W. G. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Rhodes, H. |
| Crossman, R. H. S | Jones, P. Asterlev (Hitchin) | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. |
| Daines, P. | Keenan, W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Kendall, W. D | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Kenyon, C. | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | King, E. M. | Rogers, G. H. R. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Kinley, J. | Royle, C. |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Kirby, B. V. | Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Lee, F. (Hulme) | Sharp, Granville |
| Deer, G. | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Delargy, H. J | Levy, B. W. | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Diamond, J | Lewis, J. (Bolton) | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Dobbie, W. | Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.) | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Dodds, N. N | Lipson, D. L. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Donovan, T | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Longden, F | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | McAllister, G | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Dumpleton. C. W | McEntee, V. La | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Durbin, E. F. M | McGhee, H. G | Snow, Capt. J. W |
| Dye, S. | Mack, J. D | Sorensen, R. W |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Soskice, Maj. Sir H. |
| Edelman, M | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N W) | Sparks, J. A |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Maclean, N (Govan) | Stamford. W |
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 135
| Stephen, C. | Titterington, M. F. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Tolley, L. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Stokes, R. R. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Stubbs, A. E. | Turner-Samuels, M. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Summerskill, Dr. Edith | Viant, S. P. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Swingler, S. | Walker, G. H. | Williamson, T |
| Sylvester, G. O. | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) | Willis, E. |
| Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow E.) | Wise, Major F J |
| Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Warbey, W. N. | Wyatt, W. |
| Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) | Watson, W. M | Yates, V. F. |
| Thomas. D. E. (Aberdare) | Weitzman, D. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) | West, D. G. | |
| Thurtle, E. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Tiffany, S. | Wigg, Col. G E | Mr. Simmons and |
| Timmons, J | Wilkes, L | Mr. Hannan |
NOES
| ||
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) | Harris, H. Wilson | Osborne, C. |
| Asshaton, Rt. Hon. R. | Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C | Prescott, Stanley |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Prior-Palmer, Brig O |
| Barlow, Sir J. | Hollis, M. C. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Beechman, N. A | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Birch, Nigel | Hurd, A | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) | Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C) | Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Reid, Rt Hon. J. S C (Hillhead) |
| Bower, N. | Jeffreys, General Sir G. | Renton, D. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G | Keeling, E. H. | Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Kerr, Sir J. Graham | Renner, Col. L. |
| Bullock, Capt. M. | Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H | Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) | Lambert, Hon. G. | Sanderson, Sir F. |
| Challen, C. | Lancaster, Col. C. G | Savory, Prof. D. L |
| Challen, H. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Scott, Lord W. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H | Smithers, Sir W |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Snadden, W. M. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Spence, H. R. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Linstead, H. N. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.) | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fite, E.) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Low, Brig. A. R. W | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) |
| Crowder, Capt. John E | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y | McCallum, Maj. D. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| De la Bère, R. | Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Digby, S. W. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Teeling, William |
| Drayson, G. B. | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lend.) | Macley, Hon. J. S. | Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F |
| Eccles, D. M. | MacLeod, J. | Touche, G. C |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Manningham-Buller, R. E | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter | Marlowe, A. A H | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Fox, Sir G. | Marples, A. E | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Marsden, Capt. A. | Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie |
| Eraser, Sir I. (Lansdale) | Marshall, D. (Bodmin) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D | Maude, J. C | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Gammans, L. D | Medlicott, F | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Mellor, Sir J. | York, C. |
| Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G | Molson, A. H. E. | Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick) |
| Grant, Lady | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | |
| Gridley, Sir A. | Morris-Jones, Sir H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grimston, R. V. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Mr. Drewe and |
| Commander Agnew | ||
Orders Of The Day
Civic Restaurants Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
4.24 p.m.
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Order is for the Third Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill. I would like to call your attention to and ask your guidance on the fact that the Bill to which we are being asked, technically, to give a Third Reading is a Bill which does not contain the very fundamental alterations made in this House during the course of the proceedings on the Report stage. The Bill has not been reprinted or amended. It is a little difficult for us, unless we have particularly good memories, to know exactly what are the contents of the Bill we are now being asked to consider.
It is not unusual for the Third Reading of a Bill immediately to follow the Report stage without reprinting. In those circumstances there is not time to reprint the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides can be assured that if it could have been done, it would have been done. There is, of course, a copy of the revised Bill on the Table, which the right hon. Gentleman can peruse.
Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I quite appreciate—both of us have been present on such occasions—that Third Readings often immediately follow the Report stage. To hon. Members who have been in the House at the time, it has appeared to be a continuous process. However, on this occasion some 48 hours have elapsed since we concluded the Report stage, and surely it is not unreasonable to suggest—I hesitate to put it this way because I am not sure whether Mr. Speaker or yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is not the officer responsible—that, whoever is responsible, it would have helped our convenience if we had a reprint of the Bill.
That point will be borne in mind. In point of fact, on this occasion time was too short. The Report stage was taken on Monday, and the Bill was first put down for Tuesday, the following day. That being so, there really was not time for reprinting.
May I with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ask if there is any precedent for taking the Third Reading of a Bill in which changes of importance have been made without there being before the House a copy of the Bill incorporating the changes? I admit that the Third Reading often follows the Report stage rapidly—
There is a copy here.
It is true that there is one copy here, but does the hon. Gentleman think that is enough? There is more than one Member of the House, and every Member is entitled to a copy. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that interruption. That shows just the mentality we want to avoid. The fact that there is one copy available is not enough. All I ask is that it should not be regarded as a precedent that we are now being asked to discuss a Bill of which there is only one copy on the Table.
There was one vital Amendment which makes the Bill to which we are asked to give a Third Reading much different from the one dealt with on the Report stage. It is important for Private Members to have an opportunity of seeing the revised Bill in order to see the actual form in which it appears for the Third Reading. The proper course would be to defer the Third Reading until the change is made.
I am advised that there are quite a number of Precedents, but I certainly sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In this instance there was not, in fact, sufficient time. The circumstances will be borne in mind, so that this will not become a precedent.
May I with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, draw your attention to the fact that when we have a Third Reading following quickly on the Report stage, it is usually a Bill which is not of a very contentious nature? This Bill was very highly contentious and one on which very many hon. Members voted differently from the way they usually. vote. We have not got a copy and we do not know how the Bill now reads. Does that not add gravely to our difficulties today, when many hon. Member on all sides of the House are seriously exercised in their minds on this subject?
On the point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is not the issue very simple—whether this Third Reading can proceed under the present circumstances, without the Bill, completed as a result of what took place on the Report stage? If that is so, was there any right for the hon. Members who have spoken, to raise and Debate this point?
Hon. Members have a perfect right to raise proper points.
Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it seems to me that our request for more time is quite reasonable, because when the discussions on the Report stage finished on Monday evening, it was quite clear that the Third Reading would not be taken the following day.
The question of time is not a point of Order nor does it rest with the Chair.
Then may I put my point in a slightly different way? The vital Amendment to this Bill was one dealing with Scotland. It was taken on Monday when a large number of Scottish Members were away from the House. Now they are asked to give their final decision. The Government have had nearly three days in which to have the Bill printed, but are not giving us an opportunity to see it.
That is a question of merits, and not a point of Order.
I am sorry this situation has arisen. It is not the first time such a situation has arisen in this House; complaints have been made before about the short time hon. Members are able to have a reprinted Bill in their hands. There have been a number of cases. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would give me a chance to make a statement of three or four consecutive sentences without interruption. I do not as a rule interrupt others. Am I not right in saying, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Bill now, on all major issues, including the controversial point which the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H. Morris) made, is substantially the same as it was when it was introduced on Second Reading?
What about Scotland?
It is not the same; it is the opposite.
It is substantially the same, Scotsmen, after all, are less than 10 per cent. of the population of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly correct as far as figures go—
That is really not a point of Order. I would be grateful if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not make a pretext for asking a question as a point of Order, when it is one of merits.
With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman-the Lord Privy Seal was in the middle of his speech. He was explaining to us how a major change in the Bill was no change at all, and I should be most reluctant to stop that speech. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry his explanation to a conclusion.
As regards the question of licences, the Bill, so far as England and Wales are concerned, is as it was when introduced into this House. The one change which has been made at the wish of the Scottish people—and it is their business and not ours—is that the provision does not apply to them. Therefore, in my submission if the House is reasonable, it will be admitted that none of the hon. Members has missed an opportunity, and therefore we might well proceed with the Third Reading.
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him whether the Government have made any attempt to get the Bill printed in time for today?
I do not know that it is the Government's business; it is the machinery of the House which is concerned with that.
4.34 P.m.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In the absence of my right hon. Friend, it gives me great pleasure to move the Third Reading of what is a very short, but at the same time, as I think hon. Members will agree, a very important Bill. It makes a most important contribution to the social legislation of the country, particularly that legislation which is administered by local authorities. We have during the past years given local authorities powers to operate services ranging from refuse collection to symphony concerts, from public baths and wash-houses to ballet dancing in the parks. Now we propose to empower them to conduct restaurants, and to engage in all those activities normal to the catering trade. I confess that at times during the passage of this Bill I have marvelled at the objections which have been raised by hon. Members opposite; objections which I am sure, they will in time agree had little substance. I am convinced that hon. Members opposite who have opposed this Bill at every stage, will, in a few' years time, when their constituency has a civic restaurant in its midst, reluctantly confess that the civic restaurant is conferring benefits on their constituents. I see opposite me today many hon. Members representing seaside resorts. I had expected to receive support from those hon. Members but throughout, they have been particularly vocal in opposition.Why should they support it?
I will tell the hon. Member if he will exercise patience. I think hon. Members representing seaside resorts will agree it is significant that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has not raised his voice in opposition, although there are many civic restaurants operating successfully in Bournemouth.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth is not in this country.
He is ill.
If I recollect aright, on the Second Reading of this Bill the right hon. Member for Bournemouth was sitting on the front Opposition bench. I remember he interrupted me on two or three occasions, not on the merits of the Bill but because I think he was feeling in that mood. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked me why hon. Members representing seaside resorts should support this Bill. I recognise that hon. Members have fought valiantly for those constituents of theirs who are conducting catering establishments, but surely the real wealth of a seaside resort is derived from its visitors, and a progressive seaside local authority devotes a great deal of time in planning to increase the amenities of its town in order to attract more visitors. Sea air and bands on the pier may be very desirable, but I should have thought that, for the lowest income groups, cheap and wholesome food is the first essential of a successful holiday, and this the civic restaurant undertakes to provide. I dare to predict that when hon. Members from these seaside resorts who have opposed this Bill face their constituents, perhaps at a meeting during the period regarded as a holiday, they may have interjections from those people who would have been deprived of this benefit if hon. Members opposite had had their way.
Holiday makers are not our constituents.
I have already explained that they are not the hon. Member's constituents, but surely the town the hon. and learned Gentleman represents, Brighton, derives its wealth from the holiday makers? At the times I visit Brighton during the summer, the promenade is congested with holiday makers spending money. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents that town should have had them in his mind when he was opposing this Bill?
Fears have been expressed that the restaurants will either become too enterprising or that they will fail to display initiative and will be run at a loss. Hon. Members need not be apprehensive. This, after all, is not a completely new venture. We have had a trial run in the British Restaurants, and those hon. Members who have a British Restaurant in their constituency will agree that, for the most part, they have been extremely successful. These restaurants have been conducted by responsible representatives of the town, and these people have not shown a desire to indulge in anything but what might be regarded as legitimate trade. Unfortunately, some hon. Members are apt to regard a civic restaurant as a sinister competitor in the catering field. This has not proved to be so in the large number of cases where these restaurants have prospered. I have examined the returns of many hundreds of British Restaurants in this country, and I have been convinced that the British Restaurant and private establishment are not mutually exclusive, but complementary to each other. Powers contained in the Bill give the right to local authorities compulsorily to acquire sites, and this has provoked a certain amount of opposition. Since the Committee stage, I have made further inquiries into the matter. I want to explain to the House that people who operate a catering establishment in an area which may be compulsorily acquired, will be fully safeguarded.May I ask a question? The hon. Lady has raised a question which was dealt with in Committee, when she said that this happened in Coventry. We have now heard that nothing of the sort happened, and no alternative sites were offered there.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) very courteously came to me the day before yesterday, and said he would raise this matter. Therefore, I was anxious to explain to hon. Members who heard my first statement, that since I made that statement, the town clerk of Coventry has made a further communication to us to the contrary. I will deal with Coventry now, because it was on the Clause dealing with compulsory purchase that the right hon. Member for Southport brought up this matter. Hon. Members of the Committee will remember that I was told a certain injustice had occurred in Coventry, owing to compulsory acquisition of land. I feel you might rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this matter, and perhaps it is not proper to discuss the domestic matters of Coventry city council. But the Chairman of the Committee gave me an opportunity to make a statement after Clause 4 was dealt with, and I think I ought to amplify it at this point, because I understand that the matter is to be raised later on. Hon. Mem- bers will remember that I said the town clerk had told me that the "Geisha" café was on a site which was to be compulsorily acquired. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has just said that the owner of the "Geisha" café had not been offered an alternative site. I understand that powers are embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which compel a local authority to offer an alternative site. If I am wrong hon. Members will dissent, but I think I am right. Although the owner of the café may not yet have settled on a site, I understand that powers are there, and he will be given one. Hon. Members will agree that the powers which have been exercised at Coventry under the Town and Country Planning Act have no relevance to this Bill at all.
The point I wanted to make in regard to Coventry was this. We asked the town clerk to let us know what restaurants might be acquired situated in an area to be compulsorily acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act, and he devoted himself to that question. I told hon. Members that the town clerk had no knowledge of a "Barrack Square Cafe," although the right hon. Member for Southport told me that the cafe in which he was interested was the Barrack Square Cafe. The town clerk now tells me that there is a Barrack Square, but there is no intention to acquire that compulsorily under town planning. There is a Barrack Square Cafe. The city council of Coventry own the cafe, and for some time have been considering terminating the tenancy. They are considering putting a civic restaurant on that site. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a little improper for us to speculate on the reasons why a local authority want to terminate a tenancy. The last thing I want to do is to cause anyone any embarrassment over this question.You have been kind enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow this matter to be raised. It was an exceptional case, and the chairman of the Committee did allow the statement. I am, quite frankly, staggered at the action of the town clerk of Coventry. It is inconceivable to me how a man in that position could provide the hon. Lady on two separate occasions with completely misleading information. It just is not true. Naturally, in perfect good faith, the hon. Lady said that the town clerk knew nothing about the Barrack Square Cafe—
On a point of Order. No doubt this is very interesting, but a discussion on the conduct of the town clerk of Coventry cannot be in Order in this Debate. What is in Order is what powers the Bill gives to local authorities.
The whole gravamen of the charge was that those powers should be used, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food stated in Committee they would be used, in
We are not criticising the town clerk, but we are criticising the fact that, in the only known case, the action taken disproves what the hon. Lady said."A fair field and no favour."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee C; 10th December 1946, C. 42.]
The right hon. Gentleman has not been asked and, therefore, is not entitled to make a speech now. The hon. Lady should now continue her speech. Personally I am puzzled as to what this about Coventry has to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.
Finally, I want to deal with compulsory purchase. I have made further inquiries, and I find that in cases where a local authority decides to acquire a site on which there is already a catering establishment, the local authority must, in the first place advertise its intentions. It has, of course, to inform the owner, and if any valid objection is lodged, a public inquiry will take place. The results of the public inquiry will then be examined by the Minister of Health, who will then decide whether the acquisition is to go forward. I think hon. Members will agree that the owner is safeguarded. I would remind hon. Members that when we are talking about a catering establishment, it might mean a kiosk where cups of tea and sandwiches are served, or it might mean a shop where fried fish is served. It would be quite unreasonable to impede the progress of town planning by denying the local authority compulsory power to acquire a site on which a catering establishment is situated.
I will say a word about the licensing provisions. I remind the House that they merely confer on the local authority powers possessed by every catering establishment in the country. I see the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in his place. I want to assure hon. Members from Welsh constituencies that they need have little fear that these powers will be abused. I have a special interest in Wales. I understand and admire its culture and its customs. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen will agree that the local authority representatives in Wales are probably better known to their electors than those in England. In fact the relationship is entirely different. I believe I am right in saying that a councillor there is often chosen because of his personal qualities, and not necessarily because of his political affiliations. Therefore, in Wales one finds the councillor very near the people.I appreciate that the hon. Lady is familiar with the culture of Wales, and she will be familiar too with the national conscience of Wales, which is as strong as national conscience in Scotland, and which desires exemption in the same way.
Yes, but I think the hon. and learned Member will agree that legislation in Wales is not the same as it is in Scotland. That is why my right hon. Friend decided that Scotland must be dealt with in a different manner. To continue with what I was saving about Wales, the hon. and learned Member will, I think, agree that the councillor is very near his people. That is the safeguard. It will be difficult, in Wales, for a member of a local authority to be irresponsible in the matter of administering this particular provision. May I say a word to the Scottish Members? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see opposite me a number of Scottish Members, including the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling).
[here is one behind the hon. Lady.
I want to assure them that the necessary machinery to implement the pledge given to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will be forthcoming. I believe that every hon. Member, from whatever part of the country he comes, will find that a well-conducted civic restaurant will add to the amenities of his constituency, provide for a long felt want, and provide not only good fare but good cheer, and particularly it will introduce a little variety for those people who lead dull and monotonous lives.
4.53 P.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was an important Bill. The Minister of Food, when moving the Second Reading; referred to it as "a small Measure." I am certain that the hon. Lady is right. It is an important Bill and is intended by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be an important Bill. It is therefore, regrettable that the hon. Lady's speech was so short and scrappy, and very largely taken up with breezes on the front at Brighton, and an account of rather remarkable goings on in Coventry. In this House, it is most desirable, when an important Measure reaches its Third Reading, that the arguments for and against it should be properly marshalled. That was, I understand, the old tradition of the House. I do not think that the hon. Lady would pretend that she has marshalled the arguments at all.
Justified tributes have been paid by both sides of the House to the services provided by British Restaurants during the war. I have no doubt that these institutions, under the less robust name now conferred upon them, will equally find a great many customers in peace. The reason for that, as every hon. Member knows, is that any institution or shop of any sort selling unrationed food at the present time will always be popular. That is not, of course, because the existing traders are unwilling, or indeed unable, to supply the need, provided only that they could get the food and the facilities to extend. There are plenty of people who can give much better service in their own shops, and a great many who are very anxious to start up if they could get the necessary facilities. I have myself written at least 12 times to the hon. Lady asking for more fat for fish fryers, and for such things as permission for ex-Servicemen to start up village food shops. She has generally refused these requests. I do not in any way blame her for that. She has to work within the global amount of food that she can get hold of. The important thing about this Bill is that we are not giving more food to the people. What we are doing is municipalising a certain proportion of it. The political controversy on municipal trading is a very old one, and dates well back before the days when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain pushed forward municipal trading in the last century. I will touch briefly on two of the old arguments. I say briefly, because although they are important, it is the new arguments that now need to be driven home. The first and most obvious of the old arguments against municipal trading of this sort was that an existing trader might be taxed to subsidise a competitor. In Clause 3 (2) it is laid down that a civic restaurant must be solvent within three years, but the Clause proceeds to make heavy qualifications to that provision. What it amounts to is that the Minister is empowered to allow a restaurant to go on indefinitely whether it is paying its way or not. Under Clause 3 (2, b) he may do this if he thinks that circumstances may change. The Minister of Fuel and Power has been waiting for circumstances to change ever since he has been in office. Mr. Micawber waited the whole of his life for circumstances to change. If he, the Minister, waits for circumstances to change he could very well go on indefinitely keeping going a non-solvent concern subsidised by the rates—and subsidised at the expense of the existing trader. That is the first of the old arguments. The second is the extreme scepticism which many of us on these benches feel about municipal accounting in these matters. If one looks at the Bill one sees that the form of accounts is to he as prescribed by the Minister. I do not think that we have yet had satisfactory answers on such points as whether, in fact, a true economic rent will be charged, and whether proper provision will be made for depreciation. I will now leave the old arguments. I wish to deal with much more important arguments which have only been lightly put so far. The conditions under which a private trader operates today in this country are very different from those of the time of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Any trader of any sort in this country is dependent, in order to earn his living, on the favour of a number of Ministers and on the favour of his local authority. He is dependent on their favour to get the food he must sell, the fats for his cooking, for his fuel—coal, electricity and gas; he is dependent upon them for his linen and his clothes, even for getting a small repair done or lick of paint applied. He is dependent on them in any case of structural alteration or rebuilding or launching out into any new venture. Therefore, we have the position that that private trader is absolutely in the pockets of those Ministries and his local authority, very often acting together. I would ask Members in all parts of the House to consider this question: Do they honestly believe that when it comes to the sharing out of scarce resources, the private trader will get an equal share with the local authority? I do not think it will happen. I think that the local authority is bound to get a preference. The Minister said in Committee that he was all for a fair field and no favour. Under these circumstances we shall not get that. In our present economic condition the purchasing power and the value of money are steadily diminishing, but at the same time the value and importance of the coupon, the docket, the licence, the permit and above all the value and importance of the favour of officials are steadily increasing. The small trader therefore is faced with a most difficult position. I well remember that during the election hon. Gentlemen opposite said a great deal about their care for small traders, and some of the small traders may have believed it: This is a serious warning to them. I turn now to the licensing question. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who is the expert on this matter, has now gone out and I am no longer under his eagle eye. He raised the question of this pledge on the non-licensing of civic centres. I actually signed that pledge, but I will not enlarge upon it now, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have already so many pledges in the pawnshop that it is hardly worth while taking this one down from the peg. The defence of the licensing provisions has taken a number of varying forms, and the hon. Lady just now repeated one of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food. He has been very subtle on this matter and has used the strategy of indirect approach, because he realised that this was a provision which would be offensive to a great many people in all parties all over the country. He further realised that he could not defend it on the ground that a licence was necessary for the restaurants, because in fact they have got on during the war, and are getting on now, quite well without this particular provision. He therefore tried various indirect methods of justifying it. One first method he tried was to say that he could not be the judge, that this was a matter which every local authority must decide for itself, and far be it from him to take away power of any sort from local authorities. The workers he said and the people of this country were now fully adult and able to make this decision for themselves. That, boiled down, is what he said. I have two comments to make on that argument. The first is that what he is really doing is to say to an urban district council, "We are taking away your hospital, your electricity undertaking, your gas works, your buses, and we will probably manage to contaminate your water supply, and therefore your real function has gone. You are already retired, and the Government will do for you what has been done for many other respectable retired people—we will let you keep a pub." The second comment that occurs to one is that if the criterion for giving these powers is whether the people are adult or not, and whether they are able to judge these things for themselves, how strange how extremely depressing it is that the Scottish people have not yet attained maturity or adult status. They are still adolescents throwing snowballs at each other in the arctic gloom. The next, and even more subtle, form in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to defend this was by saying that after all it was probably wrong, but it would not happen very often. He said he thought that in many cases councils would not apply for these powers, and in many cases when they did apply for them they would not be granted. That seems to me very like the argument of those who defend the judicial whipping of children on the ground that most benches do not inflict it. One cannot really defend a thing on the ground that most people will not do it; it is a poor argument. I should like to comment on the question of the difference between Scotland and Wales on which the hon. Lady has touched? The excuse for excluding Scotland, as the House will remember, was the difficulty over the difference between the licensing laws of Scotland and this country. The Minister said it would be very wrong if a council were to be judge and jury in its own cause. I hope he will go on thinking that, because if he does he must vote against the Third Reading of the Electricity Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, and the Transport Bill, because the Government are taking powers to be judge and jury in their own cause in every one. It was not a very difficult thing to get round. The Minister, on Report, went so far as to say that this difficulty about the licensing laws in Scotland made it impossible to apply this Clause to Scotland. If hon. Members will believe that they will believe anything. The last person who believes it is the Minister. He did not believe it on Second Reading, and he most emphatically did not believe it upstairs, because when he was talking to the Committee on this point he said:I do not think that anyone can really doubt that the whole matter is a put-up job. I very much wish the Minister were here. I understand he is now carrying on his duties among the fleshpots of America. I thought that on Report stage he showed that curiously pervasive vulgarity which is so typical of Etonians who have taken the wrong turning like himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would have liked to enlarge on that subject, but as he is not here, I will pass the matter over in relative silence. On the subject of Wales, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has pointed out, since the Licensing Act of 1881 Wales has had different licensing laws from England. Temperance is a matter about which people in Wales are as concerned as people in Scotland, or probably more so. But what has hap- pened? Hon. Members opposite have got hold of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and have bullied him to such a degree that he has gone to the Ministry of Food and insisted on Scotland being taken out of the Bill. I would say to my hon. Friends and colleagues in the Welsh Parliamentary Party that this is a very great lesson to us, and if it were in Order I would say that that lesson is that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales. That is all I have to say. I sum up by asking hon. Members in all parts of the House—because this is a matter on which the parties are divided—to reject this Bill firstly because, while doing nothing whatever to increase the food supply to the people, it does and must act unfairly on existing traders; to reject it secondly because its licensing provisions are offensive to a great many people, and lastly because the Bill is offensive to Wales."The Bill, as it stands, without any Amendment whatever, can apply to Scotland. There is a question of interest and doubt on the licensing provisions of the Bill, and there is an Amendment down in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. … Even without that Amendment—which I tell the Committee at once I am prepared to accept—which will make the position perfectly clear, the Bill as it stands can apply to Scotland "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 10th December, 1946, c 26.]
5.9 P.m.
I was very surprised to hear the hon. Lady, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, bring in the seaside resorts and say she could not understand why hon. Members representing the seaside resorts should not support this Bill. I thought I had told her, and the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill, on more than one occasion, both upstairs and on the Floor of this House, many reasons why seaside as well as other resorts should reject this Bill. A very excellent reason has been advanced by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and it is a most obvious one. If seaside resorts were to be given more food as a result of civic restaurants being opened, instead of special powers being given to open civic restaurants at the expense of the people who are now paying rates and taxes and trying to keep their establishments going all the year round in order to be able to cater for summer visitors, there might have been some sense in it.
This Bill gives powers to local authorities, without hating to prove that there is a consumers' need in the district, although that has to be proved by anybody else wishing to open a catering establishment in a district, to make compulsory purchases, to run at a loss for five years or more, to sell liquor, all of these being things that would be very much welcomed by existing catering establishments at seaside resorts and, indeed, anywhere else. But these powers are denied to them. It is for that reason we maintain that for the Minister to talk about a fair field and no favour is utter and complete humbug. This Bill is humbug from beginning to end. To describe it, as the Minister did, as a simple Measure is ridiculous, for it has the most wide and vicious implications in the few Clauses which it contains, and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has not said anything today to convince me otherwise. As to the seaside resorts, one of which I represent in the House, unless the Minister is prepared to increase the quantity of food that is allocated to the area, there is no likelihood of any of the local authorities in it asking for powers to start civic restaurants, because they are fair-minded people, and they realise that to do so would be unfair to the existing establishments which are prepared, if a consumers' need is proven and further quantities of food are made available to them, to extend their business and meet all the catering requirements for the area, and to do it all the year round, without increasing the rates or the taxes by running catering establishments at a loss. I take the strongest exception to this Measure and I shall vote against it. The argument has been made, and no doubt it will be trotted out again, that every hon. Member on this side of the House who opposes the Bill does so because he represents the brewery interests. That is utter and complete nonsense. I do not represent, and never have represented any brewers' interests. I wish I did, for it is one of the industries which so far has escaped nationalisation. Indeed, this Bill is only a first step towards the nationalisation of the catering industry If local authorities are stupid enough to do the dirty work for the Government in taking over establishments and setting up civic restaurants and pubs, it will need only one more step for the Government to bring in a Bill to swallow them up, as it has done gas, electricity, water supplies, transport, and so on. Local authorities, today, are in the position of being rates and refuse collectors, and if the present Government are in office much longer only the refuse will be left to them, because nobody will be able to pay rates. To say that those who oppose the Bill and the Clause which gives licences to civic restaurants to sell liquor are representing the brewers' interests is wholly and completely wrong, and grossly unfair. On more than one occasion I have expressed my views on this Bill very strongly. I hope hon. Members will realise what are the implications of the Bill. It is a vicious Bill, introduced under the guise of national necessity, to continue what was indeed a necessity during the bombing raids of the war, when British restaurants were set up for the purpose of providing meals for bombed-out people. I am told that in most districts, although there are a few exceptions, that need does not exist now. Taking it far and wide, I am convinced that catering establishments, given a chance, would provide for all the catering needs of the community. I am convinced they could do that in my constituency, and in any constituency, if they were given a fair chance I strongly oppose the Bill and shall vote against it.5.15 p.m.
I want to congratulate the Government unreservedly on this Bill; it is a pleasure for me to do things unreservedly. I think that our local authorities, with their energetic, democratic spirit these days, will fully appreciate the opportunities which this Bill gives. I was not on the Committee that considered the Bill, and perhaps the point I want to make was stressed in Committee more than it has been in the House, but I have been surprised how little reference there has been made in the Debates to the person whom I consider will benefit most of all from the Bill. The modern housewife is being invaded by the B.B.C. and by the daily Press with news of what is going on in the outside world, but I do not think anyone in any part of the House would deny that in a modern age, with new opportunities opening before women, in theory, those who have to carry the daily domestic burdens are having a harder time now than they have had for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are having a harder time because a rising standard of democratic education and awareness makes them now, as never before in the past, alive to the fact that life should have more beauty, more comfort—
Less food?
The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) may not know that some of them already have more food.
Tell that to the Marines.
The hon. and gallant Member has made a fascinating interjection. I tell it to my constituents in Cannock. If any hon. Members opposite were to come into the midst of a typical mining audience, or an audience of engineers who were on part time before the war, and ask them about the milk which the children can have now, and the general level of food in their homes now, they would say that it is better than it was before.
Given by the Coalition Government.
Is the hon. and gallant Member agreeing or disagreeing with me? We must, in this House, try to get the facts straight, because a great portion of the daily Press is continually misinterpreting them. As far as food is concerned, our country is going through a very bad time, for reasons known to all of us; but now, in the depth of our difficulties, I assert that there are millions of poor families in Great Britain who are getting a fairer share of the nation's food than they did before the war, when the shops were full of goods, and there was no lack of rich harvests.
The hon. Lady says that people have more food now than they did before. If that is so, why is there great necessity for all these restaurants?
The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I will try again to explain what I mean. Some people are getting more food than they did before the war. Other people are getting less, or getting poorer qualities. All of us on this side are proud of the fact that in time of scarcity the children, the weakest and the poorest and those in the most exposed positions, are given a fairer share. Some of us in this House may not be getting the variety and the luxury that we would like, but I assert again, and no hon. Member would challenge the assertion that there are millions of families in Great Britain—of agriculture workers, miners and others—formerly unemployed or on short time who are getting a fairer share of such things than they got before. I am sorry that I have been taken off the line of argument upon which I began.
I was saying that the modern woman has now a vision which we, on this side of the House, intend to see materialised, of how life can have more grace and more comfort than at any time in the past. By this Bill our local authorities will have an opportunity to give to our women something more than food. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) stressed, as other hon. Members have done, that the Bill will not increase the total quantity of food that we have to distribute. That is true, but there is another thing to be considered. I have been observing these matters very closely in my own area and in other parts of the Midlands. I can assure him that a great many women who are working alone a great deal in their houses during the day suffer from the loneliness and the monotony of their work. Even more than do men who have been out in some other place earning their living during the day, they need companionship and company. They need an opportunity to exchange points of view, not only about domestic matters but about things generally. Again and again, some of the best of our working-class matrons find that the only place they can go to in the evening is the public house, to which they may not want to go. I could take hon. Members to parts of our cities where, in the evening, life closes down, and all is lonely and drear. About the only bright place to which people can go is the public house. I was brought up in Scotland where the thought of a woman crossing the threshold of a public house meant that she lost all reputation, but I have learned in England to recognise that we have very different customs and cultures in this small island. I know many women in the Midlands who keep their houses spotlessly clean and are fine women in every way who do not mind accompanying their husbands or friends to the local pub in the evening, to have a glass of beer. The Bill will enable the most imaginative, thoughtful and enterprising local authorities to create real folk houses in the evening, where, if a man prefers a cup of tea to a glass of beer he will not be considered a cissey, and if a woman wants a glass of beer instead of a cup of tea she will not be regarded as a hussy. The division that we have in this country between the tea drinkers and the beer drinkers is a historical hangover. We are living now in a world where most of us are trying to get rid of barriers and false prejudices separating racial and religious groups. Why all this segregation of beer drinkers from tea drinkers? Even here in this House the same distinction is preserved. The other day I had, as visitors here, a charming couple, friends of mine. I know their customs because I have been entertained by them in their cottage home. I knew that father wanted a glass of beer. and I knew that mother wanted a cup of tea They came here just after 6 o'clock in the evening. The facilities offered in this House are completely archaic. They are most ungracious. At that time in the evening I could either go into the pub with dad, or into that long coffin-shaped room, facing the terrace, for tea. I decided to go to the tea room, push along the tray and get a cup of tea for "Ma," but I could not go to both places at once. It was suggested to me that I should carry a cup of tea into the bar. I make that point in passing. This House could set an example of modest but gracious hospitality. At present it does not do so. I hope that some of our municipalities will set us an example. The powers conferred by this Bill enable them to do so. I want our civic restaurants to be luxurious and to be designed with the psychology that recognises that if people have comfortable homes they will not want to go out to uncomfortable restaurants or cinemas. If people have uncomfortable homes that is all the more reason why our communal places should give them not only comfort but the stimulus and example of good design. Anyone who saw the long queues of people waiting to be admitted to the "Britain Can Make It" exhibition will realise the enthusiasm of the people of this country for beauty and design Frankly, when entertain friends, sometimes from America and sometimes from Europe, I am not proud, to put it mildly, of the places that our private enterprise has provided, before, the war and since. Where can I take my friends? We have a few expensive restaurants, but the general level for ordinary pockets is not good. I am hoping that, by their beautiful walls, roofs, flooring, lighting and lamps, and fittings generally, our civic restaurants will be made by our local authorities into shop fronts, in which we can show off the best of good British design and good taste. I have been in some civic restaurants and enjoyed them and I have been in many others that I did not enjoy. I would like to see a little thought and vision displayed, rather than the genteel bleakness which was no doubt necessary in some places in the war days, but which should be abandoned in favour of more pleasing designs. I hope that our local authorities will plan places of beauty for our people. If they will make the best use of the powers that we are giving them they will be doing a great deal to bring families together. Some women accompany their menfolk to the pubs. Others stay at home and sometimes suffer from isolation. It is very hard for a woman to have to choose between virtue and a glass of indifferent beer which she does not want anyhow. I make an appeal to beer drinkers. Hon. Members opposite appear to be scared of appearing as friends of the brewers. Apparently I am the first friend of the brewers who has spoken, for I have a suggestion to make to the fellow who wants more beer than he is getting at the present moment. Why does he not realise that the pubs have almost a monopoly now? Most plans for civic restaurants are still plans that belong to the future. There is nothing to prevent our publichouses serving teas. Why do not, the fellows who want more beer, encourage their local pubs to serve hot tea when it is demanded, as well as beer? I have seen too many women, in recent times, urged "to be a sport," and have a glass of beer, when they did not want it. I suggest to beer drinkers that they would do themselves a bit of good, and that the brewers would do themselves a bit of good also, by my proposal. The brewers have practically a monopoly. They have the facilities and they have the power. I am not talking about special war conditions. The brewers want people to buy drinks and to stand a round of drinks. If one has enough money one can afford to stand drinks all round. A person can get a reputation for generosity without hurting himself in the slightest. But it is extremely embarrassing if a person has to stand a round of drinks and he cannot afford to do it. I hope that a great deal of that social embarrassment where people are asked to drink too much or to drink when they do not want to drink at all, will be ironed out by the provision of gracious civic restaurants where one can have beer, sherry or tea as one pleases. I hope that they will be places where men, women and children, will be able to go with happiness and freedom. My last point is to urge that these civic restaurants should give mother an opportunity when she goes out in the evening to be served properly. She has been working hard at home and making meals all day long. She should not have to push a little tin tray round the civic restaurant, but, for a change, she should be properly served and waited upon.5.31 p.m.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in the very persuasive argument she advanced in favour of this Bill. I merely propose to make a few comments of my own. This Bill is now divided like Gaul into three parts, Scotland, England and the rest—the rest being Wales and Cornwall. As they have been ignored in the Bill, I also will have to ignore them. That leaves me with two parts. I am afraid that this Bill is just one further example of the failure of the Government to understand Scotland. We are again dragged into an English Bill. There is not the slightest conception on the part of the Government or the Scottish Office that Scotland has a different philosophy, a different mentality and, I would suggest, even a different morality to England. However, while I must register those facts in my protest against being tagged en to England once again, I realise we must accept the Bill as it is.
For that reason, and from that point of view, I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on bowing to the storm of Scottish opinion in regard to licensing. He has shown a wisdom that might well have been followed by the Minister of Food, or the Parliamentary Secretary who is now representing him. I have never known Scotland to be more united upon any subject with the possible exception of Prestwick, than they have been on this question of licensing. Indeed, it has been a most unique and unusual experience for me, and for most of my Scottish colleagues, in that we have been supported by the most irreconcilable and hitherto divergent elements in the community. The Churches, for whom we have naturally a great respect, the great temperance societies, among them the British Women's Temperance Association, which is one of the most respected bodies in our country, and the "trade" have all been united. They have been united to such an extent that at times I felt that if a General Election were happily to take place in the near future, I would not need to argue the general incompetence of the Government or the particular fatuity of the Minister of Fuel and Power to ensure that my majority was once more restored to its normal proportions. I opened many of these restaurants under the old title of British Restaurants, and I opened them gladly. In wartime, they served a most useful purpose. They provided cheap and good food for the many workers who were torn from their homes and dumped in unusual surroundings. Also, they provided a centre for mutual intercourse and understanding. As many of our working visitors came from England—and the South of England at that—they undoubtedly served a great and special service in Scotland. For that reason, I would have welcomed this Bill if I had thought that it was intended that these places should be used purely as social community centres where young people, and perhaps those not so young, might meet together for gaiety, brightness and dancing as some relaxation from the dark, drab and dreary existence which most of them suffer today. But, hard-headed and logical idealist that I am, I turn to Subsection (5) of Clause 3 and find that I can discover no acceptable answer to the objections which arise there. As hon. Members will see, that Subsection lays the burden on the ratepayer for three years, or longer, according to the whim of the local authority, to make good the losses of any civic restaurant. In other words, that means that an ordinary restaurant, tea shop or hotel, must subsidise in the form of a direct tax payment its very own competitor in the form of a civic restaurant. That seems to me a fantastic proposal. It is one to which only Gilbert and Sullivan could do justice. I come now to the English section of the Bill. I confess that here I am in something of a quandary. When I drafted a few notes for this speech I had assumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food would be in his place. I thought out a few somewhat acid comments to make upon the speech which he made during the Report stage. I thought that that was one of the most unpersuasive and incomprehensible speeches that I had ever heard from a Minister. I thought back to those charming broadcasts which he made during the war, and I asked myself where his capacity had gone. I reminded myself of those powerful arguments he used to use for Mosley's new party, and, further back—I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone back far enough.
You just caught me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before I referred to the right hon. Gentleman's Communist affiliations as well. However, I will drop that. What I intended to say was that the quandary in which I find myself is that I am now faced with the hon. Lady, for whom I must confess I have a very deep personal regard. I find myself quite unable to go further. My hands are tied, and my tongue as well, in dealing with the hon. Lady as they would not have been, had the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food been here. I strongly object to the English section of this Bill. I strongly object to civic restaurants having a licence at all. There are two reasons for my objection and they have been referred to by previous speakers. First, as was mentioned the other day, it introduces increased drinking facilities under the cloak of ministering to the feeding requirements of the working population. Second, it introduces unfair competition with the established licensed public-houses which we have throughout our various communities. To my mind, those are fundamental objections which almost dissipate the values which these proposals had when the Bill was first introduced.
I have often heard the expression "unfair competition" used in this Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has used it now, as one of his main objections to the Bill. Would he explain exactly what he means by "unfair competition"?.
Certainly. Possibly the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I started my speech. I mean that these restaurants will be in competition with the established public houses. If these civic restaurants lose money in competition with the public houses, the public house owners as ratepayers, will have to subsidise from the rates their own competitors, and that, to my mind, is extremely unfair. Therefore, I cannot find any justification for this Bill in the terms in which it has been presented to us, and I have not yet found any speech by the hon. Lady, by the Minister or by any hon. Member on the other side capable of persuading me to vote for it.
5.40 p.m.
There was one statement in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in which she dealt with different customs, manners and views on life in various parts of the country, including that which she represents. I fully agree with the hon. Lady, but it is very difficult to get Whitehall to agree with that view. It is the most difficult thing in this country to get Whitehall to recognise that there is a difference between Wales and England, or between Wales and London, or that there is a similarity between Wales and Scotland—and not merely upon this Bill. The various Departments of Whitehall all have the same view, and this has been revealed in this Debate.
I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used on the Report stage, but there is one matter to which I wish to draw attention. It is a point which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). It is an important point, and it concerns a new development in this Parliament. This new development is that many important Bills are being sent upstairs for discussion. We are losing control of them, and that loss of control is a very important thing, from the democratic point of view and from the point of view of the electors. We have, at the moment, four major Bills upstairs. I am not going to allude to these Measures, I merely wish to say, that that being so, the decision of a Committee upstairs assumes a far greater importance than it had under our normal procedure. In these new circumstances, we have a Committee upstairs, carefully selected and with a Government majority, in which there cannot be an adverse vote against the Government, except with the support of the Government's own supporters.The hon. and learned Member is not in Order, on Third Reading, to go into detail as to what happened on the Committee stage.
I do not want to pursue that further. I have done all that I wanted to do, and the point had already been brought to the attention of the House. On the Report stage of this Bill, a large number of supporters of the Government, with great courage and independence, refused to vote for the bad provisions inserted in this Bill. I am in substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Flint, that there might be an argument for saying that, apart from the licensing provisions, it might be a desirable Bill to pass into law, but, since these licensing provisions have been introduced during the last stage of the Bill, I hope that, while there is yet time, in another place, the Government will promise to reconsider the matter and perhaps remove the whole of these licensing provisions.
The introduction of these provisions has a far wider implication than the mere provision of amenities for the feeding of the people. Especially has it this far wider implication in the smaller towns and the country areas. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give further consideration to this matter before the Bill comes back to this House. I regret that a Government from whom, upon this issue, I, and, I am sure, their own supporters, had expected a very different standpoint and a very different result, should have seen fit, upon the Report stage, to insert this provision in the Bill.5.46 p.m.
I do not intend to intervene in this Debate for long, as I only wish to make reference to one small point, but it is a point which I consider to be a very important one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly cast very serious aspersions upon the accuracy of the accounts likely to be kept by those municipalities which are running these civic restaurants. Apart from the fact that, as a member of a public authority, I resent very strongly indeed the suggestion that I—or, indeed, any other member of a public authority—am likely to be less efficient and less honest in dealing with my public duties than I am in dealing with my private capacities, I would remind hon. Members opposite that everyone of these accounts of civil restaurants will be submitted to the public auditors. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they would be willing to have the accounts of their own trading concerns audited by the public auditors? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I want to ask them whether they will agree to the same searching audit as that to which the accounts of public authorities are subjected, and I suggest that we ought not to hear any more about these aspersions on the accuracy of the accounts of civic restaurants.
5.48 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) has accused us of casting aspersions on the accuracy of the accounts of these civic restaurants, but, in fact, the points which have been made from this side of the House have always been concerned with the form in which the accounts would be presented. Perhaps I might leave that point there
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who has just left her place, was speaking a short time ago of the burden which the housewife is called upon to bear today. I see that the hon. Lady has just returned, and I would say to her that the cause of these burdens is shortages. In fact, I think the hon. Lady will probably agree with me that, in every case, those burdens are due to shortages. How is this Bill going to affect these shortages? Is there, indeed, anything in this Bill which will help to relieve the shortages which are the cause of the housewife's burdens? One would hardly expect the Minister of Food to be introducing a Bill which has anything to do with greater production. We all remember how strongly he has warned us all against the "produce more" cry. The Minister of Food expressed great enthusiasm for "this small Measure" when he introduced it on Second Reading when he said that he, personally, had treat enthusiasm for it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has debunked the "smallness" of this Measure, and he was aided by the Parliamentary Secretary herself. It seems to me that to say to this House that the primary object of this Measure is to continue the activities of British Restaurants is nothing more or less than "hooey". The Minister of Food will shortly he able to understand what "hooey" means, if he does not do so already.Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not. The Minister expressed his enthusiasm for this Measure, and, having told us how fond of it he was, has gone off on a mission to Canada. It was interesting to read a report in "The Times" that the British Food Mission's spokesman at Ottawa had said yesterday that there was nothing urgent in the visit of the Minister of Food to Canada and that his talks would be purely routine. If that is so, it seems slightly discourteous for the Minister to leave the country before his Bill has passed its Third Reading, and it also appears to make nonsense of his enthusiasm for it. For the very excellent reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint earlier in the Debate, I propose and I hope that many other hon. Members will do likewise, to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. From the small Measure which this Bill was supposed to be, it has grown to one which is designed to satisfy the Minister's wider purpose, that of extending municipal trading to include the activities of restaurants and ancillary services. It might have been less pernicious had it been left to the courts to decide what were ancillary services. But the Bill goes further than that, and says that local authorities
Had it been left to the courts to decide what were ancillary services, there might have been some safeguard for the ordinary private man, but under this Bill it is not, apparently, to be left to the courts, but to the local authorities themselves to say what they will do. It is a vast extension of present day municipal trading to allow a local authority, in addition to carrying on the ordinary activities of a restaurant, to sell biscuits, food and tobacco. From the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite who have spoken during the course of this Debate, that extension has been made specially for the purpose of enabling local authorities to make profits, and thus make a success of the undertaking. In passing, I would ask the Minister, or whoever is going to reply, to explain how, in the present situation and when of all commodities food is in short supply, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to make the supply of tobacco shorter still, it is supposed that the Government are going to be fair to the private trader if they allow local authorities to set up new shops or new undertakings for the sale of biscuits, food, tobacco, and so on. As the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary knows, she refuses from clay to clay applications made personally by ex-Servicemen and private traders to be allowed to take part in such activities. She also frequently refuses applications sent to her by hon. Members, including myself, on behalf of constituents in cases which we think, and with which she often agrees, are ones of real hardship. How does she justify giving a power to local authorities to start such undertakings? It must be grossly unfair to the private trader, unless the Ministry of Food are going to introduce into this country so much extra food and tobacco. Perhaps the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us about that."may carry on such activities incidental or ancillary to the activities aforesaid as they consider necessary or expedient."
Am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is opposed to the staffing of any new canteen facilities anywhere?
Not at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not understand that; he must understand that I am opposed to allowing local authorities, who have, as my hon. Friend said, the favour and the ear of Ministries, to get in front of the large queue of private traders and charitable institutions who are trying to start such enterprises today. I and a great many of my hon. Friends are opposed to that, as are also, I believe, some hon. Members opposite. It is for that reason that so many of us in this House oppose the extension of municipal trading in this way, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) told us a short time ago, can only result in unfair competition.
In her short speech the hon. Lady referred to seaside resorts, and seemed to imply that, in years to come, these resorts would be regretting the action of hon. Members of this side of the House who represent them in voting against this Bill. I cannot understand how she can think that. Surely, she realises that the services which are given in seaside resorts in the form of catering establishments, both large and small, are carried out by private traders. From what I and other hon. Members have said in the course of this Debate, it is quite clear that the introduction of municipal enterprise will be to the detriment of those private traders. I will finish my argument by stressing once again that this Bill has absolutely no effect on the main problem to which the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock referred, the burden on the housewife due to the shortages. This Bill has simply nothing to do with greater production. If it does anything at all, it will employ more local government servants, and will, therefore, take more men away from productive enterprises. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Why the hon. Member says "Nonsense," I do not understand. He may know how new municipal undertakings can be set up without, ex hypothesi, increasing staffs. The primary purpose of this Bill, if the honest and only true purpose had been to extend British Restaurants where necessary, would be a good purpose. It has been emphasised often enough from this side of the House that that is not its real purpose. I submit that the purpose of this Bill is to widen the exent of municipal trading more than ever before, and to interfere with the legitimate rights of private persons carrying on catering activities. For that reason, I shall vote against it.5.59 p.m.
There is a considerable part of this Bill to which I give my very hearty approval, and when the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) talks about the dangers of municipal trading and the defence of the private trader, he is inviting me with all his power to throw in my lot behind the Minister in support of this Bill. As I said, when the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, I regarded it then and I regard it still as a means whereby a very great and beneficent social change will be carried out. I do not forget the war years, and my experience in this matter. I believed then, and I believe still. that there are great masses of young people for whom entirely inadequate provision is made both as regards the food that is available to them and the opportunities afforded them for meeting one another and for sitting down together and discussing the problems of the day. I saw no provision at all for that requirement. During the war many of us voluntarily sought to extend, as far as possible, the whole idea of the community centre and, using the British Restaurants, to establish better facilities for the people to meet and eat together. On Second Reading I observed that this Bill endeavours to carry out that idea; I said then, as I say now, that we cannot risk the opposition that comes from the benches opposite in this matter. I intend to support the Bill for these reasons.
The Bill had a great blemish which is now more clearly seen after today's discussion. I am afraid the degree of the indelibility of that blemish has been increased by many of the things which the Minister has said. It will be a good exercise after this is all over—and I have no doubt it will be undertaken by some of the Churches and the temperance movements—to peruse all the reasons which the Minister has given for the introduction into the Bill of the parts relating to licensing powers. At one time he was talking about the necessity for permitting licensing facilities in only a few of the restaurants. He mentioned a conversation that he had with the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) who told him that Birmingham, which will probably have 30 or 40 or even more of these civic restaurants, was thinking only in terms of one or two restaurants in the centre of the town because it was thought it might be a good thing as an exception to permit one or two. But in other parts of the discussion he sought to make a case for drinking with meals, claiming that this was a process of temperance education. He was so keen about the idea of everybody having a glass of beer with his meals that I wanted to know why drink should not be provided in everyone of these restaurants. When I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) giving her ideas on the excellence of beer, side by side with the excellence of tea—she put her money on both horses—it occurred to me that she was really making the same sort of point which the Minister had made, and the only conclusion which one could draw from her plea—I am sorry I have to refer to her in her absence, but she will, no doubt, read what I have said—was that she was trying to make out a case for the licensing of every one of these restaurants. In passing, with regard to the question of tea and beer for which she made such a passionate plea, I would say that there is a sort of Gresham's law in this beer and tea question. Beer is left in currency and tea disappears. The public houses have had long enough to try out this experiment of becoming restaurants for the supply of teas if they had wanted to, and if the people who go to public houses had wanted it. But that situation has not developed. Indeed, very often where the attempt has been made beer has been left triumphant. My feeling about these restaurants is that the more we bring in these licences the more we shall fail to produce in the civic restaurant the type of institution which would really serve the highest social purpose. Another thing I must say before we take leave of this Bill is that I think it is most unsatisfactory that we should accept the possibility of running these restaurants successfully in Scotland without licences, and pretend that the situation in England is different and that licences are required in order to make a success of this enterprise. I think better of England than that. I am sure there is as good a chance of running the restaurants well in England as they are intended to be run in Scotland. They were run well all through the war. The British Restaurant made its way again and again without the assistance of liquor. There is no reason why the civic restaurant should not continue to do so. I think, too, that we in the Labour Party must recognise that we have done a very ill service to local politics by the decision which has been taken on the question of licences. Do not let us forget that when a town council discusses whether a restaurant should have a licence and the facts, get into the Press, the inevitable consequence will be that those who want beer and those who do not want beer will press municipal councils, and a new conflict will be raised in municipal politics as a result of this proposal. This very point of keeping the drink question separate from politics, and putting the choice as a matter of a direct option to the voters, is involved in the decision of the Labour Party to accept local option as its fundamental policy years ago. This is the reason why in some of our Dominions, particularly in New Zealand and in parts of Australia, they preferred to have this question settled by local option so that it could be entirely apart from the other issues. At times the Minister spoke of it as a process of local option. I submit that it is a local option which will bring the drink question into municipal politics to a degree which none of us on these benches really desires, and I am very sorry that it has happened. At any rate, as I have already indicated, while the churches and temperance movements are left to fight in whatever way they can to make this Measure less of a blemish, I hope that an effective effort will be made against the municipalities who want to introduce licences and that successful appeals will be made to the magistrates' courts against them. I think we ought to have settled the issue here. So far as I am concerned, I have registered my vote and raised my voice in the hope that the fight might have been settled by us here. We have left it to be fought out in the country. It will be very difficult for many of us who have struggled over this question for years, and it will be very difficult for many of my hon. Friends who have in their constituencies many voters who regard this as an extremely serious issue. I wish we had never been troubled by it at all. I think the Minister has done a grave disservice to our party work by his proposal. Although we intend to accept the Bill—I certainly am prepared to vote for it—I will use every means I can to emphasise the necessity to get rid of the processes of licensing wherever it is adopted. Unless the influence of drink can be kept out of any social reform which it is desired to bring about, the drink tends to bring down to a lower level the best that can be attained by an otherwise effectual social effort.
6.10 p.m.
It is a great honour for me to follow the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), who has made such a powerful and impassioned speech appealing to hon. Members opposite to vote for this Measure with guilty consciences. I wish to follow the hon. Member on one point only, namely, that many people throughout the country have believed that community centres could be a development of outstanding value to the various communities. There is however no question whatsoever but that, by the introduction of the Clause allowing for the sale of drink the whole project of building the community centres round the civic restaurants has been completely vitiated, and that plan with which this Bill might have set out originally has now been hacked away entirely by the Minister on the Front Bench opposite.
We on this side of the House have always said that we are in favour of civic restaurants, if their necessity can be proved. There is one advantage which civic restaurants have today, and it is that calorifically less and less can be distributed further and further. This is essentially a continuation and a perpetuation of a crisis measure. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question: If the only conceivable advantage of these methods of communal feeding can be that the crisis through which we are passing at the moment is to continue, is the Minister of Food not saying vicariously by the presentation of this Bill that we in this country are to go on living under our present conditions, with shortages of food and shortages of fuel, which make it difficult for housewives to obtain and cook their meals? There, I agree, the civic restaurants may have a use. But they can perfectly well be continued and carried on by means of an Order. They can perfectly well be brought forward, after proving necessity, by Private Act of Parliament, as happened prior to the war. But we cannot assume that the crisis is to continue. The Government have stood by the fact that there will be more food—eventually. At the moment, these restaurants do no good except to the individuals who attend them, and who may get greater calorific values than on the short ration, available Is it reasonable to suppose that in the years to come this country will continue under this deprivation? Is it reasonable to suppose there will be a shortage of domestic fuel? Is it reasonable to suppose there will be a permanent shortage of food? I suggest that it is not reasonable to suppose that. What was, in point of fact, happening—there were many signs of it happening—was that the number of people eating in civic restaurants was declining; but since this present crisis they have probably increased. In the natural course of events it would have been expected that the civic restaurants would go out of business. Their numbers and their powers have diminished, and are diminishing, whereas according to the Government by this Bill they ought to be increased. I regard this as a typical reversal of the normal and satisfactory order of things in this country. The object of this Bill is to extend the system of community feeding on a large scale. Normally that would not happen. What people want normally are small restaurants in which they can have a good time and in which they feed at home.It depends what the hon. Member means by "a good time."
What I mean by "a good time" is that normally the restaurants should serve two purposes: the purpose of pleasure, and the purposes of necessity—
rose—
Let me finish my sentence. We believe that the need for restaurants is either that of necessity—with which I have already dealt—or that of pleasure. As has been demonstrated by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), these restaurants are not providing the pleasurable surroundings; they merely allow housewives to go out of their homes. I on this side of the House maintain that the home is the basis of the whole social order, yet the housewife is to be encouraged by this Bill to go out of her own home into a communal restaurant, where she is provided with food at a subsidised rate. It is to be subsidised twice: once by the Government and once by the community.
rose—
I had not finished my speech.
The hon. Member is not entitled to resume his seat and indi- cate that he is giving way by pointing at another hon. Member.
I intendea to continue, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I sat down in order to give way to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones).
On a point of Order. Is not an hon. Member entitled to resume his seat in order to invite another hon. Member opposite to make an interruption?
The noble Lord is incorrect in assuming that that is what I meant. What I meant was that the hon. Member was not in Order in sitting down and pointing to another hon. Member. It is quite in Order, and is an essential part of the Debate, for hon. Members to give way at times.
I did rise previously, but the hon. Member asked to be allowed to complete his sentence. It was a rather long sentence. I wanted to ask the hon. Member if he realised, in reference to what he calls "a good time," that to the ordinary working men and women the opportunity to go to a British restaurant and to obtain a meal, as and when they think fit, would be an extremely good time?
I thank the hon. Member for that interruption. The point I am making is, that at this time we do not want to encourage, on an enormous scale, the restaurant habit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We believe that the best time available to people should be in the home. We also believe that, outside the home, places such as restaurants and clubs should be made available for necessity or for pleasure. We believe the continuation of these wartime measures is, in general, a bad thing. As the hon. Lady said, it is an important social trend. For my part, I believe it is a bad trend.
Does the hon. Member mean it is a bad thing for the women to go out of their homes?
Yes. I was coming to that. I believe the average woman's place is the home. I am sure the Minister of Food might, at moments, have thought that, following on from some of the polemics in which he indulged in his earlier political career. The continued drift away from the home will be in creased by this Bill. As we can see from some of the Clauses, it is perfectly in order for a municipal authority, when it has charge of such a restaurant, to subsidise it from the rates for at least two years, and to produce food at an absurdly low cost to the consumer. That will lead to a great deal of political jobbery and chicanery.
My hon. Friends on this side of the House have already put the main points of objection to the Bill, but I want to put this one final point. We believe—or, rather, I believe—that it is of great importance that we should see people are given full encouragement to have and to live a private, domestic life in their homes; for the home is the basis of our society; and that basis is better preserved by keeping a decent table in a decent kitchen in one's home, than by our going out to these community restaurants—which will never he community centres, as I pointed out. Let us encourage people rather to enjoy their average evenings at home, and wives to provide decent food for their husbands when they return from work.6 20 p.m.
I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but I now want to repeat what I said on Second Reading. Speaking as a very strong teetotaller, I cannot see where the Opposition are in regard to this Measure. Yesterday, we were talking of spending millions of pounds more on the educational services, and saying that people had a higher degree of intelligence now. Today we are talking about the fear that young people and intelligent working folk may do certain things. I want to suggest that this Bill should be looked at in the proper perspective. All it seeks to do is to allow local authorities, composed of highly intelligent people—they must be because they have been through the riddle of the opinion of their fellow townsmen—to allow the local authorities the right to ask an intelligent bench of magistrates, justices of the peace appointed for their knowledge of local affairs and social matters, for permission to have licences installed in civic restaurants. That is all that the Bill seeks to do. But one would think that this Bill was dictating to the British working man and his wife and everybody else, compelling them to go to some place where drink is served, and forcing them to partake of it. It is a ridiculous state of affairs. The whole opposition to this Bill is based upon the view of individual persons towards drink as such —
Not the whole of the opposition
It the hon. gentleman wishes to intervene I will give way.
I intervene only to say, not the whole of the opposition. There are much greater grounds for our objections even than that of drink.
I say that there is individual opposition on the ground of drink as such. There are too many individual objections. I listened to hon. Members opposite talking about the restrictions that the Labour Party, they say, is placing upon the workingmen of this country. When an opportunity comes to give the working class in this country the right to decent conditions in which to enjoy a drink, if they want it, at reasonable prices, then we get an outcry of this description. The whole thing is fantastic.
Does the hon. Member say that the Secretary of State for Scotland of his own party is fantastic?
I am not too well versed in Scottish affairs, and I am not wanting to be; and so I am not going to be involved in that question. I am speaking from the ordinary, commonsense man's point of view with regard to this Bill. I am no lawyer, which is a good thing. I do not want to be put in the position of having to prove that one of my right hon. or hon. Friends is right when he is wrong or wrong when he is right. All I want to say is that this Bill seeks an extension of communal feeding in what I hope will be proper conditions provided by the local authorities. That is all there is to it. I will not repeat what I said when I twitted the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Roland Robinson.) I would far rather see our people having a drink, if they desire to have one, in decent conditions—on the Continental system, if they want it, in open spaces—than see them being driven, as they are today in many cases, into dives and hell holes where drink is being served in deplorable conditions. This thing should be looked at properly.
I remember having a terrible thirst—and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will remember it, too—when neither he nor I could get any water to drink. I remember our water bottles were empty. I noticed that some of our friends were drinking things out of other sorts of bottles, but I would not do so. It is a matter of individual will power.As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I hope he will make it plain that we both drank water.
Oh, yes. But I have seen men die—and so has the noble Lord—rather than drink something to which they were averse. I would do anything rather than prevent the working people of this country getting drinks, of all sorts, if they want them, in decent conditions. I think we ought to give people the right to exercise their own intelligence, and the privilege to go where they choose.
6.27 p.m.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones); and, more particularly, I do not propose to follow his interesting relationship with the noble Lord on a now long ago occasion. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss J. Lee), who addressed the House in her usual delightful way, made several statements with which one might deal; but there are two on which I should like to comment in passing. I agree very largely with her in saying that, if we are to have these civic restaurants, they should he made as attractive in every possible way as we can make them, in design, furnishing, comfort, and what they produce in the way of food and drink. It is a very desirable thing that the surroundings should be the best that we can get, if we are to have these civic restaurants. I differ from the hon. Lady in that she said that our people in this country are better fed now than they were before the war.
Millions are.
I am referring to the millions. As regards my constituency, which is a combination of urban workers and agricultural workers —and I think that other Members on this side of the House will agree with me—there is no question about it: they are not so well off in the matter of food as they were before the war. I do not think that such a remark as that—that our people are better fed now than before the war—should be allowed to go without contradiction.
I want to refer, m particular, to the Scottish side of the Bill, which has caused such great disturbance, not only amongst Scots Members, but also—and, perhaps, to a greater degree—amongst English Members and Welsh Members. The Bill was published last year, and, presumably, it was the result of a Cabinet decision. The Cabinet must have agreed to it In that Cabinet is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Now, the Cabinet, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, made it perfectly clear in that Bill which they produced for the consideration of the House, that they wished civic restaurants in Scotland to be enabled to have licences. That was as clear as daylight. In the Second Reading Debate there were protests about this—considerable protests; but the Bill was given a Second Reading with, again, the approval of the Government, and, particularly, of the Secretary of State for Scotland The Committee stage was reached, and then the trouble began. The trouble really arose, I think I am right in saying, over the question whether this Bill did or did not apply to Scotland, or could or could not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S Hudson) was particularly anxious on that point, and so was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). The Minister of Food answered that very clearly indeed; it has already been referred to, and I should like again to make reference to it. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of West minster (Sir H. Webbe) said:The Minister of Food replied:"It he can assure us that if the Bill, as 10 is now in front of us, wihout any Amend merit is carried it can apply to Scotland, then my point disappears."
The Minister of Food then went on to mention an Amendment, standing in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and stated that even without that Amendment the Bill could apply to Scotland. And so there was no doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that it could apply to Scotland. As the House knows, the Government were defeated on that particular Clause. Right at the end of the Committee stage, on the sixth day, the joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland produced a very long and important Amendment, which was thoroughly discussed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport was particularly anxious to know something more about it; it referred to the powers of local authorities in Scotland to borrow money in connection with this Bill. It had apparently been overlooked by the Government until the last minute, which seems to us to be a most extraordinary state of affairs. I should like to ask why it was overlooked. I do not think it would he wrong to say that the subject matter of this Amendment should have been introduced right from the beginning, if the Bill had been properly drafted by the Government. It is deplorable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have allowed the Bill to go forward without such an important Amendment being in it."The Bill, as it stands, without any Amendment whatever, can apply to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. Tuesday. 10th December. 1946; C 26]
I am not sure to which particular Clause the hon. and gallant Member is referring, but I would remind him that we cannot, on Third Reading, deal with matters which are not in the Bill.
This Amendment was put into the Bill, although it is not printed in the Bill at the moment, because of this peculiar situation in which we find ourselves tonight. I feel, therefore, that I am justified in referring to it. The climax of this story of Government ineptitude came on the Report stage, when, to our astonishment, we saw that the Secretary of State for Scotland had inserted an Amendment, which was carried, entirely reversing in every respect the subject of licensing as far as it affected Scotland, and yet he, as a Member of the Government, had produced the Bill four months earlier, and had said that he did not approve of Scotland being left out of this matter. As I say, the position was reversed, and he said that Scotland would not now have licences. It was a complete reversal of Government policy, and there is no doubt that there is a great deal behind it. Protests by English and Welsh Members were made at once, and the Minister of Food stated quite clearly:
"We were convinced, although reluctantly, that that difficulty made it impossible to apply this Clause to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c 820.]
The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing something which has been excluded from the Bill.
This Amendment has been inserted in the Bill, although it has not been printed in it. This Amendment is to the effect that the question of licensing shall not apply to Scotland, and the Minister of Food stated no less than three times that this part of the Bill could not apply to Scotland although, for nearly four months he had said it would apply to Scotland. That is most astonishing, just as the statements of the Secretary of State for Scotland are astonishing. The Secretary of State said four months ago that there would be licensing for Scotland, and then said later there would not be licensing. We have an example here of political tumbling.
The hon. and gallant Member speaks of "political tumbling." Is it not possible for a Scotsman to change the mind of an English Minister?
Then why should we have to do the same thing for the Secretary of State for Scotland, because his mind has also been completely changed? This type of acrobatics may be very well for Bertram Mills Circus, but in serious matters in the House of Commons it is most reprehensible on the part of Members of the Government. I have no hesitation in saying that the way these two Ministers have treated this Bill has led to all the trouble we have had in these later stages. I am very sympathetic towards those Welsh and English Members who wonder how it is that Scotland is, first, to have licensing, and then is not to have licensing, and wonder why it should not also apply to them. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on what really went on. I think that the Amendment, excluding Scotland from licensing, is a good one, but it was put into the Bill by the Secretary of State for Scotland not for its inherent goodness, but as a piece of political chicanery. It is quite unworthy of him as a Minister, and it is unworthy of the country whose interests he is expected to support.
6.38 p.m.
While giving general support to this Bill, along with many of my colleagues, I feel that I must raise my voice in protest against that part of it which permits intoxicating liquor to be served in these restaurants.
Would the hon. Member mind raising his voice a little more?
I feel that I must protest against the selling of intoxicating liquor in civic restaurants. The Government are making a profound mistake, and their action will receive throughout the country a great measure of disapproval I leave aside the question of whether drink is or is not a good thing, but if it is a good thing to sell liquor why has Scotland been excluded? I fit is a good thing, then surely Scotland also deserves to have it. I should like also to quote from certain speeches from Members on this side of the House, which indicate there is something unsatisfactory about selling or drinking of liquor. May I quote from what my hon. friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said, on 17th February:
There, you have the claim that the selling of liquor in a club did an indirect injury, May I give a second quotation from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) in that Debate, in which he said:"I was once a member of a Labour club which sold intoxicant. I oppose Labour clubs of that kind, because that is not the purpose of the Labour movement; it has done indirect injury to the Labour movement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17TH February, 1947; Vol, 433, c. 836.]
"I now refer to British Restaurant 'B'. In my constituency this restaurant is not far removed from some huge cotton mills where are employed many juvenile cotton workers, primarily females. It I were a J.P. in that district, and had to decide whether that restaurant should have a licence, and the restaurant was being used primarily by juvenile female labour, I should think twice before granting it, and so would any justice of the peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1947; Vol. 433. c. 844.]
Is my hon. Friend quoting those Members as eminent authorities on this business? Otherwise I do not see that those quotations have any special significance.
When an argument has been put forward from either side of the House, I think it is within the right of a Member to contest that argument.
Does not the quotation which the hon. Member gave a few moments ago come from the speech of a former Minister, and a very respected member of the Labour Party?
It was from a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) the other day. He is not a Minister.
I said "former Minister."
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The third quotation I wish to make is from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville)—
Will my hon. Friend let us have the other part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Jones), in which he referred to the giving of a licence?
I would like to make my quotations in my own way. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett visualised a working man and his wife going into a British Restaurant, and he said on first thought:
Why do these Members give u, the impression that there is something about intoxicating liquor which they would exclude from females, and which has admittedly done injury, in certain respects, in dubs? It there is something wrong with intoxicating liquor, no amount of good surroundings will put it right. The claim that we are creating good surroundings in civic restaurants will in no way right a wrong. Now I want to deal with local option. A local authority submits an application to the magistrates for a licence. Many members of local authorities are also magistrates, and they will be interested in the matter as magistrates as well as local authority members. Is not that the reason why Scotland has been excluded? The point which faces me, as a licensing magistrate is this: Suppose a local authority submits an application to the magistrates for a licence, and they turn it down. Immediately, there arises, in that area, strong public controversy between the local authority, on the one hand, and the bench of magistrates on the other. While it is true that local authority members are elected by the people, magistrates are appointed. They are not elected and, therefore, the decision rests, not in the hands of elected members, but of appointed members. They do not express the electors' feelings, because they have been so appointed, usually by one person. I feel that this question will create, in a large number of areas, bitter controversy which ought not to exist. I do not feel that magistrates who are doing the work they are doing should be brought into controversy of this nature, and I, as a magistrate, wish to raise my voice in strong objection to it. Magistrates are bound to take into account all the circumstances which surround the granting of a licence for any premises. In licensed premises, certain conditions govern the granting of their licence. Juveniles are precluded, and young people under 16 must not be served. In British Restaurants an increasing burden will be placed on those who are serving intoxicating liquors, because they will have to judge the ages of young people. In these restaurants there will be a larger number of juveniles than in any other place. The whole position is definitely unsatisfactory. This is a retrograde step, and it will, I am sure, be resented throughout the country."… there should be places like these … into which a man may take his wife for a meal and a drink, if he so desires. He buys his missus a lemonade.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th February, 1947: Vol. 433, c. 847.]
6.49 p.m.
With the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), I, and my hon. Friends on these benches, find ourselves in complete agreement. This is a retrograde step. Those were his words, and the hon. Member is right. It was because we, in Scotland, also thought that it was a retrograde step that the licensing provisions of the Bill do not apply to us. Let us, instead of facing the future, face the facts. The facts are as follow: Scotland rose in revolt against this Bill arid compelled the Scottish Labour Party to change their minds. The churches rose in revolt, the temperance movement, which represents hundreds of thousands of Scottish people, rose in revolt, the youth movements, the local authorities, and the co-operative societies in Scotland rose in revolt. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the brewers."] No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite support the brewers. I noticed that in a recent Debate, the only hon. Member who supported the brewers was an hon. Member on the other side, who spent his time telling us what a fine thing it was to take one's wife into a pub and have a good old bottle of Guinness.
The hon. Member pointed to me when he said, "An hon. Member on the other side." I should like to make it perfectly clear that I was not the hon. Member.
I did not give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the credit. It was the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). Scottish opinion, represented by all these bodies, rose in revolt and demanded their Scottish Labour Members to reverse the policy which they had already agreed to. The Scottish Secretary was himself under compulsion to change the Bill as it then was. Why did these bodies rise in revolt against this provision? It has been the history of this country during the last hundred years gradually to take more and more control in this House of the drink trade. Gradually, year after year, decade after decade, we have imposed more and more restrictions on public houses on the kind of public houses, what they sell, when they sell, and how they sell. This Bill is doing the equivalent in England of extending the hours of every public house in the country. It is doing exactly that. And it is doing more than that—it is increasing the number of pubs in the country. This Bill will be known throughout Nonconformist circles as the "Civic Pubs Bill." Why have all these restrictions been accumulated throughout the years? Because we have been persuaded that unless we control the sale of liquor, great harm is done to the people. I observed that the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), and other hon. Members opposite, have said, "Why should not the British working man take his wife and family out with him to the pubs at night?"—to these grandiose, beautifully furnished, civic pubs?
Before the hon. Member leaves that point, in view of the fact that only a certain quantity of drink is available at the present time, surely the effect would not be to increase the amount of drink but to spread it over a greater number of places?
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour Party is going to be in for 20 years, and the depression is going to be as bad as it is now, he is quite right—if that is to be our misfortune for 20 years. The country and the world hope that very quickly we shall be in better times under a better Government.
I was trying to deal with the fundamental issues of this Bill. Why are we opposed to the extension of the provision of drink to civic restaurants? I want to address myself to the case of hon. Members opposite who ask, "Why should the British working man and his wife and children be prevented from going into these places and having a drink?" If hon. Members opposite had urged the production of better houses—We are now dealing with the Civic Restaurants Bill, and not with the production of better houses.
Either we stand for the sanctity and development of the British home as a centre of British life, or we do not. The moral issue dividing that side of. the House from this is simply this: We stand for the sanctity of the home to the greatest possible extent. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at that; but that helps me. That is what we stand for. What hon. Members opposite apparently stand for, according to their statements tonight—with one or two gallant exceptions—is something quite different. That people should go out at night—a man and his wife and children should go into pubs., civic, private enterprise, or otherwise. That is a disastrous outlook for our country. If that is the issue, then let the people of Great Britain face the fact, that hon. Members opposite stand for British families going into pubs, at night. I do not.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? I hope that he will give a simple answer. If this is a great moral issue, would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support in this House complete prohibition of the drink trade in this country?
I would not mind personally.
But would the hon. Men-her support it?
Prohibition is not the matter under discussion.
Regulating the drink trade is one thing; prohibition is a very different thing, and I will leave it at that. I have pointed out the dividing line between the two sides of the House. It was said by the Minister of Food, in a very slippery speech, which became more and more slippery as it proceeded, that the reason that this provision in the Bill could not be applied to Scotland was because of the Scottish legal system. I do not want to be rude, but that approach is very near to political dishonesty. There is not a scrap of evidence for it. In Scotland we have a system of sheriffs, and we could have handed over to the sheriffs the duty of the licensing authority. Therefore, that is all humbug. The Scottish Secretary withdrew and Scottish Labour Members withdrew because they were afraid of the temperance vote and the Co-operative vote.
We are to have splendid, beautiful, well-designed places as the civic pubs of the future; but if they are anything like the present British Restaurants, I am sorry for the working class. Every local authority in England, dominated by a Labour majority, will see that there is a civic pub in the town, and drive its people into that civic pub by encouraging them to go there. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is suggested that they should go, then why not drive. them—subsidise, them, persuade them, produce publicity, make it much cheaper, and do everything to encourage the working man and his wife and children to sit drinking beer at night. I wonder if hon. Members will pause and think for a moment what it is they want in their own family lives. I speak personally—and I fancy that in this I represent the views of Members in all parts of the House—when I ask what is it that I, with my wife and family, like to do in the evenings? I like to be at home with them, and if we get a little tired of each other's company I like to invite friends to my home. Sometimes I like to be invited to other people's homes along with my family. That is the simple domestic life at which I aim and which I enjoy, and I do not believe the working class of this country want anything different.Who is stopping the hon. Gentleman enjoying it? [Laughter.]
I do not know why hon. Members laugh at these matters, or is it that they are laughing because they are simple issues? I cannot believe it possible that the British working man—and I am not altogether unacquainted with him and his habits—shares the same view as the hon. Member for Cannock, that he does not like his home and that he prefers to go out in the evening to the local pub and there meet his friends. I believe that the average working man prefers to be at home with his family and I believe that this Bill undermines that aim. For that reason, in my opinion, it is immoral and I am ashamed to find that when this issue was raised on the Report stage only seven Scottish Labour Members had the courage to vote, and all of them voted for drink. If the Scottish Members were persuaded of the high morality of not having this provision applied to Scotland why should they funk the issue when it comes to applying the same principle to England? Are they going to funk the issue tonight? I challenge the Scottish Labour Members to stand up to their principles and vote against this Measure. If they do not they are frauds and humbugs.
I would not have risen to take part in the Third Reading Debate but for the references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) to what I had said on the Report stage. I thought that the question of the licences which might be applied for had been thoroughly discussed and really settled on the Report stage, but I have been quoted by the hon. Member for Chorley as saying that I had come to disagree with the idea of Labour clubs. That was an incidental remark in my speech, and I say now on that particular point, that I object to them, because running clubs is not their business as a political organisation, and does injury to that organisation whether it be of the Labour Party or any other party. I want, at this moment, to give my reasons for that. It is not a question of the morality of drinking. It is the fact that a club—and there are plenty of them in Scotland as well as in Wales—becomes affiliated with the Union of Institutes and Clubs—
The question of clubs does not arise as it is not in the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Member is out of Order.
The matter was referred to in a speech of mine and has been quoted here tonight. I wanted to make it perfectly clear why I made the remarks I did. However, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I do not want to infringe the Rules of the House. There is not much else I wish to say because I spoke on the Report stage when this drink issue was under discussion. But some other things have been said in the course of this Debate on which I should like to comment briefly. First, I deny the right of people who have all the facilities they want in their clubs and their restaurants, and who, as well, can use the facilities of this House, to tell the working classes what kind of life they have got to live. If these hon. Members are concerned so much with the morality of the working classes, my retort to them is: Let them look after their own morality, which will give them quite enough to do. It irritates me to hear people, who I know are not teetotallers, and who are members of clubs and have all the drinking facilities that they need, talk about the working classes as if they had to be pampered and wrapped in cotton wool, and could not he trusted to see a glass of beer on a table with a meal. It is nonsense to talk like that about the working and I resent it.
There is nothing about the working classes in this Bill.
The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) is not Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I am out of Order—
I am not suggesting the hon. Member is out of Order.—
—I am prepared to give way to the officer of the House who is responsible for seeing that the Debates are properly conducted, but I do not think I am out of Order in what I am saying. We have not to go very far from this House to find, for instance, Lyons Corner House, which is at the top of Whitehall. It is crowded day and night by people, not all of the working classes in the crude sense of that phrase, which is the labouring classes—but the general workers, such as those from the lower middle class. These people all use Lyons Corner House day and night, and beer can be obtained there. We find the children sitting round the table with their parents, and we all know that families go there to eat and drink. I have not seen any excessive drinking or bestiality such as hon. Members opposite have been talking about. One hon. Member talked tonight about home life and he seemed very concerned about the home life of the working classes. We have been working for decent home lives for the working classes for years.
The hon. Member mentioned Lyons Corner House. Have they got an off-licence or do they only provide drinks with the meals they serve?
I see. The objection of the hon. and gallant Member is to an off-licence
I only asked the hon. Member a question.
This continual interruption of business is being abused, and I must ask to be allowed to develop my argument. I am not discussing the merits of an off-licence versus an ordinary licence. What irritates me is this reflection upon the class to which I belong.
Nonsense.
It is not nonsense for hon. Members opposite who would be the first to object if their own personal habits of life were interfered with. They talk about supporting the morals of the working class of this country. So far as that is concerned, the working class should be left alone. One hon. Member in the course of this Debate referred to the Continental method. I know the Continent a little bit, and I know what the Continental system is. I have seen in the beer-gardens of Switzerland, Germany and Austria the kind of thing which, frankly, I should like to see in this country. One great moralist, in the person of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, said on one occasion—and he said it in my hearing in the old Exeter Hall in the Strand—that if the drink system of this country were the same as it was in Germany, then he would have very little objection to it. In these beer-gardens there are foaming tankards of beer, stein and all the rest of it, and there one sees families enjoying themselves in a way that the people of this country do not know how to.
Really, one does not see this tremendous demoralisation because people get together away from their homes on occasions—and of course they want to be away sometimes. I want to take my wife—and I should want to take my children if they were younger—where we can have decency and comfort and where I can also have the glass of beer I want. It does not demoralise me. What a lot of nonsense it is to talk about demoralisation, especially when it comes from hon. Members who take their own families to restaurants in the West End constantly. It reminds me of the young fellow in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Patience" who—That is the attitude of mind that if you drink a glass of beer you will go to perdition. As I have said before, I do object to the abuse of alcoholic liquor and to the grossness of some of the pubs, but I do not see why one should insult municipalities like Bournemouth where there are perfectly respectable civic restaurants. I have been there frequently. I have attended symphony concerts by the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra and have then gone to the civic restaurant for a meal, and drinks have been supplied. Families go there after bathing and taking other forms of enjoyment in the city. There is no bestiality in such circumstances. The bestiality exists in the slums. I represent a constituency a great part of which consists of sums. They would not like to be called slums, but in fact, the standard of housing has been that of slums ever since I have been connected with the area."… lostered a passion for alcohol. The consequence was he was lost to-tally, And married a girl from the corps-de ballet.'"
The question of slums does not come within the terms of a Bill to establish civic restaurants.
I will not run the risk of being out of Order again, but on the Report stage the subject was thoroughly discussed and today all kinds of extraneous questions have been introduced which really should have been answered by those who do not happen to be people who are fanatical with regard to teetotalism. I am not fanatical about it and I think that people should have the right to drink if they so desire. I do not want to extend drinking facilities but I do want to extend facilities for reasonable refreshment for the working class as much as for any other class. I object to one class being singled out on moral issues and insulted by the suggestion that if, through their municipal activities, they provide civic centres of refreshment for themselves they are going to fall down into a hell of drinking and squalor in consequence. It simply is not true, and it is not even true of public houses where they have—as some of them have in London—actually increased the amenities. They have done this in my own constituency by the very improvements they have carried out. Let us see that the people get justice, decent housing and decent conditions of life. Then we can leave the moral issue to take care of itself.
7.15 p.m.
the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) succeeded in stirring himself to a considerable degree of heat over arguments which he was pleased, erroneously, to attribute to this bench and to my hon. Friends behind me. I have listened to practically the whole of the long Debates on the Second Reading, upstairs, on the Report stage down here, and now on Third Reading, and I have not yet heard anyone belonging to my party opposing any of these proposals on the ground that they were demoralising to what the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call the class to which he belonged. It had better be made perfectly clear that the objection which we have to the change made down here after what we had done upstairs is on the ground that it offended a very large number of people in the country I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but the fact remains that it does offend a large section of the people and since we are a democratic body representing democracy on broad grounds of policy we felt that it was not worth while offending the consciences of people who, whether or not we agree with them, are perfectly honestly opposed to what must and can only be for the benefit—if we assume it is a benefit—of a very small number.
Those were the only reasons for which we objected. The hon. Member for West Islington said that he objected to people who like their glass of beer or wine, and who can afford to belong to a club and to go out to restaurants, inflicting these restrictions on people—to use his own words—"inflicting these irritating restrictions on the class to which I belong." It is not we who are doing that; it is his own people. Is he going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food does not like a glass of beer or wine? He has heard him say here in this House that taking a glass with meals was a good thing and ought to be encouraged. But it is the right hon. Gentleman himself who is inflicting these irritating restrictions on the class to which he belongs in Scotland—not we. The right hon. Gentleman had better remember—and the hon. Lady, too, for that matter. It is they who have imposed these restrictions on Scotland in order to enable the hon. Member and the people who think like him in his own party not to suffer those restrictions in Engand. It is humbug. As I said just now, we have had a long discussion on this Bill. It is a Measure which at first sight appeared to be comparatively innocent, but as we have delved more and more into its implications we have found that far from being an innocent little Bill to enable local authorities to maintain British restaurants that were started during the war it is—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend today—a deliberate and, I am afraid, successful attempt to extend municipal trading to a very wide field. Incidentally, it has also become a Measure that had better be called "The Civic Pubs Bill" rather than the Civic Restaurants Bill. In the course of his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food said he was anxious to see claimed for British restaurants no more than a fair field and no favour. He and his Parliamentary Secretary have signally failed during the course of the discussion upstairs and on the Floor of the House to carry that claim into effect. No concessions have been made to the cogent points we put forward. An hon. Member this afternoon asked why we did not trust local authorities considering that their accounts were subject to public audit. We have no objection to a public auditor and we realise that accounts may be subject to public audit. What we object to is the form of the accounts and the fact that there is no statutory rule laid down that in respect of these civic restaurants local authorities are to provide proper sums for rates and rent. The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Minister, in course of the Debate upstairs, said, "Oh, but the Minister will lay down satisfactory rules for these accounts." If he is going to lay down satisfactory rules, we cannot see why they should not be included in the Bill, and the fact that he refuses to include a specific provision in the Bill makes us doubt the good faith with which he made the promise. We had a long discussion and tried to get additional safeguards inserted regarding the power of local authorities to acquire not only sites but the buildings on the sites under Clause 3, and we quoted the example of Coventry, merely as an illustration of the way in which local authorities, given their head under the existing legislation, were behaving. The Parliamentary Secretary, with the permission of the Chairman in Committee, quoted some information she had received from the Clerk to the Coventry town council. I told her a day or two ago that, according to my knowledge, that information was incorrect. She appears to have made some inquiries of the Town Clerk of Coventry, and gave us today a revised version of the information. That information is equally wrong. I do not want to go into it at great length, but merely as an illustration of the sort of thing that happens—and the sort of thing we were anxious to prevent happening—under the Bill During the discussion on Clause 3, it was distinctly stated that this particular town council had offered an alternative site to the owners of the cafe which had been requisitioned. Powers of requisition are extended and perpetuated in this Bill. I call your attention to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to show that this is in Order. in fact, it was not so. The town clerk had completely misinformed the hon. Lady The owners have not been offered an alternative site. The council have merely acknowledged a letter received from the owners asking for an alternative site The hon. Lady said that the town clerk had under consideration the opening of the Pool Meadow Café as a civic restaurant. She went further and said that the town clerk had denied any knowledge of a café called Barracks Market Café. I have an advertisement issued by the City of Coventry in the Press. It states:The hon. Lady made her statement on the basis of information—I am not blaming her—received from the town clerk on 6th February, saying that the opening of a civic restaurant was being considered. Yet here is an advertisement of the City of Coventry dated 11th January saying that the Pool Meadow Café is open. Frankly, in all my long experience I have never heard of a responsible official of a municipality misleading a Member of the Government in such a way. He also said he knew nothing about Barracks Café, and yet on 3rst January, a week before the hon. Lady, in perfect good faith, quoted the statement, here is a report by the Civic Restaurants Superintendent of Coventry—"… City of Coventry British Restaurants. Pool Meadow Café. The Pool Meadow Café is now open …"
The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into all those details on this matter. He has given ample illustrations. He cannot go into details about such matters at this stage. He must confine himself to what is in the Bill.
I quite appreciate that, and am not trying to get round it, but the hon. Lady mentioned this matter, and I want to illustrate the fact that we are depriving people of a very definite safeguard. May I read just one more quotation in order to finish off? Here is what the Superintendent said on 31st January:
I am sorry for the hon. Lady. It is a fantastic situation in which a town clerk deliberately misleads not only her but, through her, the House. I now turn to the question of drink. Everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) must agree that it was not only a witty but a very cogent speech. He exposed the inconsistency of the attitude taken up by the Minister of Food. Let me repeat that the party opposite and the Government cannot expect always or even ever, to have it both ways. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister on the Report stage defended the exclusion of Scotland on the grounds that the law was so different in Scotland that one could not really assimilate the two, but in the course of the proceedings upstairs he said exactly the opposite. He said that the Bill as then drafted could apply to Scotland. It is perfectly clear, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said, that the change as far as Scotland is concerned was the result of a deal done inside the Labour Party in order to buy off the opposition of the Scottish hon. Members."The first two months of operation of the Barracks Market and Pool Meadow Cafés under the British Restaurants Committee of the City Council have shown particularly satisfactory trading result … so good that the Barracks Cafe will open on Thursday afternoon."
Fantastic.
The hon. Member for East Fife described the Government's excuses as humbug I say their action was gross political dishonesty. If not that, the Minister of Food was guilty of the grossest incompetence upstairs. As for other hon. Members, I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), my namesake, has compromised with his conscience—
It is an easier one than the right hon. Gentleman's.
He has said that the Bill contains a bad blemish, but he is apparently to vote for it. I will leave him to deal with his own conscience. However, that does not excuse the action of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. I am glad to see three of them sitting there—the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War. In the course of the election those right hon. Gentlemen, together with a number of others, were specifically asked, "Will you insist that no sale or supply of intoxicants should be allowed in publicly-provided community centres?" All three of them, in accordance with our records, answered, "Yes." The Minister of Food, in winding up on the Report stage, tried to save them by accusing the hon. Member for West Ealing of what he called a "dialectical leap." I have not heard the expression before, but the Minister said that he had made a dialectical leap to identify community centres with civic restaurants. We have heard a good deal tonight to prove that there was no leap about it. It was a hyphen, if anything. It is quite clear that hon. Members on the Government side believe that civic restaurants should form an essential part of community centres, and they have voted in favour of turning civic restaurants into pubs, and therefore clearly they believe that there is nothing wrong in having civic pubs in the middle of community centres.
Among the Members of the Government who answered, "Yes," to that question were the Home Secretary, the Minister of Defence, the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State, the new Minister of Education, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for War and the Chief Whip—What did the right hon. Gentleman do?
I did not reply.
Was that a "dialectical leap"?
I never sign these questionaires at Election tame. I have some regard for a pledge when I make one, but pledges are regarded as ten a penny by the Government. They may have signed the pledge, but they have certainly repudiated it. They are backsliders.
If the right hon. Gentleman is alluding to me, for one, I stand by the pledge that I gave. I was concerned with this matter when I was at the Board of Education in the Coalition Government, where a paper was prepared on which a great Debate took place as to whether drink should or should not be admitted to community centres, which are quite well defined institutions. A civic restaurant is not a community centre.
That, no doubt, at the time of the Coalition, was the case, but the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues I have mentioned are in is that during the discussion of this particular Pill—and I realise his difficulty—it has become abundantly clear that the idea behind it goes a great deal further than would appear on the surface, and that in fact the view of a great number of Members of his party—certainly the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food who is in charge of the Bill, and of his Parliamentary Secretary—is that civic restaurants should, be an essential part of community centres.
indicated dissent.
Yes, I will read it out.
rose—
I do not want to delay the House, but I have quotations here. For example, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who I see in his place and who honoured his signature in the Division Lobby on Monday, said:
"I believe that civic restaurants of the future should be developed in association with other civic functions I hope that we shall nave community centres and youth clubs. What could be better than a common building for all these purposes? "
rose—
May I continue reading? It goes on:
Hon. Members should note that this Bill does not limit the serving of drinks to meals. That is an arguable point. This Bill will enable civic restaurants to serve drink just like a bar. It goes on:"Why not a big hall in which the midday meal is served, which can be used in the evening for dances or meetings of various sorts…
So that is quite clear—"and why cannot there be smaller rooms in the same building used for serving snacks? I think that in the future the civic restaurant will have a very important part to play in the life Of this Country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November. 1946; Vol. 43o, c. 1870 and 1871]
May I point nut to the right hon. Gentleman—it is obvious to the House—that I was speaking for myself, giving my own views, and in no sense committing anybody else?
Quite so, I am not denying it.
I thought from the way the right hon. Gentleman led up to this quotation, that he was going to produce a quotation from the Minister of Food accepting the view of my hon. Friend. May I point out that a community centre is organised under the Ministry of Education, and is not in any way at the moment connected with the civic restaurant or the actual committee of the local authority which organises the civic restaurant?
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary ought to know me well enough—we have been in the House together on the same side and on opposite sides long enough—to know that I would not say that unless I could produce evidence. The hon. Lady sitting beside him will confirm that, when in the Committee upstairs we were discussing this Amendment on the fourth day of the proceedings, she said:
In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I honestly do not think, when he started these things, that he realised the wide extension which the Minister of Food and various people are giving them, but, believe me, the impression left on the House—certainly the impression left on this side of the House and generally—is that it is the desire and intention of a large number of hon. Members on that side, including Members of the Government, to see that civic restaurants form an essential part of community centres."I would remind the Committee that many local authorities are very anxious to have civic restaurants as part of their community centres."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 28th January, 1947, c. 166.]
indicated dissent.
It is, really. If the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour in another place to see that some words are inserted limiting this, and making quite sure that drink is not sold in what he calls community centres, that is a very different matter. After all, we are dealing with the Third Reading of a Bill, not printed, but as it should have been printed, and he should take it from me that I have been following this now for a very long time. The intention of his supporters is to make civic restaurants part of community centres. It is, therefore, I claim, perfectly fair to argue—indeed the hon. Member for West Ealing was, the person who first brought these pledges and promises by his right hon. leaders to my attention, and I have checked them up. It is quite clear that whether they realized what they were signing at the time or not, in fact they pledged themselves to resist the serving of drink in community centres and by their vote on Monday, whether they realise it or not, they have, as far as England and Wales are concerned, definitely told local authorities they can serve. drink in civic restaurants in community centres.
indicated dissent.
We still believe that the decision is wrong on the ground that it will offend the vast number of people with consciences who believe that the serving of drink under such circumstances is morally wrong. I am not saying whether I do or not. All I am saying is that there are large numbers of people who do—hundreds of thousands, probably millions in this country. We think it wrong, on an occasion like this, to offend such a vast number of people who honestly hold that belief. Because we believe that, and because we are opposed to this wide extension of municipal trading, we propose to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.
7.38 p.m.
As I have already spoken, I must ask leave of the House to speak again. I shall not take many minutes because I feel that there has been a great deal of repetition tonight. The same arguments have been advanced as on the Second Reading, the Committee stage, and the Report stage, very often by the same people, but there are one or two points with which I want to deal. First I am sure the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will agree with me that we do riot want to do any injustice to the Town Clerk of Coventry. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Town Clerk has deceived me, and that he finds it difficult to understand why I was given the account I received. Surely, he will agree, however, that the Town Clerk had no dishonourable motive. There was no reason at all why he should give me the information he did, and I explained in my opening speech what the right hon. Gentleman has said now, that this matter has no relevance to the Bill. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and it was necessary for me to clear tip the matter. In the first place he mentioned, the Geisha Cafe, I have already told him that although his informant said he has not been offered alternative premises under the Town and Country Planning Act, he will have that offer made to him, so I really think that for the right hon. Gentleman to make a debating point out of that is entirely unfair.
Was he offered compensation for loss of goodwill which goes with the site?
That matter will be decided by the local authority. The other two factors which the right hon. Member mentioned have nothing to do with compulsory powers which we discussed under the Clause. There is no reason why the Town Clerk should tell me about the domestic affairs of Coventry City Council. He was specifically asked to give information concerning catering establishments situated in the area being compulsorily acquired. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Town Clerk of Coventry will not suffer in any way, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels the same in this matter.
I do not know. It is really disgraceful. I am not a city councillor, but it is disgraceful.
I really cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter further.
It has been suggested that we will give local authorities the opportunity of juggling—I do not think "juggling" is too strong a term—with the accounts of civic restaurants. I assure the House that the form of accounts which my right hon. Friend will prescribe will be such as to contain all the items concerned with a catering establishment. I think it was the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) who asked whether a civic restaurant would pay an economic rent. What they will pay is a rent based on the current letting value, and that will be prescribed in the form of accounts.
Once more in this Debate hon. Members representing seaside resorts have presented a united front, and have advanced the same arguments as before. I want to say a word to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), because he gave a moving description of the struggles of the landlady during the winter waiting for the coming of the summer season. I understood he. said it was a struggle for these landladies to pay the rates in the long period before the season.I implied that.
Yes, the hon. Member implied that. I want to put another point to hon. Members representing seaside resorts. I understand that these landladies feel very strongly about what is known as the "one day tripper," who comes in with his food for the day, and leaves without spending money in the town. These civic restaurants will not necessarily be subsidised by the rates. They may reduce the rates in the seaside town, because the day tripper will go to the civic restaurant to have a cheap meal, and so reduce the rates paid by the landladies.
I think the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. The objection is that the day trippers come to the Isle of Wight, and other seaside resorts, and take their meals out of the limited rations which are allowed to that area by the hon. Lady's Department. That is what they object to. They would not mind if the trippers brought their own food.
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension on the question of rations. He said that the civic restaurants would take the rations which would otherwise be allocated to private catering establishments. That is not so. A civic restaurant will have rations allocated to it, and there is no question of taking rations from the other restaurants.
What about consumer need?
We had a Debate once before in which the hon. Member raised this point. If he will come to my room I shall be glad to explain to him the rationing scheme which we administer. I think the House will agree that the most delightful and original speech this evening came from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). But, by the end of it, I was left wondering whether she would have a glass of beer, or a cup of tea, in the civic restaurants.
Both.
The hon. Lady drew a picture which was in striking contrast to the ugly picture drawn by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). I have been in this House for some years, and I think the speech he made tonight was the ugliest speech he has ever made. He did everything possible to prejudice the people of this country against British Restaurants, whereas the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock drew a gracious picture of a colourful restaurant, well-designed, attractive, and inviting. In fact it was such as I have described as a housewives' club. That was in contrast to the ugly picture of the hon. Member for East Fife.
What was the picture?
I am not going to use the term the hon. Member used, because I find it so offensive that I try to repress it in describing civic restaurants of the future. He gave a delightful picture of his own domestic life, how he loved to sit at home with his wife and children, and to invite visitors in.
That is another domestic detail in which I hope the hon. Lady will not indulge.
If you will allow me to pursue it for a minute, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure the House will find that it is relevant. It is entirely relevant to my argument. I want to explain that whereas the hon. Member for East Fife is able to lead that life, and is very fortunate in so doing, there are many millions who cannot.
I want them to be able to do so.
We are anxious to provide these restaurants, in order that people who live in overcrowded and ugly surroundings should have an opportunity of enjoying an amenity they have never
Division No. 87.]
| AYES
| [7.50 p.m.
|
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Bechervaise, A. E. | Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge) |
| Adams, W.T (Hammesmith, South) | Belcher,. J. W. | Braddock. T. (Mitcham) |
| Allen, A. C (Bosworth) | Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Bramall, Major E. A. |
| Anderson, A (Motherwell) | Benson, G. | Brook, D (Halifax) |
| Anderson, H. C | Berry, H. | Brooks, T. J. (Rathwell) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Beswick, F. | Brown, George (Belper) |
| Austin, H. Lewis | Bing, G. H. C. | Brown, T. J. (Ince) |
| Awbery, S.S. | Binns, J. | Bruce, Maj D. W. T. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Blackburn, A. R. | Buchanan G. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Blenkinsop, A. | Burke, W. A. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Blyton, W. R. | Butler, H, W (hackney, S.) |
| Balfour, A. | Boardman, H. | Callaghan, James |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Bowden, Flg.-Offr.H. W. | Castle, Mrs. B. A. |
| Barstow, P. G. | Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton) | Champion, A. J. |
had before. There is nothing immoral in a working-class family going to a civic restaurant. There is nothing wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said, for them to enjoy the kind of social life which hon. Members opposite enjoy. The right hon. Member for Southport mentioned the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Flint."] —no, I think I am right, the hon. Member for Stone. It was a most unusual speech for these days. His theme was that civic restaurants might tempt the housewife from the home where she should be ministering to the tired warrior. The hon. Member also asked me whether these restaurants would be needed after the emergency. He is a little young, and perhaps, has forgotten that between the two wars 50 per cent. of the people of this country were under-nourished. There will be a need for these restaurants for many years to come. I view these restaurants in a way which is entirely different from the approach of the hon. Member for East Fife. For 20 years I prescribed bottles of medicine, when I should have been prescribing food for undernourished people. I do not overstate the case when I say that this contribution to the services of the local authority is as important as any of the services which we have supplied for the prevention of disease. I look forward to the day when we shall have a well-nourished community—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although they have had a long lease of life in this House, hon. Members opposite have never managed to establish that. The day will come, and when it comes, this Bill will have made a big contribution.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 116.
| Chater, D. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarveashire) |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Jones, J. H. (Bolton) | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Cobb, F. A. | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) | Rogers, G. H. R. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Keenan, W. | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) |
| Collick, P. | Kenyon, C. | Royle, C. |
| Collins, V. J. | Key, C W. | Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Sharp, Granville |
| Cook, T. F. | Kinley, J. | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Kirby, B. V. | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lee, F. (Hulme) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Cunningham, P. | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) | Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. |
| Daines, P. | Levy, B. W | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Davies, Edward (Burslam) | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Lipson, D. L. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. |
| Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Longden, F. | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Davies, S O. (Merthyr) | McAllister, G | Smith, C. (Colchester) |
| Deer, G. | Mack, J. D | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Delargy, H. J. | McKay, J. (Wallsand) | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Diamond, J. | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Snow, Capt. J. W. |
| Dobbie, W. | Maclean, N. (Govan) | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Donovan, T. | McLeavy, F. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Stamford, W |
| Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Steele, T. |
| Durbin, E. F. M. | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Dye, S. | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Stubbs, A. E. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Marquand, H. A. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Edelman, M. | Marshall, F. (Brightside) | Swingler, S. |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Mathers, G. | Sylvester, G. O. |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Mayhew, C. P. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Medland, H. M. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Mellish, R. J. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Evans, John (Ogmore) | Messer, F. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Middleton, Mrs. L. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Ewart, R. | Mikardo, Ian. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Fairhurst, F. | Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Mitchison, G. R. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Follick, M. | Montague, F. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Foot, M. M. | Moody, A. S. | Thurtle, E. |
| Forman, J. C. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Tiffany, S. |
| Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Timmons, J. |
| Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Mort, D. L. | Titterington, M. F. |
| Gaitskell, H T. N. | Moyle, A. | Tolley, L. |
| Gallacher, W. | Mulvey, A. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Murray, J. D. | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Gibbins, J. | Naylor, T. E. | Ungoed-Thomas, L. |
| Gilzean, A. | Neal, H. (Claycross) | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | Nicholls, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Viant, S. P. |
| Gooch, E. G. | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Walker, G. H. |
| Goodrich, H. E. | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford) | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) | Noel Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.) |
| Grey, C. F. | Noel-Buxton, Lady | Warbey, W. N. |
| Grierson, E. | O'Brien, T. | Watson, W. M. |
| Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley) | Oldfield, W. H. | Weitzman, D. |
| Gunter, R. J. | Oliver, G. H. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Haire, John E. (Wycombe) | Orbach, M. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Hale, Leslie | Paget, R. T. | West, D. G. |
| Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R. | Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) | Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Parkin, B. T. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Hardy, E. A. | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Wigg, Cal. G. E. |
| Harrison, J. | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Wilkes, L. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Pearson, A. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Peart, Capt. T. F. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Piratin, P. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Herbison, Miss M. | Platte-Mills, J. F. F. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Holman, P. | Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| House, G. | Popplewell, E. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Hoy, J. | Porter, E. (Warrington) | Willis, E. |
| Hubbard, T. | Porter, G. (Leeds) | Woodburn, A. |
| Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Pritt, D. N. | Wyatt, W. |
| Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) | Proctor, W. T. | Yates, V. F. |
| Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Irving, W. J. | Randall, H. E. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | |
| Janner, B | Reeves, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Jay, D. P. T. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Mr. Collindridge and |
| Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Rhodes, H. | Mr. Coldrick. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. |
NOES
| ||
| Aitken, Hon, Max | Beechman, N. A. | Boyd-Carpenter, J. A |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Birch, Nigel | Buchan-Hepbur, P. G. T |
| Aster, Hon. M. | Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) | Bullock, Capt, M |
| Baldwin. A. E. | Bossom. A. C. | Byers, Frank |
| Challen, C. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Channon, H. | Keeling, E. H. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Kendall, W. D. | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Legge Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Linstead, H. N. | Sanderson, Sir F. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Savory, Prof. D. L. |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Scott, Lord W. |
| Digby, S. W. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Drayson, G. B. | McCallum, Maj. D. | Snadden, W. M. |
| Drewe, C. | Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) | Spence, H. R. |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale) | MacLeod, J. | Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) |
| Gage, C. | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Gammons, L. D. | Morales, A. E. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. | Marsden, Capt. A. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Grant, Lady | Marshall, D (Bodmin) | Teeling, William |
| Granville, E. (Eye) | Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) | Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford) |
| Gridley, Sir A. | Maude, J. C. | Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. |
| Grimston, R V. | Medlicott, F. | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Molson, A. H. E. | Ward, Hon, G. R. |
| Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge) | Morris, Napkin (Carmarthen) | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Morris-Jones, Sit H. | White, Sir D. (Fareham) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Hinchinghrooke, Viscount | Neven-Spence, Sir B. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H | |
| Jarvis, Sir J. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Jeffreys, General Sir G. | Pitman, I. J. | Commander Agnew and |
| Major Constar. |
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Polish Resettlement Money
Resolution reported:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for 1he application of the Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., for the military forces to certain Polish forces, to enable the Assistance Board to meet the needs of, and to provide accommodation in camps or other establishments for, certain Poles and others associated with Polish forces, to provide for their requirements as respects health an educational services, and to provide for making arrangements and meeting expenses in connection with their emigration, it is expedient—
(A) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—(i) payments under any scheme for applying the said Royal Warrant, with effect from such date before or after the passing of the said Act as may be specified in the scheme, in relation to the disablement or death of members of the Polish Naval detachment mentioned in the agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland on the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the Polish armed forces organised and employed under British command in pursuance of the agreement made as aforesaid on the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty, or the Polish resettlement forces; (ii) payments under any provision made by such a scheme for continuing, for not more than one year from the coming into opera- tion of that provision, payments being them made in respect of disablement or death of members of other Polish forces; (iii) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section six of the. Determination of Needs Act, Too, attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for— (a) the grant of allowances by the Assistance Board to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances, and the application for the purposes of the grant of such allowances of any provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, or of rules and regulations thereunder; (b) the provision by or on behalf of the Assistance Board for such Poles of accommodation in camps, hostels or other establishments, or the making by or on behalf of the said Board of provision for meeting the needs, and promoting the welfare, of persons for whom the accommodation is provided; and any increase so attributable in the sums payable out of such moneys under section forty-seven of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934 (which relates to salaries and allowances of staff of the Assistance Board and of appeal tribunals and expenses of Government departments);(iv) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State, or by the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State, in the making by him or on his behalf of provision for meeting respectively needs as to mental or bodily health, and educational needs, of such Poles; (v) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service in making arrangements and providing facilities in connection with the emigration of such Poles;
(B) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Assistance Board under the said Act of the present Session by way of payments from such Poles, or from persons under obligation to maintain them, for accommodation, allowances or other benefits provided for them under the said Act or otherwise in respect of their maintenance, or received by the Board under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, by virtue of any application of provisions of that Act by the said Act of the present Session.
In this Resolution references to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances include references to persons in the United Kingdom being members or former members of forces mentioned in paragraph (A (i) of this Resolution, and to persons in the United Kingdom specified in the said Act of the present Session by reference to their relationship to or dependence on any such Poles, members or former members, or to or on any body of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to.
Polish Resettlement Bill
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
Clause I—(Power To Apply Royal Warrant As To Pensions, Etc, To Certain Polish Forces)
8 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "death", to insert:
This Amendment puts into more exact terms what I think the Minister had in mind in this first Clause. There will be little doubt, at any rate on this side of the House, that we do not wish, in making these perfectly right provisions for the payment of pensions to Polish forces—to meet, as has been said on all sides of the House, the debt which we owe to very gallant and valuable Allies—to make provision for those who sustained their disablement or wounds while fighting against this country and its Allies. A certain amount of reference was made to this point in the Debate on the Second Reading, and it was rather surprising to hear certain hon. Members opposite going to some pains to deal with this point and to suggest that no exception should be taken to paying pensions to these people. If I misunderstood the hon. Members, I must apologise. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor), for instance, dealt at some length with those people who had been fighting on the side of the Germans. He said, quite correctly, that they had been pressed into it, or that many of them had been pressed into it. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was also at some pains to defend those who had found themselves forced to fight on the side of the Germans. Few hon. Members on this side of the House would deny that they had been forced into that position, but there were many people in Germany itself, and in occupied parts of Europe, who did not allow themselves to be so forced—but that is by the way. The point I want to make, and my only point in this connection, is that no one is proposing in this Amendment to place any stigma upon those people. We are not saying that we will not have them in this country, we are not saying that we are going to punish them; we are merely saying that we are not going to pay them pensions, and that I should have thought was something so reasonable that it did not need discussing. If there had not been a certain number of comments from the other side, suggesting that one should not make any differentiation between those who had fought on the Allied side and those who had fought on the German side, it would not have been necessary to comment on it. I feel that by putting this into words, by saying that the pensions to be paid should be paid to those who suffered disablement or death, as the case may be, while fighting under British command, we are strengthening this Clause. There are two other small points. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in summing up on the Second Reading, said that the point was already covered by paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1). It does not, in fact, cover the point. That paragraph deals with the type of people to whom a pension should be paid, and deals only with those people who were in the Polish armed forces kept under the agreement of 1940. It does not deal at all with the people who come under paragraph (c), namely, those people who have not been in those Polish armed forces but have since come into the Polish Resettlement Corps. It does not deal with the purposes for which these pensions are to be paid. The beginning of the Clause deals with the purposes for which they are to be paid, and that is the reason why the Amendment is being put in this place. The other point is the difference between this Amendment and the following Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think it is more suitable that it should be "under British command" rather than "British or Allied command," in view of the fact that there may be some doubt. There may be people who claim that they have fought under Allied command; for instance, some of the Poles who came with General Anders' Army out of Russia might say that they fought with the Russians before they came out, and there would be no means of checking that up. I think this narrows it down and makes it safer, thus ensuring that there will be fewer debatable cases."while serving under British command."
As the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) has said, we feel that this Amendment puts the intention of the Government into words. During the Second Reading Debate I was rather alarmed by an interjection made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) when I drew attention to the words as they now stand in the Bill, and suggested that they might have the effect of paying pensions to men who were wounded, or to dependants of men who were killed, while fighting in the German Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman interjected:
But later on, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was replying for the Government, he made it quite clear, when I asked whether the Bill provided a pension for the man who was wounded in the. Germany Army:"Much against their will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, r2th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 416.]
Later on, he said:"The answer is: No … it is not intended to give pensions to men who were wounded otherwise than under British Command."
That, I suggest, is a categorical assurance which must he embodied in the Bill, and we suggest that the wording of the Amendment now before the Committee carries out that assurance in plain terms, and will make the Bill acceptable, I should say, to the vast majority of hon. Members."We ate not going to give pensions to men who were wounded fighting against us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 474–475.)
This Amendment is far too restrictive. It would exclude those very gallant Poles who, when the German Army invaded Poland, resisted with a heroism to which every one of us, I am sure, will pay tribute. A good many soldiers were wounded in that campaign, and they afterwards joined the British Forces. They came through Russia into Persia, and from Persia to the Middle East, and joined up at Tobruk with the Carpathian Brigade of General Kopanski. They fought all through the Italian campaign, and I think it would be wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under British command."] When hon. Members say, "Under British command," are they forgetting those gallant troops who fought in France, men who resisted to the very last even when the French troops surrendered, men who held out in the East of France and in Brittany, and only with extreme reluctance withdrew to this country where they carried on the campaign and fought to the last? Why exclude those gallant men?
Were they not fighting under British command?
No, many of them were fighting under French command. One could hardly say they were fighting under British command at that time. They had joined up in France, the army was formed in France, they were Polish brigades who had fought in France, and I am certain that they were not under British command at that time. They were under French command.
As I gather it is not intended to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, I take the opportunity to speak on this Amendment. This Amendment and our Amendment are very similar, but I think the addition of "allied forces" in our Amendment is worth mentioning. While listening to the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), I was rather apprehensive about whether we are on the right track. The hon. Member wants those Poles who fought in wider spheres than would he covered by the term "British command" to be compensated. I agree with the Amendment, but I would like the Minister to consider whether he would include those men who fought under Allied Command.
I know this suggestion may sound strange coming from me, but if we are to have justice, then let us have full justice. There may be some Poles who fought in the French Army, or under French command, and who are now in this country, who would come within the proposal I make. Hon. Members will recollect that last week I opposed this Bill on Second Reading, but nevertheless, now that we are discussing the Bill in Committee, it is our duty to make constructive remarks. The men who fought in the French Army fought for the Allied cause; they may have been wounded, but not wounded while under British command. There are also cases when such men subsequently came under British command, but were already suffering from wounds incurred while fighting under French command. It is that sort of case which I would like the Minister to consider. Therefore, in addition to the Amendment which was moved so lucidly and briefly, which is a credit in this House, I would like the Minister to consider including men who fought for the Allied cause in the way I have described.I propose to accept the Amendment in the form moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said this was the intention of the Government in drafting the Bill. We had intended to incorporate the limitation in the scheme which the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, is empowered to make by this Bill, but it is probably better that it should be specific in the Bill, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I want to make quite clear exactly what the Amendment does. It gives a pension to a man who incurs a disability while serving with the British Forces. There may probably be not a few men who served at one time or other under German command, but who subsequently joined the British forces, and incurred a disability while serving in the British forces. If the disability was incurred while serving under British command, it will be recognised, even if the man has for some reason or other served in the German forces.
I have been asked to extend this to the forces of our Allies, and I was asked to do this in the name of justice. I think the proper word for that would be "generosity." Anyone who has served in the Army, or has been associated with people who have served in the Army and who have come forward in later years in an attempt to prove that they had a disability which was attributable to their military service, knows the difficulty there is to get that checked. There are British Army records and records of people who served under British command, but it would be impossible to check the claim of a person who said he was suffering from bronchitis or asthma which was the result of service rendered in some force of which this country has no record. We desire to do the right thing and to make clear from the first exactly the limits to which we are prepared to go. I think the words which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bexley has proposed enable us to define the liability we are willing to accept with exactitude, and I venture to say that it does justice to the people who have a claim on this country.8.15 p.m.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary could clear up one point which slightly puzzles me with regard to the Amendment. Under whose command are the Polish Resettlement Forces? Are they under British command?
The Polish Resettlement Corps is an unarmed unit of the British Army serving under those responsible for the control of the British Army.
I am a little worried whether the Amendment which has been accepted by the Home Secretary fulfils its object. In the case of a man who was wounded while serving under our command, and who subsequently died after he had ceased to be under our command, the words "death while serving under British command" might confine the deaths to deaths occurring while under British command. Would the words cover the case to which I have referred?
The intention is to cover that case; that is to say, where the death is attributable to war service.
Do the words do that?
I am advised that they do, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend's legal knowledge and power to interpret a Clause in a Bill, and therefore, I will have the matter examined between now and Report stage to make quite clear that the words carry out the pledge I have given.
I was only raising a doubt.
I see the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in dealing with these people, but it appears to me that the acceptance of this Amendment will give rise to considerable inequality inside the Polish Resettlement Corps and among Poles who eventually settle in, and become citizens of, this country. I think there will be disparities, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Report stage, to see whether there is some way in which the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) could he fitted in so as to enable those who have fought with our Allies, but who have never been British troops, and yet have never fought against us, should be covered.
If a Frenchman who fought in the French Army and incurred a disability while so doing comes to this country, we do not pay him a British pension. He is the responsibility of the French Government. If he has a claim to make they, if anybody, have the records by which the claim can be checked. I think that what we are proposing to do is just. A Pole who fought under French command must look, if to anybody, either to the Polish Government or to the French Government for a recognition of the disability which he incurred. I could not undertake to accept liability for the claims that might be made by people who did not fight under our command.
We want to be quite clear about this matter. We read in the Bill:
and the Amendment proposes to add:"The Minister of Pensions may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a scheme for applying, in relation to the disablement or death"—
Subsection (1) has paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) says quite clearly:"while serving under British command."
By the Amendment we shall already have said that they are under British command. The point is that paragraph (b) is on a different matter."The Polish Armed Forces organised and employed under British command."
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is one of some substance, and it will be helpful if the Home Secretary would consider whether the words, "caused while serving under Allied command" might not meet the point better.
I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for suggesting at this stage an Amendment to his own Amendment. I have already given a pledge that I will look into the matter.
Does the Home Secretary really mean that as regards Frenchmen, having fought in France with the French Army, having come over here and having been incorporated over here as men to whom we promised naturalisation, who served in the French Forces, he would not take into consideration the war wounds that they received in France while they were still under French command?
I cannot think that anybody in Great Britain would expect us to incur such a liability.
Surely, it would be only generous that the right hon. Gentleman should do something for those men, if only by way of approaching the French Government, in regarding what he feels the French Government should do?
I am not called upon to do that. If I naturalise a Frenchman who subsequently is taken ill as the result of wounds or exposure incurred while he served with the French Army, I do not think he has any claim upon our Minister of Pensions merely because he has become a British citizen. The logic of what I am being asked to do by hon. Gentlemen opposite would impose a burden upon us which we could not possibly check when we were called upon to assume it.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 12 to 24.
Clause 1 confers entitlement to pension under the Royal Warrant upon a considerable number of gallant and deserving Polish citizens who served under British command, and upon certain others. The proviso, however, limits the payment of those pensions to a period of five years, whether it be a case of disablement or of death. The proviso states:That is to say that each and every one of the Polish soldiers who qualify for pension under Subsection (1) will be in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not his pension is to terminate at the end of five years. So will the widow of a Polish soldier who is in receipt of widow's pension. The Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, spoke as follows, when explaining the Clause:"Payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by Order specify.
He went on:"Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Ministry of Pensions all those Poles who have served in the Forces, and brings them into the pensions scheme on the same terms as Britons who similarly, unfortunately, have to come within the purview of the Ministry of Pensions."
The first point I put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply is, Did the protocol contain any limitation or qualification to indicate that pensions might be limited in this way? If the protocol did not contain any such limitation or qualification, it is clearly a breach of an agreement and of a pledge given to those men to limit the duration of the pensions to an initial period of five years. I have been unable to secure a copy of the protocol. I have no doubt that it can be found, and I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench have the protocol with them. I would ask them to give the Committee the precise terms of the undertaking which was given to the Polish Government in London in 1943. The Committee ought to be in a position to judge whether the terms of the Clause, with this limiting proviso, carry out the undertaking entered into in the protocol of 1943. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour came to reply to the criticisms which were made during the Second Reading Debate on this five years' limitation, he was no doubt speaking on instructions and from his brief, but the reasons which he produced for the insertion of the five years' limitation were, in my view, wholly bad. If hon. Members will turn to HANSARD'S report of the Second Reading Debate they will see the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour of this five years' limitation. He said:"For some time this has been the case, and a protocol which was signed in 1943 ensured to the Polish troops that they should have this right. We pay these pensions to the Poles while they are in this country, but these pensions are not paid to Poles who return to Poland. If they return to Poland, quite clearly they then become the responsibility of the Polish Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 379.]
As a reason for limiting the pensions to five years, that is wholly bad. The Clause confers a new right upon persons who have served in the Polish forces. These pensions will be payable by the Minister of Pensions under the Royal Warrant and every one of these cases can, and will be, reviewed by the Ministry of Pensions as soon as the Clause becomes law."I was also asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the pensions, and why they were limited to five years. The short point is that the pensions have been established. They have been established on very inadequate documentation, and there is some doubt as to whether or not, if British medical boards and British methods were applied, these pensions would be as large, or as small, as they are now."
Will the right hon. Gentleman read the sentences that follow?
8.30 p.m.
I am going to criticise each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's reasons. I am merely pointing out that the first reason is a wholly bad one. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. Do I carry the hon. Gentleman with me so far?
Certainly not.
I feel sure I carried the Committee with me in stating that the fact that these pensions may have been granted on medical standards which the Minister of Pensions would challenge, is no reason for placing a five year limitation upon the duration of their payment. Is there any hon. Member in any quarter of the Committee who will defend that as a good reason for a limitation?
If the right hon. Gentleman will read the next sentence he will not defend it himself.
I am going to read the next sentence, too. The hon. Gentleman continues:
And then, a little lower down, after an interruption by myself, the hon. Gentleman went on to say:"In order to review this position, and, in the hope that we can get a greater degree of co-operation from the Provisional Government in Poland as well, we decided on a five-year period. We are not without hope that, some day, the Polish Government may take over these liabilities and have these men back in Poland."
Does anybody really think that we are more, or less, likely to secure a concession from the present Government of Poland if we are in a position to say to them, "This ought to be your liability. At any rate, to some extent, these poor men are only going to get a pension from us for five years, and therefore, you should be moved by considerations of pity and charity to contribute.""What I said was that we did not want to tie ourselves for ever to this liability if there was a chance, through negotiations, of getting the Polish Government to accept the liability."
It may not be the present Government of Poland.
I am speaking of any Government of Poland. Does anybody really think that our hand will be strengthened in an international negotiation because we have, under a domestic Act of Parliament of our own, limited our liability in this way? If anybody thinks that, let them look at the next statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. He immediately went on to say:
In fact, he was saying if the present, of any future, Government of Poland declined to make any contribution, of course we shall go on paying these pensions. What is the position then when the British Government approach the Polish Government and say, "Please contribute to these pensions. They are only going on for five years"? Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an unqualified assurance to the House of Commons that they would be continued indefinitely if the Polish Government did not contribute. We are getting into a ridiculous position. It is, surely, much better to give these men the pensions to which they are entitled and not to submit them to any degree of uncertainty as to whether these pensions will continue in payment or will be withdrawn."I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention, if circumstances remain as they are, of depriving these men if their pensions at the end of five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, cols. 470–475.]
On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point, so far as I know. It is very interesting, but what occurs to me is that it is out of Order. If the effects of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is moving is to make pensions payable as of right for a longer period than five years, then the effect of that must be to increase the charge. Surely, that would be out of Order?
It is perfectly true that if this Amendment is carried it will increase the charge, but it is within the scope of the Money Resolution.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I might say that the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had occurred to me before I moved this Amendment. I do, however, say that it does seem to me to be rather mean and niggardly, considering how great is our obligation to these Polish soldiers, who fought for us throughout the war, and fought with the utmost gallantry, to place in an Act of Parliament a provision that their pensions may be limited to five years.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the first part of his speech, asked me if I could tell him the terms of the agreement in the Protocol, of which he had tried to obtain a copy and had not been successful. I will read out the two articles concerned, Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 states:
Article 3 states:"If the disablement on death of a person is the insult of his service as a member of the Polish Armed Forces during the period of the present war he and his dependants shall, subject to Article 5 hereof, be eligible during the present war for the award of pensions and other benefits in respect of his disablement or death similar to those which would be granted under the War Pensions instruments administered by the British Minister of Pensions with reference to members of the military, naval and air forces as therein defined in respect of the disablement or death in the like circumstances as a member of His Majesty's Armed Forces of corresponding rank and on the same conditions as would be applicable under those instruments."
That was carried out for a number of years during the war by the Polish representatives in this country, assisted by two people from my Department. When that Government finished, the payments were, and are being, carried on up to the present time by an Interim Treasury Committee, and that is the situation at the moment until we get this Bill. The next point which the right hon. Gentleman raised is the question of the five years. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman a good guarantee that there is no intention of stopping these people's pensions at the end of five years. All that this Clause is seeking to do is to have the ability to reconsider this in five years' time if certain things happen. If the conditions remain the same, then the pensions will go on just the same. There is no desire or intention to do any harm whatever to these people. Let me put it in this way. The acceptance of the obligation to pay pensions to mem- bers of the Polish armed forces who served under British command will involve a substantial expenditure by the British Government. The sum to be provided in 1947 will be of the order of £600,000, and this expenditure, though on a diminishing scale, would continue for the next 40 or 50 years. When the Pensions Protocol was negotiated in 1943, it was anticipated that, after the war, the liability would no longer fall on this country, and that any pensions would be paid by the Polish Government of the day. At the present time, there is no possibility of this happening, and the British Government are proposing to continue the payment of pensions to those who have deserved pensions unless they return to Poland. No one can anticipate with accuracy what the future may hold, and the object of those words is to leave the future position open, and to provide that the whole matter shall be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the facts as they then are. If circumstances arise which enable the British taxpayer to be relieved of this obligation, hon. Members will, I think, agree that advantage should be taken of it. I can, however, tell hon. Members that there is no intention of just bringing the scheme to at end at the end of five years. If to do this would mean leaving the Poles or the Polish widows concerned high and dry, then the scheme will be extended, and the British Government will continue payment of the pensions. I suggest to hon. Members that we should be unwise to delete the words because we should thereby tie the hands of the Government of the day and possibly prevent them relieving the British taxpayer of a liability which someone else might be prepared to shoulder."Awards under the foregoing provisions of this Protocol shall be the liability of the Government of the Polish Republic, but the Government of the United Kingdom guarantee to provide such funds as may be necessary to enable the Government of the Polish Republic to meet their liability hereunder, until the general suspension of hostilities between the United Kingdom and Poland on the one hand and Germany on the other, and for so long thereafter as may be mutually agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland.
I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to accept this Amendment. I must say that I am not entirely convinced by the general line of argument which he has put forward. Indeed, his main argument is still that it does not matter having in the Bill a limitation of five years on these pensions because, unless circumstances have changed, there is no intention whatever of depriving any of these beneficiaries of their pensions. I think that, in the main, was the right hon. Gentleman's contention. But in what respect could circumstances change in such a way that this five-year limitation becomes essential or even desirable? The argument, as I understand it, is that some future Polish Government might be persuaded to take over this liability if they knew that the payments in respect of it had come to an end. I understood that that was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, just as it was the gist of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument the other night. But that argument really only seems to be valid if these unfortunate beneficiaries are to be used as a kind of lever with which to influence some future Polish Government. Unless His Majesty's Government are going to say to a Polish Government that, unless they accept this liability, these people are going to suffer—and the right hon. Gentleman has expressly declared that they are not going to say that—I cannot see how this limitation will in any way influence a favourable decision on the part of a future Polish Government.
With regard to the second point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and which was, I think, also made by the right hon. Gentleman just now, that it would be convenient to review these pensions at the end of five years because they may have been established on insufficient documentation, and so on, which may very well be the case, I still cannot see why it is necessary to put this limitation of time into the Bill. I may be wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am, but I understand that it is possible under the Royal Warrant to review pensions if the degree of disability changes, or if conditions are no longer what they were or appeared to be at the time the pensions were granted. Therefore, I should have thought that, even without this limitation, the right hon. Gentleman would still have had the power to review these pensions at any time, if they appeared either too great or too small, and not merely after an interval of five years. I cannot see what is gained by keeping this limitation of five years in the Bill. I can see that it does create among the beneficiaries a condition of uncertainty which will increase as the end of the five years approaches, and I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government should want to create that feeling of uncertainty. We on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I think we would very much like him to agree to reconsider this matter.
8.45 p.m.
I would like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) has said, because I cannot help feeling that what the Minister has said is at variance with the Bill. The Minister has stated that it is intended to carry on these pensions unless circumstances change. What the Bill says is that it is intended to stop these pensions unless circumstances change. The whole emphasis in the Bill is placed on the probable stoppage at the end of five years instead of, as the Minister has said, being put on their continuation. Generosity has a habit of cooling as time passes and memories fail. I would have thought that everything the Government desire to achieve could be achieved by a scheme, which could be properly revisable at intervals, to enshrine in the Bill this definite limitation. I hope the Minister will have another look at this point and see whether he can get the wording in the Bill to correspond more closely with the undertakings given to the Committee.
Two grounds were put forward by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the Second Reading Debate for the incorporation in the Bill of this five years' limitation. One was that he was not entirely satisfied with the present system of documentation and so on, and he was not sure whether the pensions at present being paid might in some cases be too large or too small. If that is so, that is no argument for continuing for five years the pensions which may be too large or too small, and then revising them at the end of the five years. If there is this serious doubt as to whether the machinery is working satisfactorily, obviously, it should be revised at once. I was surprised to learn that before these pensions were agreed upon the matter went before a committee upon which two of the officials from the Ministry of Pensions were represented.
They advised.
Clearly, there is no justification at all for putting the shadow of doubt fox the future over everybody, including the widows. I do not mention widows for the purpose of making any special appeal on their behalf although in their case it is difficult to take into account the uncertainty and to start off in a new way of life, which may be possible in the case of the disabled man. There must be no case at all for this shadow of doubt because the administrative machinery for settling pensions may have been unsatisfactory. I do not wish to say anything more than has already been said on this side of the Committee about the argument that the inclusion of this period of time will in some way strengthen the hands of the Government in negotiating with the Provisional Government in Poland. The fact that these assurances have been so explicitly given that if there is obstinacy on their part this Government will underwrite these liabilities to all those who have been disabled, will clearly mean that no humanitarian pressure can be brought to bear upon them. It means that if they refuse to undertake the responsibility themselves, the British taxpayer will do so.
That has now definitely been settled, and, therefore, it cannot be used as an argument. I find that in the financial agreement between the United Kingdom and Poland we entirely reserve our right upon this matter. If it is possible for us, by diplomatic or other means, to bring pressure to bear upon them we are still able to do so. But I would appeal to the Government upon this point. In the Bill, which is broadly and generously conceived, there is something rather unworthy in having a special proviso in order to bring pressure to bear, in some way or other, upon the Government of Poland by arousing doubts and anxieties in the minds of those to whom we are prepared to give pensions.I was quite unable to follow the argument of the Minister of Pensions in this matter. He referred to changed circumstances and conditions in the future which may affect the matter and bring this Clause under review. But whatever the circumstances may be, these Poles can only belong to one of three categories. They will either be British subjects—or a large proportion of them will be—in which case their position is perfectly clear, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman; or they will be the subjects of a foreign country, in which case the matter of liability for pensions is equally clear; or they will be residents in this country, and not British subjects, in which case we have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman as to their prospects. There is one fact which is absolutely certain, and that is that a large number of these men will be absorbed into the life of the country, whether or not they are naturalised. The purpose of any Clause or any part of a Clause in this Bill must be to aim at instilling the maximum degree of confidence and desire for co-operation among the Poles in the resettlement corps. I must admit that I think the niggardly attitude which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in respect to this Amendment will do nothing to achieve this purpose, if the Government really wish to derive the maximum benefit from the Bill as a whole.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than one minute, and perhaps less than that. In view of the repeated, emphatic and unanimous dissatisfaction of hon. and right hon. Members opposite with the perfectly plain undertaking given by the Government not to discontinue the payment of these pensions at the end of five years, perhaps I might prevail on my right hon. Friend to withdraw the undertaking. Perhaps hon. and right hon. Members opposite will then be better satisfied.
That last remark by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was, I think, quite uncalled for. What we on this side of the Committee say is, that the Minister has not gone anything like far enough.
He has given the undertaking.
That is not satisfactory to us. The only solution of this problem which would be satisfactory to us would be the acceptance of our Amendment. I must say, I was disappointed with, and rather surprised at, the fact that the Minister of Pensions was not able to accept the Amendment. I would like to add a few words to support the very sincere appeals which have been made to him from this side of the Committee to reconsider the position. This proviso in the Bill is wholly unworthy of it, and goes a long way to spoil what is an otherwise very good Bill. I think we are agreed on all sides of the Committee that this Bill goes a long way to reward the wonderful services which the Poles gave to this country, and, indeed, to the whole world during the war, when they fought with such great distinction. There is no doubt at all about that. But the refusal of the Government to accept our Amendment will cause anxiety to a very large number of men, and needless anxiety as the years roll on. There will not be perhaps immediate anxiety; but as the five years get nearer to their end the anxiety will undoubtedly increase.
It does seem a great pity that that should be allowed to be the case. It may even result in undue pressure being put upon them to return to Poland, through their fear that they will lose their pensions after the five years. That is a very possible consequence which may follow the anxiety which will be caused. It does seem quite wrong that this period of a war pension should be limited to five years, and then continued only at the discretion of the Government; and, in view of all that has been said, and the facts that I have tried to put again before the Government, I do beg the Minister to say that he will, at any rate, look at this again between now and the Report stage, with a view to coming to a different decision from that at which he has arrived, if he can find it at all possible to do so.I should just like to confirm what my hon. Friends have said on this side of the House. I have gone over this Bill very carefully with some of these gallant Poles. They have asked me to interpret its very obscure language, and I have done my best. I did try to remove their impression with regard to this period of five years, because it does appear to them a most unfortunate prospect. I tried to assure them it would be considered, but I was not able to remove their apprehension. I cannot conceive why, in view of the pledge given by the Minister, this should not be put here in the Bill in black and white. I can conceive a situation arising, when we should have a less generous Minister than the present Minister of Pensions or a less broad-minded Home Secretary; and I do feel that we want some guarantee. I cannot conceive that we can grudge giving this guarantee to the men who stormed the Falaise Gap, to the men who fought in that marvellous parachute corps at Arnhem, to the men who fought for us in Norway when our own troops were defeated. I appeal to the generosity of the Government. Can they refuse to give these men a definite assurance that their pensions will be continued for more than just the beggarly period of five years?
The Minister has said that it is not the intention that these pensions are to be discontinued at the end of five years, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says they shall he discontinued. [HON. MEMBERS:"No.''] I will read what it says in the proviso in Clause 1:
That is a definite statement that these pensions will be continued: but they may equally not be continued under this Clause; and there is no doubt whatever that, in the minds of the Poles themselves, there is considerable anxiety about this Clause. When I hear all the jeers and laughter of Members of the Socialist Party, when the great services rendered by the Poles to this country and the Allies in general are mentioned, I am amazed; and I am ashamed to think that any body of people in this country would deride the great services of the Poles, or would do anything to lower what we can and should do for the Poles to ensure their future. There is no doubt that this Clause as it stands may indirectly exert pressure on the Poles."provided that payments … shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act, or such extended period, if any, as the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, may from time to time by order specify …"
Why not?
9 p.m.
Because we have pledged ourselves up to the hilt not to do anything to force the Poles to go back to Poland, and if there is indirect pressure, we are going back on our pledge. We all hope that circumstances may change in Poland, and that this Communist Government, set up under the elections, may not exist in five years' time. We all wish to see a real democratic government set up, but that may not happen, and as it may not happen, I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter, and will not lay down a period of five years for the payment of these pensions, but will ensure that they will continue.
The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) spoke in most impassioned tones of how the Poles fought hard here and there, but many of the hard fighting Poles have gone back to Poland, and he has not one thought for them. His consideration is only for the reactionary Poles in this country.
Who are the reactionary Poles?
I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I think it is important that one or two words should be said by someone who has tried to retain a slight sense of balance in this matter. Why is it that hon. Members opposite do not talk about any of our other Allies in the recent war? They do not lay this great emphasis on the gallantry—
On a point of Order. Have any of the last four speeches been relevant to this Clause?
To admit that would imply a criticism of my own chairmanship. Suffice it to say they have been on the borderline.
I am certain that most people in this country would like to feel that the Poles who are staying here could shed, within a short period of time, some of the prejudices they have in their minds, and could reconcile themselves with the rest of their compatriots and go home. I am convinced it is most desirable we should do nothing by legislation which will tie these people to this country. We have an assurance from the Government that if the conditions stay the same and the Poles in this country are still of the same outlook, these men will not lose the pensions provided for under this Measure. I would resist any attempt being made, particularly by way of legislation, to bind the Poles and makes less possible a reconciliation with their compatriots. I consider them to be completely misguided in their social and administrative outlook.
In spite of what has been said, I think that hon. Members opposite are making more of this than they should. I am sure that their fears are exaggerated. I was rather surprised that one or two Members opposite should speak of meanness. The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) said that we were niggardly. When we are taking over these people, putting them on exactly the same basis of pay and standards as our own people, paying them up to £600,000 a year, probably—and may be some of it will go on for 40 or 50 years—to say that we are guilty of niggardliness is too much—
I am not referring to the Bill; I am referring to the particular Clause with which we are dealing.
The hon. Member cannot separate the Clause from the Bill.
That is exactly what the Amendment is trying to do.
The hon. Member must accept the Bill as it is. It has been said that we want to use this question as a bargaining power with the Poles. It is not in our minds to do anything of the kind. We have no intention of treating them worse than our own people, and we do not think we are asking too much, in the circumstances, that we should be allowed to look at this matter again to see whether it needs any alteration.
The right hon. Gentleman, most courteously in response to my request, read out the terms of the Protocol of 1943. I followed what he said as closely as I could but, not having a copy of the document, I have not given it detailed study. But, as I interpret the Protocol, under Article 2 we undertake the primary liability for payment of these pensions. Under Article 3, we reserve the right of recourse against the Polish Government after the close of hostilities. I have here a copy of Anglo-Polish Financial Agreement of June last year, which has not yet been ratified, in which the attitude of the British Government on the question of recourse against the Polish Government is made quite clear: It says:
We made it clear that we would keep our rights open to proceed under the Protocol against the Polish Government, at a later stage, with our claims in respect of these pensions. We say, about the five year limitation, that if the assurances given by His Majesty's Government are accepted—and I am sure they will be by the Polish soldiers—they will equally be accepted by the Polish Government. The right hon. Gentleman has given an unqualified assurance that these pensions will not be terminated at the end of five years. The Polish Government will accept that undertaking, just as the Polish soldiers wilt do, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues gain nothing whatever in bargaining power vis-a-vis the Polish Government by putting the five year limitation into the Bill."The Government of the United Kingdom will leave in abeyance at present the question of the repayment of the military credits amounting to a further £47½ million, but reserve their right to re-open discussion on this question."
rose—
I will not be interrupted. We must get on. The five year limitation in the Bill forms a Statute. The right hon. Gentleman knows that small disability pensions are sometimes commuted for small lump sums—
Division No. 88.]
| AYES.
| [9.11 p.m.
|
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, Scuth) | Goldrick, W. | Gooch, E. G. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Collindridge, F. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Collins, V J. | Grey, C F. |
| Anderson, A (Motherwell) | Comyns, Dr L. | Grierson, E. |
| Attewell, H. C. | Cook, T. F. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Austin, H Lewis | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Haire, John E. (Wycombe) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Corvedale, Viscount | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Ayles, W H. | Cove, W. G. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Hardy, E. A. |
| Bacon, Miss A | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Baird, J | Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
| Balfour, A | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
| Barstow, P. G. | Deer, G. | Holman, P. |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Delargy, H. J. | Hoy, J. |
| Belcher, J W | Diamond, J. | Hubbard, T. |
| Berry, H. | Debbie, W. | Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.) |
| Beswick. F. | Donovan, T. | Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) |
| Bing, G H. C. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Binns, J. | Dumpleton, C. W. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Dye, S. | Irving, W. J |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Ede, Rt Hon. J. C. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. |
| Blyton, W R. | Edelman, M. | Janner, B. |
| Boardman, H | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) |
| Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W. | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Jones, J. H. (Bolton) |
| Bowles, F G (Nuneaton) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Jones, P. Astertey (Hitchin) |
| Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Keenan, W. |
| Braddock, T (Mitcham) | Evans, John (Ogmore) | Kendall, W. D. |
| Braman, Major E. A. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Kenyon, C. |
| Brook, D (Halifax) | Fairhurst, F. | Kinley, J. |
| Brooks, T J (Rothwell) | Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.) | Lee, F. (Hulme) |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Follick, M. | Levy, B. W |
| Brown, T J (Ince) | Foot, M M. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) |
| Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Lipson, D. L. |
| Buchanan. G | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. |
| Burden, T W | Gaitskell, H. T. N. | Longden, F. |
| Butler, H W (Hackney, S.) | Gallacher, W. | McAllister, G. |
| Byers, Frank | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Mack, J. D |
| Castle, Mrs. B A. | George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull; N.W.) |
| Chamberlain, R. A. | Gibbins, J. | McLeavy, F. |
| Champion, A. J. | Gibson, C. W. | MacMillan. M. K. (Western Isles) |
| Chater, D. | Gilzean, A. | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) |
| Cobb, F. A. | Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | Mathers, G. |
They used to be.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has power to commute low rate disability pensions for lump sums. When these cases come before the pensions appeal tribunals they will look, not to undertakings given in the House by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the terms of the Statute to find out what is the entitlement of the injured soldier. I say, therefore, that on grounds of general policy, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman gives this assurance, and seeing that that assurance will undoubtedly be honoured, it would be much simpler to make his assurance correspond with the Statute and take this proviso out of the Bill. I think that all arguments have been exhausted on this subject, and I am sorry that I have failed to make any impression on hon. Members opposite, so let us now proceed to a Division.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 72.
| Mayhew, C. P. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Friedland, H. M. | Randall, H. E. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) |
| Mellish, R. J. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Messer, F. | Reeves, J. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Mikardo, Ian. | Rhodes, H. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E) |
| Mitchison, G. R. | Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) | Tiffany, S. |
| Moody, A. S. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Titterington, M. F. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) | Tolley, L. |
| Morley, R. | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Rogers, G. H. R. | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Mort, D L | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Ungoed-Thomas, L. |
| Moyle, A. | Royle, C. | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Murray, J. D. | Shacklelon, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. | Viant, S. P. |
| Naylor, T. E. | Sharp, Granville | Walker, G. H. |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | Wallace, G. O. (Chislehurst) |
| Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.) |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. | Wells, W. T (Walsall) |
| Neel-Buxton, Lady | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | West, D. G. |
| O'Brien, T. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Oldfield, W. H. | Simmons, C. J. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W |
| Oliver, G. H. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. | Wigg Col. G. E. |
| Orbach, M. | Skinnard, F. W. | Wilkes, L. |
| Paget, R. T. | Smith, C. (Colchester) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth). | Smith. Ellis (Stoke) | Willey, F T. (Sunderland) |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Pargiter, G. A. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Parkin, B. T. | Sparks, J. A. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Stamford, W. | Willis, E. |
| Paton, J. (Norwich) | Steele, T. | Woodburn, A. |
| Pearson, A. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | Wyatt, W. |
| Piratin, P. | Stubbs, A. E. | Yates, V. F. |
| Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) | Swingler, S. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Porter, E. (Warrington) | Sylvester, G. O. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Porter, G. (Leeds) | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | |
| Proctor, W. T. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES; |
| Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell. |
NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) | Raikes, H V. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Birch, Nigel | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport) | Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Keeling, E. H. | Savory, Prof. D. L. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) |
| Challen, C. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Linstead, H. N. | Snadden, W. M. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Spence, H. R. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray) |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Digby, S. W. | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Marlowe, A. A. H. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Marsden, Capt. A. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Marshall, D. (Bodmin) | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Molson, A. H. E. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. |
| Gage, C. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | White, Sir D. (Fareham) |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. | Neven-Spence, Sir B. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Gammans, L. D. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | |
| Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. | Nutting, Anthony | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grimston, R. V. | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. | Mr. Drewe and |
| Lieut.-Colonel Thorp | ||
I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "exceptions," to the end of the Subsection.
May I point out what this would mean? Subsection (3) of Clause 1 reads as follows:We desire that the Subsection should end there. The remainder of the Subsection reads:"Provisions of the said Royal Warrant applied by the scheme may be applied with modirications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions …"
The purport of this is that that should any Polish person in this country desire in future years to emigrate abroad he will retain the pension, but if he desires to return to the country of his birth he will not receive it. In this connection the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said on 12th February with regard to the Poles in this country:"… and the scheme shall contain provision for securing that no payment shall be made thereunder to or in respect of any person as to whom the Minister of Pensions is satisfied that he is resident in Poland."
In that sense, I think this is entirely satisfactory. The case for my Amendment is, therefore, clear cut and I hope the Committee will accept it. Let us examine it. Hon. Members on all sides have said at one time or another that in time to come Poles who are now resident here will seize their opportunity of going back to Poland. Members of the Opposition have qualified this by saying that it would be only in circumstances of a different type of Government in that country, but we cannot foresee the future and, however that may be, we all really believe that a Pole should be in Poland however and whenever it may be. We have also heard statements from different Ministers with regard to the encouragement which is being given to the Poles in this country to return to Poland and the efforts which are being made to counteract the propaganda which takes place in the Polish Army to the opposite effect. But surely the present arrangement is in conflict with such statements? Not only are we to provide pensions for Poles in this country—subject to the five years' proviso—but also, when the five years have expired, any Pole who leaves this country and goes to Canada, for example, will be rewarded, as if it were a merit, in that he will continue to receive his pension. On the other hand, if he decides to return to Poland he will not continue to receive the pension. There may be hon. Members of this Committee who will argue that the Polish Government should be responsible—"They will be treated in exactly the same way as British soldiers. If they emigrate they will take with them the same rates as disabled British soldiers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 474.]
Hear, hear.
In that case may I recall to hon. Members who were present at the time—as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was not—that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said with regard to a question which was being raised on an earlier Amendment in connection with Poles who had served in the Allied Forces? The right hon. Gentleman said that if a Frenchman served in the French Forces and came to this country after having received an injury in the course of that service, we could not be expected to be responsible for giving him a pension. Since the Amendment in question has been accepted, hon. Members presumably agree that since the man had served in the French Forces the French Government were, in fact, responsible. That argument can be extended here—
Would the hon. Member not agree that the correct analogy is that of a British soldier returning to Britain after having served abroad?
My point still remains. These Poles served under British command—
But in the Polish Forces.
But under British command. I am only quoting what the Home Secretary said about an hour ago, and I think I have it right. In this case they served under British command—
In the Polish Forces.
But under British command—
As I understood the arrangements made during the war, the whole of the British Forces who fought from D-day onwards through France and Germany fought under the command of General Eisenhower. Would the hon. Gentleman say that that makes the American Government responsible for them?
Answer.
I have nothing to answer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wants to joke with me across the Floor, he is at liberty to do so—
It is not a joke.
I ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and some other hon. Members who seem to agree with him to read the first Amendment the Home Secretary accepted, which contained the words:
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did not sec fit to raise the question of the United States then. The questions are identical. These people were under British command. All I am asking is that Poles in this country who are about to receive pensions as the result of wounds inflicted or sickness incurred while fighting under British command should be entitled to receive that pension. I do not see the purpose of the intervention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne accepts that if a Pole goes to Canada—I take it he accepts it—he is entitled to his pension. If that is accepted, all I ask is that if the Pole returns to Poland he should continue to receive his pension. That is the purport of my argument, which I believe to be a strong one. I am waiting to hear what the Minister will say, but I hope that other hon. Members of the Committee will support my Amendment. I am not exactly longing for or going on my knees for such support, but I am particularly interested to see whether hon. Members opposite will support it. I would recall what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said earlier in an intervention. The argument is logical. There may be some administrative twist to it with which the Minister will admonish me in due course. If hon. Members opposite are so generously inclined towards the Poles who desire to stay in this country, they should extend that generosity to Poles who go back to Poland. I hope to receive support from some parts of the Committee even if it comes from the other side."While serving under British command."
9.30 p.m.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), if he will allow me to call him so, will not think I am making a joke about this. He has made a perfectly serious argument. I have listened to it, but there seems to be just no force at all in what he said and his contention is based on a complete misapprehension of what the Bill is about. This Bill is intended to secure that this country shall take financial responsibility for cases for which normally we would not be responsible at all; that we should take upon ourselves the responsibility of paying pensions to soldiers wounded in a foreign army. That is what we are doing, and it is an unprecedented thing to do. I think it is a right thing to do in the special circumstances, but it is paying the pensions of soldiers who belong to a foreign army, and we are doing it because we believe that, in the special circumstances which have arisen, we cannot compel them to go back to the country whose responsibility they actually are. It is true that we say we will only take that responsibility while they remain members of a foreign force under British command, but that is for a very good reason of which my hon. Friend approves. It is in order to make certain that soldiers of the Polish forces, or a Polish force serving under a German command against us or against our Allies on the East, should not benefit by this extraordinary Measure.
Then we go further, and say we will not only pay him that pension while he lives here, but we will pay him that pension if he goes anywhere else in the world with one exception, and the exception is if he returns to his own country. But if he returns to his own country, he ceases to be a member of the class for whom this Bill is being passed. It is being passed for the benefit of those members of the Polish force under British command who cannot go back to their country. If we were to pay the pensions of those who can go back to their country, we would have to pay the pensions, in fairness and logic, of all those Poles who never left Poland at all. [Laughter.] Certainly, that would be the inevitable consequence. If you take upon yourself the onus of paying the pensions of people who belong to foreign forces merely because they were allied with you, or with a force under your command, then there is no reason in the world why we should not accept that for everybody. It might apply to a great many other countries besides Poland. All I am trying to show the hon. Member is that the exception which is made here is a necessary and logical exception because, in that case, you would go outside the class of people we are intending to protect by this legislation, and I should have thought that was a perfectly fair and simple point.I think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) had in his mind a rather narrow point when moving this Amendment, namely, the point that if a Pole here gets a pension, and then goes back to Poland, it is stopped in certain circumstances, but if this Amendment were accepted, it would be wider than that. It would include a lot of other people also, particularly women. I will give him some details. There are still resident in Poland a considerable number of widows whose husbands were killed whilst fighting under British command. As regards the men themselves, some 60,000 Poles have left the United Kingdom, the bulk of them for Poland. It is, moreover, held that ultimately many more will also return. Both these widows and disabled men must look to their own Government for pension Not only would any other course be unreasonable on merits, but for the British Government to accept any liability in respect of them would place a substantial burden on the British Exchequer, and would create really insuperable administrative problems.
No definite information as to numbers is available, but the number of Poles killed while serving with the British command was over 7,000. In addition, a number would have died of disease. The number of widows resident in Poland may be extensive. No information is available as to the proportion of those men who have returned to Poland who are suffering from some disability due to their war service. But if the proportion were only of the order of 5 to 10 per cent., the total numbers involved would be substantial. Now I come to the narrower point of the man who decides to go back. It is intended, if he decides to go back to Poland, that his pension here should cease. We propose in that case to give him 26 weeks pension payment as a lump sum. But, if he wishes to go back to Poland, he cannot expect his pension to be paid from the British Exchequer.It may have been better to have extended the Amendment to make it read that pensions would be paid until proper arrangements can be made with the Polish Government. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation for these brave fighters, whom hon. Members opposite are very anxious to bring to our attention. A man may have lost an arm, or an arm and a leg, or both his arms, or he may be blind, but he may always desire to get back to his own country. Everyone understands the great difficulties that exist in Poland. I would like to encourage him to go back.
Does not the hon. Member agree that the very best inducement the Polish Government could give such a man to persuade him to return, would be to offer to pay his pension when he returns? Does the hon. Member think it would be any advantage to the Polish State to have a lot of British military pensioners?
I quite agree that it would be desirable for the Polish Government to help as far as they can, but, as has been remarked, Poland was left in a devastated condition. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have spoken so much of the brave and gallant Pole, that one would have thought the war was won by the brave and gallant Pole. If these gallant fellows, broken in body, blinded, crippled, go back to their own country, are they to be no further concern of ours? We know that Polish officers in this country, as a consequence of conditions which obtained before the war, when there was a military caste there, had Fascist ideas. But are we to say that whatever the condition of these people desiring to go back to their own country, in a state of terrible poverty, where the hardest and most conscientious work must be done, even while terrorists with contacts in London are trying to sabotage reconstruction—are we to say that as soon as these men, the men who have fought under British Command, and who fought at Falaise Gap, as the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) said, go from these shores they will be forgotten completely? I only wish these Polish officers who are here could be transported to Northern Ireland. It would not be long before they realised that the hon. Member for Queen's University and his friends were their worst possible enemies. I hope some consideration will be given by the Government to these men who have given loyal and gallant service, and that they will be able to go back to their awn country, and will be given conditions in which they can earn their own livelihood.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, after "Treasury," to insert:
The point we are seeking to make on this Amendment is very simple. It is common ground throughout the Committee that the purpose of this Clause is to ensure that so far as pensions for disablement and death for the Armed Forces are concerned, the Poles shall be treated in the same way as if they had been members of the British Forces. It seems to us that Subsection (4) differentiates between the Polish forces and the British forces, and that because of that differentiation, the purpose of this Clause is largely defeated, or may be defeated, and that the intention of the House, when it gave the Bill its Second Reading, might also possibly be defeated. The distinction between what is proposed here and what is proposed for members of our own forces is that under this Bill it is open to the Minister of Pensions, with the consent of the Treasury, to amend the scheme as it applies to the Polish forces, and to produce an entirely new scheme. I suggest to the Minister and to the Committee that there are three possible reasons why the Minister, with or without the consent of the Treasury, might wish to amend the scheme. In the first place, he might wish to do so in order to place the Poles in a less favourable position than they would occupy if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. In the second place, he might wish to place the Polish forces in a more favourable position than they would be if they were members of our own forces. I take it that that is not his intention. The only other reason I can see why he might wish to amend the scheme is in order to bring it into line with any amendment which there might be in the Royal Warrant. If that is the intention—I cannot see that there can be any other intention which the Minister might have—I suggest to the Minister that it would be as well to state that intention in the Bill. That is what, in effect, our Amendment proposes."in order to bring the scheme or any substituted scheme made under this Subsection into conformity with any Royal Warrant that may be issued."
I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am informed that any provision seeking to do what the Amendment proposes would run counter to Subsection (3) of this Clause, which provides specifically that the Royal Warrant
The effect of the Amendment would seem to be that while the original scheme may contain modifications of the Royal Warrant, any subsequent new provisions would have to apply automatically. We propose to do certain things, one of which concerns the onus of proof. We cannot allow that to stay. It is impossible to work it in a good many cases which we shall have to decide. There will be in some cases, perhaps, no papers whatever, no information of any kind, and certainly no information of the prewar history of these people, all of which considerations are weighed in the balance very much in this country in the decision a3 to entitlement. That is clearly one thing we cannot do. 9.45 p.m. There is another matter too which came up in the courts and which we have accepted as a compelling presumption, which means that if a man—or a woman for that matter—went into the Services A.1 physically and came out, invalided or discharged, something less or worse than A.', then there is a compelling presumption in his or her favour that the worsening of the condition is due to war service. In the circumstances of the Poles, it would be impossible to accept a condition like that, and it is our intention to deal with the Poles on the evidence, such as it is, that is available, to deal generously too, I hope. Clearly we cannot accept this Amendment. If we put this limitation in it would mean that all those things would grow."may he applied with modifications, or subject to conditions, limitations or exceptions, …."
In the light of the explanation which the Minister has just given, I intend to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, but before I do so I would like to suggest to the Minister that in withdrawing our Amendment we set him an example which he might well follow by accepting our next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am not satisfied yet about the Amendment that was accepted and its relation to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and I want the Minister to tell me, if he can, what men of the Polish Resettlement Forces have been under British command and are not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). There is, in my opinion, no need whatever for paragraph (c) once that Amendment has been accepted, unless it is intended to bring in under (c) certain individuals who were not under British command. There is nobody in the Polish Resettlement Forces who has been under British command who is not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). Will the Minister tell us the people in the Polish Resettlement Forces who came under British command and are not covered by (a.)and (b)?
The other point I want to make concerns the interjection by the hon. and gallant Member for Bexley (Major Bramall), and this will be an answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If an Englishman who had served in the French Foreign Legion came back to England, who would pay his pension, the French Government or the British Government?I want to make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to reconsider the question of those Poles who served with the Allies, because when the Minister of Pensions gave the reply just now he told us that there were a great many in Poland today who had served with the British Army during the war. While the argument of the Home Secretary in reply to what said—
On a point of Order. Is it permissible, when a matter has been thoroughly debated on an Amendment, to raise it again on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
I hope hon. Members will be moderate in their further references to such matters.
Since that Amendment was accepted, certain things have been said by the Minister of Pensions to which I want to draw attention. When the Home Secretary replied to my remarks on the first Amendment, he said that if a Frenchman who had fought for France came to this country, one would expect the pension of that Frenchman to be paid from France. There are men in Poland today who fought under British command. I should say that I do not agree with the Home Secretary's argument and I do not suggest that we should pay pensions to Poles in Poland who fought under British command, but I do say that if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right that those who fought with the Allies during the war and are now in this country should have their pensions paid by the Allies for whom they fought, we are just as much under an obligation to pay a pension to those Poles now in Poland who fought under British command.
I thought that the point which has just been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was effectively disposed of by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose clear logic I always recognise, and I regret that I am unable to state my arguments as concisely and irrefutably as he does. It seems to me that there can be no doubt that we have no means by which we can check what happens to a man in any other force than our own. On that I base what I have to say.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not for one moment trying to tell him that we should pay a pension to Poles in Poland, but if the argument which he used against me when speaking on the first Amendment is a good one, I still maintain that we are under a similar obligation to pay a pension to those Poles in Poland. On the point of Order aspect of this Clause, I am glad now that I said what I did say at the end of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill. It is obvious from what has been said this evening that we have not appreciated that there are two different main groups of Poles in this country who intend to stay here during the next few years. There are those who have made up their minds never to go back to Poland, who never want to go back to the type of life they lived before the war, apart from what they might get now, and there are those who intend to go back as soon as they feel it is convenient for them to do so. I ask the Home Secretary to remember that to put in this qualifying provision regarding five years—it is true there was an Amendment to alter it, but the right hon. Gentleman did not accept that Amendment—means that those men who want to stay here permanently and become British citizens for good and all, if they are to have a qualification about five years—
On a point of Order, Major Milner. I recognise that even though a point has been dealt with and disposed of in a Debate on an Amendment, it is still within the bounds of Order to raise it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"; but does not the Standing Order referring to tedious repetition apply? We have heard every word of this speech before.
Not having been in the Chair at the time, I have not had the disadvantage of hearing it. It is the, case that there is a Rule against repetition, and I hope, the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not continue to repeat anything he has already said.
I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and I have no intention of causing dissatisfaction to the Chair if it is considered that it is a disadvantage to have to listen to me.
No, it is the hon. and gallant Member's repetition.
It is not a question of repetition at all. What I am saying now is fair comment on the Clause as it stands after one Amendment has been accepted and others rejected. I feel it is only right that we should comment on this Clause, and my comment is that it caters fairly well for those who may conceivably go back to Poland at the end of five years or before the five years are up, but it does not cater for those who intend to stay here permanently. It seems that some of the people are having grave doubts about His Majesty's Government at the moment. If a number of people who understand English have that opinion at the present time, what are these Poles thinking who do not understand a word of the language?
I had hoped that this Bill could have, been discussed on the basis that we desire all Members of the Committee to do the right thing by these people, and it is to be regretted, therefore, that in the closing words of his speech the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) should endeavour to make one of those cheap party gibes which may be legitimate on matters where there is an acute controversy between the two sides of the Committee, but which I do not think are very helpful when we are trying to do our best for a large number of men whom both sides of the House desire to honour for the service they did to this country. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to listen to any argument put forward from the other side of the House based on that kind of spirit, and if on this matter we are to make cheap party scores we shall degenerate into party discussion on the Bill, which I do not think will be very helpful. I am not going to reply further to the points made by the hon. and gallant Member, for he spoke more than once on the Amendment which we accepted at the beginning after we had announced that the Government were willing to accept it.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) as to why the words "the Polish Resettlement Forces" are found in line 5 of page 2, the answer is that a man may meet death or be injured while in the Polish Resettlement Corps. It could be his misfortune that that injury would deprive him of the use of some of his faculties by the use of which he is enabled to earn his living. We desire to include these people who have left the Polish forces and joined the Polish Resettlement Corps, which are a unit of the British Army. I am sure that no one would desire that on that mere technicality a man should be deprived, through carrying out an. order given him by his superior officer, of the benefits which soldiers in the British Army secure.10.0 p.m.
Am I to understand that only those who served under British command in the Resettlement Force will be so treated, or does anyone in the Polish Resettlement Force—for instance, someone who fought against us and is now in that force—come under this provision?
Everybody in the Resettlement Corps is under British command. It is a British unit and the people in it are carrying out orders given by the competent British military authority. As I said on an earlier Amendment, there may be men who at one time fought in the German army by compulsion and who, when they got the opportunity, enlisted in the British forces, or served under British command. If their disability is caused by what they did under British command, they will get suitable recognition. If their disability is caused by what happened under German command, they get no recognition under the Bill. The same thing applies to the people in the Polish Resettlement Corps. If at any time they served under German command, they get nothing in respect of any disability incurred while under that command. But if an injury now occurs to them, they will get a proper recognition.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 2.—( Allowances from the Assistance Board.)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "war", to insert:
I can be very brief in arguing this Amendment, not because it is not important but because the principle seems to be quite simple. As the Clause stands, it seems to leave the door permanently ajar. This Clause deals with civilians. We have now left the question of the fighting forces and we are dealing with the civilian elements now in this country. Subsection (2, a) provides for civilians who, for one reason or another, come under the general heading of "circumstances attributable to war." If the Bill is generous to the people who fought in the Armed Forces, certainly it is setting a precedent in regard to civilians. This country is traditionally hospitable to political refugees of all kinds. There are many people in this country today, not only from Poland, who have come through "circumstances attributable to war" and who, for one reason or another, do not wish to return to their own country. Here, for the reasons that have been generally agreed, we give special preference to Polish citizens. That is all right, so far as it goes, except that there is no time limit in the Clause as drafted. It seems to me that, as many Polish citizens are still outside Poland and would like to come into this country—and will come into this country—they will be able to come within the umbrella of Clause 2 unless it is amended. Thus, they will be able to get all these very special privileges of allowances from the Assistance Board. The time limit suggested by the Amendment is 1st January of this year. I suggest that that is reasonable. Anyone who came into this country after 1st January of this year presumably should not be regarded in the same category as those who came during the war or immediately afterwards. We must have a time limit somewhere, and I think 1st January is reasonable. I am not concerned with odd individuals. The main body of people I have in mind are the huge numbers of displaced persons on the Continent. Concerning the displaced persons who are in camps in Germany and Italy, are we going to say that the Poles who can, by one means or another, get into this country at any time, are to get the allowances laid down in this Clause? If I am wrong in assuming that they can, I hope the Home Secretary will say so, but I feel that, as this Clause stands at the moment, my Amendment is essential in order to clarify the point."on of before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) has said, we are now dealing with people who did not serve in the Armed Forces of the Polish Republic, and, therefore, we have got away from the limitations that we were imposing, and were engaged in widening, in the discussion on the last Clause. The people mainly concerned are the civil servants of the London Polish Government, and the effect of this Amendment, in the main, would be that those civil servants of the London Polish Government who were employed in this country would be brought in, but those people who were employed by the London Polish Government, but were stationed abroad, for one reason or another, might not be brought in—in fact, would not be brought in—unless they had managed to return to this country prior to 1st January this year.
I am quite sure that everyone will feel that, where that is the class of person concerned, that would be a quite unjustifiable distinction, and, therefore, we do not desire to close the door in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend looks at the words in the Clause he will see that those people who enter or remain in the United Kingdom in view of circumstances attributable to the war have to be certified, where there is any doubt, by the Secretary of State as having entered in those circumstances. Every alien who enters this country is interviewed at the port of arrival by an immigration officer belonging to my Department, and if he has no good reason for coming in, or if he has no visa on his passport, or, let us say, like Professor Smertenko, I object to his coming in, my officer is able to reject him, and, at any rate, at that stage, very strict inquiries are made. It is not my intention to widen admission to the benefits of this Clause to others than the people employed as civilians by the London Polish Government or their relatives, and I do not think it would be fair to draw a line between those who have come in before a certain date and those who come in in the future. I can assure my hon. Friend that, generally, admission of displaced persons who have had no connection with the London Polish Government will not come within the categories that will receive my certificate as arriving here through causes attributable to the war, in the meaning that is to be attached to it in this Clause.I am very glad that the Minister has been able to give this assurance that it is not a case of a job lot of displaced persons being allowed to take advantage of this Clause, and I can see that he will exercise his scrutiny when considering whether he should admit Poles to this country. I would like him to bear one point in mind. He has said that he intends to admit the people who were either the employees of the London Polish Government or their relatives. I would ask him for the assurance that he will see that these people have not come to this country previously for some good reason. The point I have in mind is that there are a number of these employees of the London Polish Government whose purpose for being in whatever part of the world they are at the moment is, quite definitely, to carry on their activities as representatives of the London Polish Government in opposition to the present Polish Government recognised by this Government. I do not think that we should allow these people to remain at large in the world to carry on this propaganda for just as long as they wish and then, when they feel that they have done their work, to return to this country and receive all the benefits of this Bill. I hope that, when considering this point on each application for admission, my right hon. Friend will satisfy himself that these people are coming to this country at the particular time that they arrive because they have been unavoidably prevented from coming earlier and not merely because they are staying at the desire of the so-called Polish Government to carry on their work at their convenience.
I hope the Committee will not think that those of us who are concerned about this Subsection desire to prevent Polish civilians from coming to this country, or if they do so, from availing themselves of the social services of this country. Some of us take quite strongly the view that this country should, in the future, open its doors more widely than before to workers of all countries, and that, in so doing, it must be prepared, not only to admit them, but to see that they obtain reasonable treatment on the same standards as British workers. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that a general admission of alien workers must be covered by general conditions, and that there is no case, in that respect, for making special conditions applicable to Poles as such. Therefore, we were concerned that this should not be an open door to Poles of any description who might come in at any time in the future and avail themselves of special privileges not available to other civilian aliens.
I am pleased to hear the assurances given by the Home Secretary. I would, however, like to ask him two questions. First, can he give the Committee the approximate figure of persons covered by this Subsection, and, second, is he satisfied that, as worded, the Subsection does enable him to prevent persons whom he does not want to admit from availing themselves of its provisions? As it stands, the right hon. Gentleman has only to issue a certificate if there is any doubt. A displaced person who is coming in might well argue that there is no doubt whatever that he is coming in owing to circumstances attributable to the war, and that, therefore, no certificate is required. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can tell us if that point would be covered?With regard to the number, it is very difficult to give that with any precision. The figures which I have heard mentioned by people who ought to know, and who advise me on this subject, range from 12 to 30. It will be seen, therefore, that the number is quite small. In regard to anybody getting in who should not, it is, of course, my job to prevent people I do not want to come into this country for reasons for which I am answerable to this House. Judging by the correspondence I occasionally receive, I appear to be doing it almost too efficiently. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not whether the person himself has a doubt, but whether the Assistance Board have a doubt which decides whether the person comes within the category or not. When the Pole who has been admitted goes to the Assistance Board and claims assistance under this Clause, and they have doubt about his bona fides, they come to me and ask if I am prepared to issue my certificate. The various documents I have relating to the man are then perused —and generally they are fairly numerous and exact—and I issue my certificate in accordance with the facts that are there recorded. It is not my intention to do more than admit the kind of people to whom I alluded in my first reply on this Amendment I do not wish to differentiate between these people merely because they happen to arrive one side or the other of midnight on a particular night.
I do not think my right hon. Friend need be quite so apologetic. I think we want to avoid this rapidly growing tyrannical obstructionist attitude to the free movement of people about the world. At the moment it seems to be harder for a poor man to get into this country than for a rich man to get into Heaven.
How does my hon. Friend know?
The answer with regard to the difficulty of a rich man getting into Heaven is that I accept it on authority. As for the difficulty of a poor man getting into this country, I have plenty of evidence.
In view of the assurances given by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Before we part with this Clause, I would like to ask the Home Secretary about one of the categories of people referred to in this Clause, whose position requires a little consideration. The category of people to whom I am referring are those described in Clause 2 (2) (b), namely:
As I understand the argument, a Pole may pass through three categories. He starts off as a member of the Polish armed forces. He then goes to the Resettlement Corps and then into civil life, either with work or with no work, in which case he has need of an allowance and comes under Clause 2 (1). I would like to ask what will be the position of some of the senior and older of the Polish officers who will be affected by this transfer from the armed forces to the Resettlement Corps and then to civil life. When some of the most senior of these people have no further work in the Resettlement Corps, presumably they will not be kept there, as they are at present, and in receipt of their full salary. They will go out into civil life, and those men, some of the most distinguished of the people we are trying to help, will, at 60 or 70 years of age, find it extraordinarily difficult to obtain work at all. Indeed, one can hardly imagine a place which they would fit. Now, are those people suddenly to find themselves, between one day and another, reduced from the full salary of, maybe, a major-general to whatever is the small weekly allowance, 17s. 6d., or something of that kind, which they can get under this Clause? It that is the situation it ought to be brought out into the light of day, or we ought to know what the position of these men will be. Certainly the length of time they are to be allowed to remain in the Resettlement Corps will be a very vital matter to those quite distinguished officers. I hope the Home Secretary can throw some light on this matter."former members of any of the fortes then tinned in subsection (1) of Section one."
I should like to put a point to the Home Secretary before we part with this Clause, with regard to the meaning of the fourth category of persons who may qualify for an allowance from the Assistance Board. It is contained in Subsection (2, d):
I must confess I am extremely puzzled by the meaning of the phrase, "followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces." In order to obtain an allowance under Subsection (1) a person has to be in need. But in order to be a person who qualifies as an applicant for an allowance under paragraph (d) he or she has to be a person who has entered the United Kingdom as a follower of and as a person dependent on a body of Polish forces. The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) thought this a very bad phrase, and she saiu so during the Second Reading speech of the Home Secretary. She asked:"persons who have been permitted to enter the United Kingdom on or after first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, as being followers of and dependent on a body of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom…."
the right hon. Gentleman said:"What are 'followers'?"
A little later the hon. Lady said:"I am quite sure that all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have ever served in the Armed Forces have a pretty good idea of the heterogeneous mass of people who can be described as camp followers'."
And the right hon. Gentleman replied:"I think 'camp followers' is the wrong term to use."
But the right hon. Gentleman, or some body else, has introduced the word into the Bill Therefore, I think we are en titled to know the meanings of these two conditions. A person has to have been a follower and also to have been dependent on a body of Polish forces at the moment he or she entered the United Kingdom. I can well understand anybody being dependent on an individual. It is a common phrase in our Acts of Parliament. The question one always then asks is: Does it mean wholly dependent, or partly dependent, or mainly dependent? The epithet "dependent" is invariably qualified by something which explains the test to be applied. But here the condition which has to be fulfilled is that the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom. A person may have been dependent upon an individual in a Polish force, but I do not know whether that means the person was dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering the United Kingdom. Were these people on the pay roll, or something of that sort, of the Polish forces at the time they came in? We all know there were a large number of camp followers with the Polish troops in Italy. Why is it necessary as a condition of applying for an allowance—one has to be in need before one gets one—that one was dependent upon a body of Polish forces at the time one entered the United Kingdom? It may have been that one had some means of one's own, and had some money; but if one loses it all and is in need, surely one ought to qualify for an allowance under Subsection (1) of the Clause. The condition, that one had some money and therefore was not dependent on a body of Polish forces at the time of entering, does seem to me to be a harsh test to apply if, since entering, one has fallen into need. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will explain this before we part with the Clause."I did not introduce the word followers into this discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th February, 1947: Vol 433. C. 375–6.]
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) define the qualifications for obtaining these allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Act. One qualification is "that he is in need of an allowance"; the next, "that he has no work" or not sufficient work; and another is that he is required to be registered for employment. It seems to me that the Clause makes no provision, as is usual under the Unemployment Regulations, for a man who is registered for work, and who is offered suitable employment, and refuses to accept it. I wonder if there is any omission there, and why it is not necessary to provide for people in that circumstance.
Before we part with this Clause we must acknowledge the unlimited generosity and magnanimity of the Government towards these unfortunate people who are amongst us. But I am just a little bit perturbed, because I am compelled to compare the conditions laid down here with those other conditions that govern the destinies of our own people who may be unemployed. Perhaps I could satisfy myself by putting one or two questions. Is it the intention of the Government under Clause 2 to waive the conditions determining unemployment assistance as now applied to our own people? What scales of payment will be applied under Clause 2? Will they be equal to, or will they be greater than, the scales of payment that now apply to our own people? There is not a British man or woman who is entitled to assistance from the Assistance Board unless he or she can prove to that Board that when he or she became unemployed he or she had paid a certain minimum of contributions. I find it difficult to be impressed by the tre- mendous support given to this Bill by the Opposition, because invariably they have almost malignantly opposed any kind of improvement in the conditions laid down for our own unemployed in this country.
On a point of Order. You will, I suppose, Major Milner, allow other hon. Members of the Committee to controvert the hon. Member's argument on this point?
I hope any hon. Member who follows the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) will confine himself to the Question that Clause 2 stand part; and I hope, also, that the hon. Member for Merthyr will do the same.
10.30 p.m.
I am trying to do so. Possibly I may satisfy the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) by saying that there may have been one or two exceptions amongst Opposition Members. I should like to know, also, under what circumstances the Board might request an applicant to register for employment. That is also important. I do not think it will be necessary, in the future, when requests are made to the Government to consider favourably improving the conditions of the unemployed, that we shall have to press as determinedly as we had to press in the past. But we will be entitled to request that our people shall be treated with precisely the same measure of generosity—and I am not asking much—as is being extended to the people who are covered by this Measure.
There is one short point which I think would have saved the time of the Committee, and clarified the point put by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peaks). I would remind the Committee of the definition of "followers" in the Hague Convention. There, the definition is "Sutlers, contractors and newspaper correspondents." That being so, it is desirable that my right hon. Friend should put some limitation to these words in this Clause.
I must say that I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench in regard to the words, "dependent on." The right hon. Gentleman has said that they include the Polish Government and its officials here—the Government which was recognised until July 5th, 1945. In what sense can those officials, and they include a number of very distinguished men—for instance, the great Polish Ambassador in Berlin who resisted Hitler, and the very distinguished Ambassador in Paris—how can these men be said to be "dependent on"? I can understand that they are "followers of," but in no sense are they dependent on the Polish forces. I should be very much afraid that some difficulty might arise in the interpretation of these words. The legitimate Polish Government in London employed, roughly, 1,000 officials. Of these, 200 are out of work at present. How any of them who arrived with the legitimate Polish Government from France can be said to be "dependent on" these Polish Forces, I do not understand. I sympathise with the desire of the Home Secretary to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I am far from obstructing it; but I would be glad if he would remove the unhappy feeling which I have regarding these words.
Surely the words referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) are covered by Subsection (2, a). It is a very wide provision, and refers to Poles whose registration under the Aliens Order took place on or after 1st September, 1936. That is extremely wide, so wide that one wonders who there is left to come under paragraph (d). I hope that the Home Secretary will be very specific as to what type of person he envisages. Presumably there are non-Poles, because all the Poles are covered in paragraph (a). In any event, I hope the Home Secretary will say how many people will be involved in this provision.
There is one further point on this Clause. There are a certain number of Poles who were formerly in the Polish forces, and who now have found civilian employment for themselves without having passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps. For good or bad reasons, they object to joining the Polish Resettlement Corps. In some cases it is because it would involve a long journey to a distant part of the country, losing a certain amount of time, and other reasons. As I understand it, these people, being included in the category (2, b), will become entitled to benefits from the Assistance Board if at some future date they fall out of employment, even without passing through the Polish Resettlement Corps. In view of this apprehension which exists in the country, I do hope that the Minister will be able to give a specific reply.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), these persons are either former members or members of the forces who have been relegated from service with the forces, and they come within the benefits of this Clause. With regard to points put by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies), the conditions are to be found in the Schedule, and, having regard to the difficult circumstances of bringing these people on to an equality with British subjects, they will receive the same treatment as British subjects and will be subject to the same requirements as are demanded of British subjects. If they want the benefit of the Assistance Board, they will be required to register for employment, just as a British subject is required to do.
And to accept suitable work?
I would refer the hon. Member to the Schedule. The hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) asked me about his reading of the Bill and the kind of persons who, he alleged, were to be described as "followers" and dependants on the Polish Forces. They are not. They come under the earlier categories mentioned in the same Subsection. They are, for instance, the Poles who came in with the Polish Second Corps, and who were not registered as aliens on landing. They were brought in under military control, and they are being "screened," and when they pass out into civil life they will be registered as aliens. The people he has in mind have been registered as aliens and they come within the first of the categories mentioned in that Subsection.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked me about this phrase which links up "followers" and dependants. I must say it was very difficult to find words which would accurately describe the people we wanted to bring in. At one time we wanted to say "followers accompanying." Some of the men have been brought over. Their wives and children are following them. They would not be "followers" accompanying these people, and, therefore, we had to find some phrase which would definitely link the persons together so that their connection with the Second Corps might be established. These are the best words which we have been able to find. I admit that it does appear a little awkward to make them appear to be dependant on the Forces when they may have been dependant on only one member of those Forces, and it is because of the somewhat awkward phrase that the right hon. Member is worried. I will promise to undertake to have this point looked at between now and the Report stage in order to make it quite clear that these persons are to be limited to those dependent on a member of the Polish forces or who come legitimately within the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), which is the more general understanding of the word "followers." It is not our intention in this matter, within the limitations I have mentioned, to try to exclude people who, on grounds of compassion and recognition of their services, we think should be brought within the Clauses. I hope we shall be able to find a form of words, if these do not do it, to carry out that intention.Will my right hon. Firend look at the title of the First Schedule? We are told that modifications will be made in unemployment insurance to meet the requirements of some of the cases we have been considering tonight. My right hon. Friend has not answered my question.
I had hoped that I had answered it. These people cannot be put into the same category as those who have lived for many years in this country. We desire to assimilate them to the British way of life. We want to make conditions for them similar to those for persons who are about the same age, and who go to the same kind of employment. To do that, it will be necessary to have certain modifications of the wording of the regulations, or it will not be possible to bring them within their ambit. So far as is humanly possible, the same conditions will be available for these people as for British subjects. If we manage to do something that is rather more liberal for them than my hon. Friend and others may think we do for British subjects, I have no doubt that we shall find them quoted as reliable precedents when the Minister of Labour has to bring forward modifications before the House.
I regret that I did not answer the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead.) What is to happen to the high ranking officers to whom he and others alluded, is now under consideration, and I ask him not to press me tonight. I ask him to accept the general spirit in which I have endeavoured to deal with the question of how, in particular circumstances, these people are to be dealt with, as an indication of what we are trying to do.The Subsection says that the Unemployment Assistance Board may do certain things, and specifies the categories of people for whom they may do them. I suggest that the categories ought to be put into a separate Clause. They are referred to in Clauses 3, 4, 6, and 7, by reference back to those persons for whom the Board have power to do certain things.
I will look into that point.
Question put, and agreed to.
Cause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 3.—( Provision by the Assistance Board of accommodation in camps.)
10.45 P.m.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed together the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert, "British."; the two Amendments—also in the name of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends—to make the same insertion in Clauses 4 and 6; and that standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and his hon. Friend, in Clause 3, page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."
May I ask your advice, Major Milner, because the other Amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends are Amendments to Clauses 4 and 6? Are you ruling that since the Clauses hang together we may discuss the three Amendments now?
I accept your Ruling, of course, Major Milner, but I would point out that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend and myself has an entirely different significance from those standing in the names of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and her hon. Friends. If you rule that the three may be discussed together, may I take it that you will put our Amendment separately?
I think it would be permissible to discuss them together.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, after "other," to insert "British."
I am grateful for your Ruling, Major Milner, that we may discuss at the same time the Amendments to make the same change in Clauses 4 and 6 because all three Clauses follow the same pattern. The intention of the Clauses concerned is to enable the Assistance Board to make arrangements with any Government Department for certain purposes, the Departments in question being the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. That is something we accept because we realise that the Assistance Board must be able to make these arrangements with Government Departments to have the work carried out. The point about which we feel some anxiety is that which arises from the provision which occurs in each of these Clauses and which says that the Board may make arrangements with any Government Department or other authority or person. We are a little anxious as to who the other authorities or persons may be. Are they, for example, persons connected with General Anders' army, or are they persons connected with the old Polish Government? If so, I feel—and I hope hon. Members opposite will feel—that in making my submission to the Committee I am doing so as much out of regard for the Poles concerned as for any other reason. I feel very strongly that the other persons or other authorities should be British persons and authorities, and it is for that reason that I am seeking to introduce this word "British." My main reason in bringing forward this Amendment is that we have a very strong feeling that if the Poles who remain in this country are really to be absorbed into the general life of the country, and if they are really to learn something about the British way of life, then the sooner they come under British in- fluences the better, and the shorter the period in which they remain under the influences of the émigré Government or their followers or employees—I would implore the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) not to use the word "émigré." If she knew its significance or understood its connotations she would not. In French it is equivalent to the word "deserter."
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must know very well that I am not using the word in any offensive sense whatever; indeed, I wanted to use it in order really to explain my point. I have had a great deal to do with people who have lived in this country and who are, shall I say "refugees"
Yes, or use the word "emigrant" if you like.
I have a great deal of respect at times for the hon. Member for the Queen's University (Professor Savory), if not on the question of Poland, at least on other subjects—but I prefer to make my own speech and must insist on my right to do so. What I really want to say is that anyone who had anything to do during the war years with the refugees or the people who are living out of their own country knows that there is such a thing as an émigré mentally which is very difficult to combat. These are people who live partly on their memories of the past and partly on their hopes for the future, and who find it very difficult to get a stable existence in the present. We do not want the Poles who are in this country under this scheme to be in that situation. We want those who are going to stay behind to be absorbed into the life and stream of the country, and to absorb the British way of life and become one of us. If they are to stay, we want them to become in the end English people.
For that reason, the sooner they come under English influences the better. I wish to exemplify what I have to say by reference to Clause 6 and the question of education. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter. I once had the pleasure—it was rather an onerous pleasure—of bringing 4,000 Basque children to this country. I had a great deal to do with deciding about their education, and I found that the children who went to the village schools and technical colleges of the country, and later to the universities, became practically English in thought and outlook, and spoke excellent English. We are doing a very bad thing for these Polish children, whatever may be the position with regard to the young men and the adults, in giving them schools of their own. I should like to see the school for officers' children at Pitlochry liquidated and the girls sent into our secondary schools, just as so many of the Jewish immigrants and Basque children went. Those children learnt English very quickly. The language difficulty does not exist for a child. Every child is bilingual. If very young children were taught French with French children, they would learn it much quicker than they do in the secondary schools. If we are to do the best for these young people—I say nothing of the older ones—as far as education is concerned, they should attend British institutions and come under the influence of the British tradition. The Minister of Education is here, and I am certain he will say that our schools are already overcrowded and short of teachers. But these children have to be put somewhere. If we have to supply huts and country houses for them, why should they not mix with our children? It is as broad as it is long. The quicker we can get rid of that emigré mentality, the better will be the lives they will lead here. Hon. Members know that I do not want too many of these Poles to stay here, although I believe it would be to our advantage to have their labour, for I believe it means a great enrichment to the life of the country to have foreigners here, and we want as many additions as possible to our manpower. I have recently been in Poland, where I realised that Poland wants her sons back, too, as she has a great deal of reconstruction to do. If we follow the course I have advocated, these Poles will go back to Poland enriched, taking back something of the knowledge of the British way of life. I am sure that hon. Members opposite would be very glad of that. Whether these people go or stay, this is the best way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel prepared to accept my Amendment.I want to tackle this question from a slightly differ- ent point of view from that of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). When we put this Amendment down we had in the back of our minds what back benchers of the Labour Party always have in mind —to help the Government in every way possible. The only question I want to ask is whether the adjective "British" has not been inadvertently left out in drafting this Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman say that he is not going to accept the Amendment, then we want to know what other authorities he has in mind other than British authorities. We can think of no other authorities who can work with the Assistance Board, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health in administering the normal services to the Poles. I feel that we would strongly resist other authorities being brought into consultation if those authorities were the Polish authorities in this country. In particular, we would very much like to know whether those other authorities am the officers of the Polish Army in this country, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has in mind having assistance from the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) in administering this Clause.
He is British.
During the Second Reading discussion what seemed to me to be a fundamental construction all the way through the speech of the Home Secretary, which was full of admirable sentiments, was the necessity for assimilating the Poles, who decided to remain in this country, into the British way of life. Yet side by side with that we were told all the way through about the special Polish classes, the special Polish hospitals and the special Polish camps that are to be set up. It seems to me that that is just not the way to assimilate the Poles into the British way of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said, the sooner they develop British ideas if they are going to stay here, the better for them. I would suggest, for example, that if we are to have separate Polish schools set up that is not to the advantage of the Poles. If they graduate through a Polish college and get a certificate to that effect, I suggest that that certificate would not be so useful to them as a certificate from a British university would be.
11.0 p.m. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will tell us that, although he may find it necessary to engage certain Polish instructors in some of the educational institutions, or some Polish doctors in some of the medical institutions, we shall not segregate the Poles into separate institutions, separate communities, and keep them together in an organised body of any kind. Frankly, I am suspicious of it. I might as well be quite frank about it. I believe that efforts are being made to keep those Poles together as far as possible and as long as possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not want to enter into that; I might be out of Order if I did; but I want to support the Home Secretary's idea of assimilating them as quickly as possible into the British way of life. For that reason I suggest it is essential that these educational institutions, hospitals and camps, must be under British control.I do not want to disagree with what seemed to me to be the entirely admirable speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), but there is one case which I have in mind that I do not think would quite fit in with this Amendment. There is in this country at the moment a very distinguished Polish artist. He has an art school in this country. The Polish Government in Warsaw have made arrangements to send over some Polish Jews to study painting in England with the idea that they should mix and meet with Poles in England also studying at that school and begin something in the nature of a cultural link. If that is a first symptom, a beginning of a new age, it seems to me to be an altogether admirable one, and I do not think we should exclude that school from the educational organisations which we have in mind in Clause 6. It is perhaps rather a small case, but one often has to be very careful what words are introduced as Amendments into Statutes, as they may exclude just the very sort of things one does not want to exclude.
I intend to deal with all three Amendments together, and most of the observations I shall have to offer can he applied to each of them. The phrases in these Clauses are common form when a Government Department proposes to delegate some of its authority to some subordinate authority or to some person. For instance, in the circumstances of this Bill, we shall want to delegate some of the powers that we give the Minister to local authorities. Unless we do that, if we leave these people to the general law of the land, we might find, for instance, that the Polish children in a particular camp who were being sent to the local school would be chargeable to the ratepayers of that district. Now we are taking steps whereby dealing with these people will be a national and not a local charge. Therefore, unless we are to establish the kind of schools that the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has asked us not to establish, we must take powers whereby the Minister shall be the person who will have to provide the funds and not the local authorities.
The same thing applies, of course, to the other Government Departments, and I am sure that none of us would wish to have the difficulty that would arise if we were to make these persons chargeable to the district in which, for the bad luck of the district for this particular purpose, they happen to be situated. When it comes to the question of persons, we may want to employ medical practitioners direct; we may want to give them some of the powers that the Minister takes, and the same with regard to the corporations. We hope, for instance, to use the National Hostels Corporation to house a number of these people. It is true that I have said throughout the discussions on this Bill that I am exceedingly anxious to get these people assimilated to the British way of life, and to do it as speedily as possible, but let us recognise that we cannot at the moment break these people up and send them as individuals throughout the country. It must be a continuing process—I hope a rapidly continuing process—whereby, starting off with large blocks of them at the moment, we shall endeavour to pass them through the Resettlement Corps out into industry or, as far as the children are concerned, to get them steadily spread about in the country in exactly the circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has alluded. I want as soon as possible to see all these children in English or Scottish schools, taking part in the ordinary life of the schools, in the same way as she described her Basque children had done when she was responsible for their oversight. That is what we are aiming at, but at the moment we have to deal with these people in masses; and at that stage we may have to employ, under British authority, certain individual Poles who will be necessary for the appropriate running of these institutions.The common form of the wording is that the board, or whatever it may be,
If one employs somebody, one does not make arrangements with him. One employs him."may make arrangements with any … authority or person."
When I was employed, I always hoped that a satisfactory arrangement had been made about my salary.
One enters into a contract of service.
A contract of service is an arrangement. There may be some people with whom we do not want to enter into a contract of service and whom we do not want to employ as salaried servants, who may be persons of means who are willing to make arrangements with us to carry out what we want done without accepting any payment. I should have thought the words "make arrangements" would cover both the voluntary and the salaried worker. If we were to limit ourselves to the word "British" we should unnecessarily circumscribe ourselves. With the assurance that all these services are to be undertaken under British authority, with the determined effort—as I said with regard to the technical college which we propose to establish—to bring these people into an institution which will have, from the first, a British emphasis and in which that British emphasis will increase from time to time, I hope the Committee will feel that that is the appropriate way in which we should deal with this matter.
When it comes to the question of students, at the moment there are in the Polish educational centres in London 1,350 students. Everyone connected with the education service of the country knows that we have at the moment passing through our universities and technological colleges a very large number of ex-Servicemen whom it is desirable to pass through as quickly as possible. If we are to put these 1,350 people into a British institution straightaway, we can only do so by denying opportunities to British subjects, in the main ex-Service men and women, who are urgently in need of this education so that they can start up in life. We have therefore decided to appoint—in fact a person has been appointed—a British principal. In the first note supplied to me on this Clause, the word "English" was inserted. I inquired what was the gentleman's name. It began with "Mac." Therefore hon. Members may rest assured that the description properly is British. There will have to be, at first, in all these institutions, a number of persons who are fluent speakers of Polish. It is true, as the hon. Lady said with regard to children in nursery schools, that they are bilingual. No one who saw the evacuation of London children to Wales need have any doubt about that. They were generally the most proficient Welsh scholars in the schools there. Although children are bilingual, adults find some difficulty it understanding a language with which they have no previous acquaintance. Those are the people with whom we are exceedingly anxious to deal quickly. I do not think that the insertion of these words would do other than hamper the Government in their efforts to get these people quickly assimilated into the British way of life. I want to repeat what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, that is, that we are determined that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw. We are determined that those people who desire to remain in this country must do so on the understanding that they are to be assimilated into the British way of life as soon as possible; and in the case of the three Services with which we are dealing in this amendment, we can do that most effectively if our hands are not tied in the way the Amendments would tie them.I should like strongly to support the arguments of the Home Secretary, because they are broadminded and liberal. We must remember that here in England we have had, at Oxford, a distinguished legal faculty, and a distinguished medical faculty in Scotland. These have rendered great service, in view of the great difficulty of the language. We must always recollect that in Poland the second language taught in the schools was not English, but French. To those distinguished Poles whom I meet in this country I never speak English, but always French, because I want to be polite and courteous, and to make myself understood. It would be a very narrow view to insist that in the schools all the teaching should be in English, which the pupils would not be able to understand. I would like to warn hon. Members with regard to this question, because I was in German Poland after Bismarck had introduced those terrible regulations under which Polish children were to be taught by German teachers. Even the priest was forbidden to go into the parish school and give religious instruction in Polish. Everything was in German. What happened in those schools? The children were learning absolutely nothing.
Let us take a broad and liberal view of this question, and let us recollect that Polish culture is something which we ought also to preserve. Let us remember that the Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world—Then preserve it in Poland.
Let us remember that Polish literature is one of the most marvellous in the whole world, and that it will be a sorry thing if the Poles in this country forget their own beautiful literature. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady just now, but I would implore hon. Members not to use the offensive word "émigré." I am sure that no one would intentionally wound the feelings of our Polish Allies. I accept the word "refugees." The Huguenots, in the Seventeenth century, were refugees. But the word "émigré " has a very definite connotation. It means the French aristocrats who abandoned their king to his fate, who were deserters, and in no sense can one apply that word to any Pole in this country. I do beg hon. Members not to employ this Communistic jargon.
11.15 p.m.
I am very conscious of the fact that the patience of all right hon. and hon. Members is running out, but I think that a word ought to be said with regard to the remarks by the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). He is a very nice, but a very naughty man to listen to the remarks which have been pumped into his ears perhaps by people all too willing to take advantage of his generosity and willingness. But I will not go into that—I am very much concerned with something else. These Poles who wish to remain in Britain should recognise that the British way of life, of which we have heard so much in tile Debates on this Bill, is, in so far as it is a democratic way of life, the first thing they should try to learn. Yet I cannot see how they will be able to learn that if they are to be directed in these camps and hostels by some of their erstwhile officers, the heel-clicking type of officer who is unconscious of true democracy.
Let us call a spade a spade. What I have just said is quite true, and these people have, largely been responsible for preventing many Polish soldiers from going back to Poland. I accept the Home Secretary's words. There should be supervision for any crimes committed in these hostels, and I hope that those hon. Members who have put down an Amendment on this Clause will accept it in that sense. But we will watch developments so that these Polish officers do not take advantage of the position. The concluding words of the Home Secretary a few minutes ago were that no arrangements under this Bill are to be used as preserving a spearhead for any march against the present Government of Warsaw, and I hope that these words will be borne in mind by every Member.I am sorry to take up further time, but I took notes of the assurance given by the Home Secretary that he had no intention that these people should be used as a spearhead in any march against Warsaw. What my hon. Friends associated with this Amendment are afraid of is that, by not putting in the word we propose should be put in, we are putting into the hands of people certain things, and those people may not have intentions as honourable as we would wish. The Home Secretary did not show why this word should not go in, and with all respect to hon. Members who have touched on this point, the word has nothing to do with the language in which Polish children—or adults—are to be taught. I suggest that that is absolutely beside the issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the nationality of the teachers in Polish schools or universities. I am certain that these words were not put into the Bill with the idea that the persons with whom Government Departments would make arrangements would be on the level of teachers in schools and professors in universities. The words of the Home Secretary did not give any colour to that suggestion. He spoke of local education authorities, national hostels corporations, and bodies of that type. When he spoke of persons I think he meant the chief officials, the clerks, of local education authorities, and so forth. Surely, we are not dealing with individual employees when we talk about a Government Department making arrangements.
All the people my right hon. Friend mentioned would be covered by British authorities and persons. Frankly, I am afraid that authority will be delegated to some of the people who are, at the moment, a section of the Interim Treasury Committee. The Home Secretary, on the Second Reading, pointed out that the chief representative of that Committee is Count Racynski, a former Polish Ambassador in London. This Committee is divided into various sections, which cover various types of activity. I fear that unless we put in the word British,"authority will be delegated to a body which consists of members, or partly members, of the Interim Committee. I hope the Home Secretary will reassure us about this matter.The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) makes it clear that I cannot give the pledge which has been asked for. My hon. Friend suggested that it would be desirable, in the management of a Polish technical college, that the governing body should consist partly of British people and partly of Poles. I should have thought that in the circumstances that was an eminently reasonable suggestion.
I hope that the Poles who are selected for this governing body will be selected by my right hon. Friend, on his own responsibility.
No, I am not taking that on. They will be selected by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education—
The same thing.
I am not the same person as the Minister of Education. It is not our intention to have, on this governing body, people who are proved to be acting in the spirit that has been suggested. It is not our intention to keep alive the idea that we are keeping the anti-Warsaw Government Poles in existence and in good heart in this country. If we discovered that any person who had been appointed, or given a position of authority or influence in the organisation that we set up, was using that authority or influence in that direction we should remove from him the opportunity for using that authority or influence.
We could not, I repeat, run the Corps or make the arrangements for the servicing of the Poles in this country efficiently if we were to he limited by the insertion of this word. What we do intend to do is to make quite certain that the ultimate responsibility in every case will be that of a Minister answerable to this House, and one of the pledges I am authorised to give by all the right hon. Gentlemen concerned is that they intend to use these services, where any influence is available at all, to ensure that the existence of a group of these Polish people—as a group—shall be broken up at the earliest possible moment. When it comes to doctors, nurses and similar people, we may desire to employ, for instance, a Sort of district nurse in some area where there are a number of Poles, and it may be desirable that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should make that arrangement direct with the particular person. It may very well be that a suitable Polish woman should be the person so employed, and to insert this word in the Bill would prevent us from taking that very reasonable step. I do ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and my other hon. Friends who are associated with this Amendment, suspicious as they may be of certain Poles, not to extend their suspicions to my right hon. Friends the Ministers who will be engaged in carrying out the three Clauses under discussion. I do not ask them to place any trust in me because I. am not concerned with carrying out those provisions, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education, the Minister of National Insurance and the Minister of Health, would, I should have thought— even though they do happen to be associated with me in the Government—be above suspicion on personal qualifications.In view of the assurances which the Minister has given, I do not want to keep the Committee very long, but I think we ought to bear in mind that, as we are dealing with a body of Polish citizens, the way we deal with them must inevitably affect not only ourselves but also our relations with the people and the Government of Poland. Therefore we ought to be careful to see that, as far as possible in what we do, and in the wording of this Bill, we help to foster those good relations. That Government are well aware of the fact that there is in this country at the moment a body of Poles claiming to be a pseudo Government, actually running a Cabinet swearing allegiance to the ex-President, having Cabinet reshuffles, discussing business, and so on. The fear in the minds of the Polish Government and of our friends in Poland is, I am sure, that under cover of this Clause that pseudo Government may continue their existence. It is not merely a question, as the Home Secretary said, of building up for the march on Warsaw, but a question of a cover under which a pseudo Government retain their existence in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that it is our intention to break up this pseudo Government at the earliest possible moment.
But I do not do that under any of the three Clauses which have been discussed. The pseudo Government, as my hon. Friend calls it, are not recognised by this Government. We recognise the Warsaw Government and no other as being the legitimate Government of Poland. The three Clauses in question cannot be used in any way, as far as I know, to help any other Government that may claim to be a Polish Government and that is resident in this country.
In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after "establishments", to insert:
Before I come to the Amendment may I say, in answer to the self-deprecating remarks of the Home Secretary on the last Amendment, that he commends our respect and confidence as much as anyone he referred to. It is in that spirit that I put forward this Amendment. Had I been fortunate on the Second Reading in catching Mr. Speaker's eye I would have attempted to put forward my ideas on the word "establishments" because it seems ambiguous. As I was unsuccessful during the Second Reading I have had recourse to the dictionary, and I have been able to fortify myself as to the word "establishments." If "establishments" means some organisation under an authority in line with camps or hostels there would be no question of this Amendment. On reference to Chambers Dictionary, however, I find that "establishments" can mean one's residence and style of living, while in Murray's Dictionary it can also mean a householder or family residence. In Clause 1 (3) we find there is tremendous scope regarding the persons referred to. That scope is illustrated in Clause 2 (2) and it refers, in fact, to almost every type of Pole who has been in this country since 1939 and who is over r6. It is my contention, therefore, that whether the Government wish it or not, ultimately some of these people, in the process of resettlement or in the process of transition from the Resettlement Corps to civilian life, will find themselves billeted or accommodated in private houses. That seems to be fortified by the statement contained in Clause 3 (2) which reads, referring to the Assistance Board, that it"excluding private homes under which any billeting arrangements may be made."
I am wondering whether "other persons" in fact means householders and individuals in private residence; and it seems to be borne out further by Subsection (3) where"may make such provision in such manner as appears to them most convenient whether by themselves providing goods or services, by making payments to others for the provision thereof …."
The difficulty is that when one looks at the conjunction of doubt in regard to establishments and their relationship to the word "person" one must ask what is meant by "person." Again, it may mean the householder. If I may say so, if I am wrong in my submission, and if it is the intention of the Government to accommodate Poles in camps, hostels and other orthodox establishments, it may be a wrong policy on the part of the Government, because, as has been evidenced by the disquiet of my hon. Friends in the previous Amendments, it would be better from every conceivable viewpoint if there were not to be a segregation of Poles rather than have them in these self-contained units in Polish administrative camps, which mean regimentation of a military type. It would be serving a useful purpose when they were ready for assimilation to have billeting arrangements with private householders, and it is in that spirit that I wish the Home Secretary to look at this Amendment. If I may give an illustration, looking at the point of view of my own constituency, I would say that it contains various industries. Let us assume that certain Poles, who are electrical engineers, are detailed for work at Trafford Park. It is my contention that the Minister in charge of the scheme is not going to make himself responsible for setting up a hostel in Trafford Park for the few Poles going to work there. Obviously billeting may be desirable. If that desirable end comes about, and certain Poles are being sent into the coalmines, perhaps some of them will be sent to Astley in my division to work in the mines there, and again billeting may apply. The same condition in regard to a hostel applies apparently to them. It is my contention that there should be some differentiation if that is likely to transpire, between the rules and regulations and the penalties which I see are in the nature of a fine not exceeding £25 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. I say that that should not apply to private householders because it would restrict the freedom of the householder, and also be a restriction on the freedom of the individual which I am sure is not intended by the Government. I hope, therefore, with these remarks that the Amendment may either be approved or the Home Secretary may give us a satisfactory explanation."The Board may make arrangements with any Government department or other authority or person.…"
The Assistance Board do not intend in any circumstances to billet Polish civilians in private houses, and of course there could not be in any case any question of making rules for the well ordering of establishments other than those which the Board themselves or their agents are managing. I know some people think that the Government are very daring, but I cannot think that anyone would suspect that we intend to make regulations imposing upon the British housewife the well ordering of their houses.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 46, at the end, to insert "or to deportation."
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not a lawyer, or perhaps I should use the word "jurist." Therefore, I am trying to see what is the penalty that is befitting in such cases as these. The Subsection to which this Amendment refers imposes certain penalties in the case of misdemeanour on the part of Poles My proposition is that we ought to keep in mind what appear to be the present circumstances. As the Home Secretary is aware, for I have written to him on the subject, there are quite a large number of aliens, a number of whom are Poles, in Brixton and other prisons. These people have had only short sentences imposed, such as six months' imprisonment but after that they have been detained because they are subject to deportation. I am not going into the details or circumstances in which they received that imprisonment, and no doubt it was justified. What I am raising is that those who may be given a penalty of, say, three months may also be cases for deportation. I want to deal with that for a moment. It may be that the Polish Government will not recognise such citizens, but that is a matter for the Polish Government and for us to base our decision accordingly It has been known in the past that sometimes a decision has been taken by a magistrate for deportation but, on the advice of the Secretary of State, it has been changed. There was a case some years ago, with which I had some connection, where a person was recommended to be deported to Germany but, if he had been deported to Germany, the sentence there would have been not three or six months but something much worse. Hence the Secretary of State saw fit to override the decision of the magistrate, this man had to serve a sentence in this country, and then he was let free here. So that if the Polish Government did not desire a certain ex-Pole to be returned to Poland, of course he should have his sentence changed. All I am asking here, without claiming to be a lawyer, is that the same procedure shall obtain under this Bill for these Poles as obtains at present for Poles or other aliens in this country. If the Home Secretary can give a satisfactory explanation of the position as to why there is this difference, I am prepared to make an adjustment.I must resist this Amendment because it really would arm me with more tremendous powers than my weak spirit is capable of bearing. These are penalties that may be inflicted on any person, and therefore, if a British subject—my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) for instance—went into one of these camps and did something that was regarded as an offence and was convicted, I could then deport him if this Amendment were carried.
Where?
I could get him outside the three mile limit and after that the trouble would be his. May I say that I do not need these powers as far as aliens are concerned. I can deport anybody I should have to give a reason to this House for doing so, but no restriction in the Statute is placed on my discretion. It is the exercise of Ministerial discretion, and I am answerable to this House only for the way in which I administer it. Therefore, the proposed words would greatly increase my powers in a very undesirable direction, but would not add to my powers in those directions where it is desirable that I should exercise them, and I am not, therefore, willing to accept the Amendment.
In the light of the statement made by the Home Secretary, and in view of the fact that I have added something to my legal knowledge, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 5.—( Temporary registration of medical practitioners and of pharmacists.)
I beg to move in page 6, line 47, after "subject," to insert: "to such conditions, and." The words that we seek to insert here are precisely the same words that appeared in Defence Regulations 32C, on which Clause 5 is based. It is necessary to repeat them here because the bye-laws to be made by the Pharmaceutical Society under the Bill will contain certain points of substance. I am told, for example, that Polish methods of dispensing are different from English methods, and when the byelaws come to be drafted they will provide, among other things, that the pharmacist shall have some practical experience of British methods of dispensing.
11.45 p.m.
I only intervene for one moment, first to welcome, if I may, the new Parliamentary Secretary in making his debut, and, second, to say that with regard to both this and the next Amendment, I am sure that we are improving the Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the methods in Poland are different from those in this country. I suspect that English doctors do not write with the same clarity as Polish doctors, and it is desirable that English methods should be studied. We have been paying a lot of compliments to the Poles tonight, but in regard to this matter we have had a practical example of good will to the Poles from the Brighton technical college. Immediately the need for classes for these Polish pharmacists was known, the Brighton education committee made arrangements to run special classes for them. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War can get them out of the armed forces, the classes are waiting in Brighton for them to take. Indeed, we hope to start a class there before Easter, and I would like to pay a tribute to the education committee of Brighton and the principal of the Brighton technical college for showing good will to these Polish pharmacists.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, after the second "to," to insert: "and his skill in dispensing."
This Amendment is very much like the one we have just dealt with. It remedies an omission. As the Clause is drafted, it is limited to theoretical knowledge and says nothing about practical skill in dispensing. It is felt desirable to put it into the Bill.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4).
This Clause, as it stands, is very remarkable, and I hope this Amendment will make perhaps less remarkable but more useful. It seems to me to be a remarkable thing that we should have a Clause of this length and then come to a Subsection which limits the operation of the Clause only until 31st December of this year. We are already in February, and it seems to us to be a little odd that the Clause should be limited in time until the end of the present year. Of course, we have had the argument for that limitation. I think the Home Secretary gave it on Second Reading. He said that the defence regulation dealing with this matter expires next December and that is why this Clause also should expire next December. It does not seem to me that that is a very valid argument, because the Defence Regulation deals. I understand with foreign practitioners as a whole. This Bill deals with Polish resettlement, and the fact that we are having this Bill is an indication that we regard the Poles as being in a special position in which we do not regard other foreigners in this country at present. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible to allow, subject to the safeguards in the rest of the Clause, the Poles to practice indefinitely without in any way prejudicing any steps which the Home Secretary may wish to take regarding other foreigners on the expiration of the present Defence Regulations. For these reasons, I hope that the Government may find it possible to accept this Amendment.The purpose of the Amendment is obviously to obviate the termination of the registration at the end of 1947. This registration is deliberately temporary. It is designed to place the individuals concerned in precisely the same position as the other doctors and pharmacists registered under the temporary wartime registration arrangements Under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, the temporary registration comes to an end on 31st December, 1947. At present, the Home Secretary is in consultation with the medical profession on the future of temporarily registered doctors. There are similar consultations with the Pharmaceutical Society. It is not possible, yet, to make any statement on those discussions, but as temporary registrations are to cease for every other temporarily registered doctor and pharmacist at the end of the year it is, in our view, undesirable to continue it lot the Poles alone. The discussions now taking place may be prejudged by a decision taken on this point. When the matter is receiving comprehensive review it would not really be sensible for us to settle this matter for one section alone hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
Having some knowledge of the discussions which are going on, I think that any apprehensions arising from the termination of the temporary registration at the end of this year will be found to have little foundation, as the results of these conversations become known. I think ways will be found to continue that registration, perhaps, on a permanent basis. I am anxious—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a little attention to this point—in regard to the pharmacists, about the shortness of time. It had been assumed that a year would provide time for the necessary training courses and examinations, so that we could be quite certain that all these Polish pharmacists had a chance of getting on to the temporary register by the end of the year. But I have a little doubt, now, whether that will be the position. We find, now, that some of them, possibly doctors as well as pharmacists, are in Italy waiting to be brought back to this country. It may be quite late this year before they are back here, and are therefore in a position to take advantage of this Clause. There is also the fact that, although the training courses are being provided at the Brighton Technical College at the earliest possible moment, we find from the War Office that there may be difficulties in releasing these pharmacists so that they can take the courses. I am a little apprehensive whether we will not find ourselves caught up, at the end of this year, with a number of these people who, for reasons outside their own control, are unable to get on to the temporary register. I would ask the Ministers concerned to look at this to see if it is not worth while to extend the period, or to seek power to extend it. I think it will be agreed that the last thing which we want is to have all these men with the door closed on them, and with a grouse—a justified grouse—for the rest of their lives.
I think that the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee consider this Bill as a valiant attempt to do justice to the Poles who, because of misfortune, are going to spend the majority of their days in this country. This Clause appears to say that the General Medical Council may—it does not say "must"—register these practitioners as foreign practitioners. It puts these Poles on the same basis as foreign practitioners who have come to this country, but I think that the Poles in this case differ. Some of them have taken their degrees in this country, and so they possess a qualifying degree which, if held by a British subject, would make it possible for them to be on the register. Are they "foreign" practitioners because they are foreigners, or because their degree is foreign? If they have a British degree, can they go on registering indefinitely, or it is to be only temporary? If they hold a British degree and in course of time they become naturalised, can they go straight back on the register if the General Medical Council is prepared to register them? It is an important question because a considerable number of them hold British degrees. This Clause says nothing about dentists. Are there no Polish dentists in this country?
I am not sure if the hon. and gallant Member is in Order Clause 4 does not refer to dentists.
I would revert to my previous remarks. This also concerns those who hold foreign degrees in this country and who are practising. If they become naturalised, or take a British degree, can they be registered? I would like to support this Amendment because I think that the Clause is out of keeping with the helpfulness and generosity of the other parts of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given certain reasons which are conclusive in favour of this Clause coming to an end at the end of this year. But, under the existing Defence Regulations, these people enjoy the privileges to be given under this Bill. What is the object of substituting this for the existing Defence Regulations ending at the end of this year? It makes no difference to the present position. There is a Defence Regulation at present, and all that happens is that from the time that this Bill receives the Royal Assent, they will get their rights under this instead of the Defence Regulation
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that Poles should not, under this Bill, be put into a better position than any other alien doctors in this country. I should have thought that if there was anything we could do to help them to become established it would be to give them some security in the future. This is only an enabling Clause. It does not compel the General Medical Council to register anybody; it merely enables them to do so in cases where they are satisfied with the qualification. In view of the fact that the Bill is intended to give facilities for the settlement of Poles in this country, the best thing we could do would be to live them some security in the future.12 m.
I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted, because it would put Polish doctors in a very much better position than many other alien doctors who fought in the British Army for several years. This matter was carefully considered by the Central Medical War Committee, which put forward a scheme to the British Medical Association which has been accepted by them. It is being put to other medical bodies in the country and will, no doubt, be submitted to the Government. It would be a pity if we gave to Polish doctors a better opportunity than we gave to alien doctors who served this country just as well.
In reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), I do not think that it is practicable to consider modifying the Bill to take account of the difficulty to which he referred. The position of people who do not get on to the temporary register in time will be considered with the general question of aliens, after discussions with the professions have been concluded. I do not anticipate any difficulty in dealing with the problem he raised at the same time as we deal with the comprehensive problem. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) was rather involved. In so far as Polish medical students acquire British medical degrees, there is no difficulty; they can practice. But if they are Polish students with Polish degrees, they can be considered with other alien doctors, even if they do not become members of the Resettlement Corps. There is no difficulty about dentists. There is no provision of the Bill to cover dentists, because there is no difficulty about which we need bother our heads. In reply to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) the register was closed on 24th February, 1946, and it was essential to provide, in the Bill, for the same kind of arrangements. The Defence Regulation arrangements come to an end on 31st December, 1947, and we provide the same thing here, which is the reason for not accepting the Amendment.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not close his mind entirely to the possibility of changing this date. If he does so after the end of the year it may be possible to bring in Poles. We are not giving the Poles the general preferential treatment which this Bill contemplates for them, and it may very well be that they have to come in eventually by some door which is not yet in existence, let alone open.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There are certain classes of Poles to whom this Clause applies, but there is one class—of whom there are possibly very few—who are not provided for here. I refer to those Poles who have been serving in the British Forces. I have in mind only one specific case—a pilot who has served in the R.A.F. and thus does not come into any of the categories of the Polish Forces mentioned in this Clause. I am wondering whether some consideration could be given to that particular type of case, small though the number may be, because I am quite certain that such a man is included within the spirit of this Bill. It would be a pity if a man who had chosen to do his bit fighting in our Forces should be deprived by a technicality of the benefits of this Measure.
I have no hesitation in undertaking to give sympathetic consideration to the type of case described by the hon. Member.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 6.—( Provision by the Minister of Education of educational services.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
On a point of Order, Major Milner, is it not your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name, in Clause 6, page 8, line 22, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that all higher education arrangements made under this subsection are to be provided, taking into consideration the needs and facilities of British ex-service students."
The hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.
Then, if I may, I should like to raise the point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We were given figures this afternoon by the Minister of Education which showed that 18,000 British ex-Servicemen had been granted further educational training grants. On another occasion we were told some 4,000 Poles have already been given further education, and that some 2,900 were still being educated. The latest figure we had last week was that 2,000 were receiving higher education. Even at this late hour, any hon. Member of the Committee can make a rapid calculation and discover for himself that 4,000 out of 100,000 compares very favourably indeed with 18,000 out of 5 million. We all know that many British ex-Servicemen feel aggrieved that they have not been given an opportunity for further education—some with justice and some, in view of their particular limitations—with injustice. The fact remains that we have been told time and time again that there is not sufficient accommodation or staff avail- able. It may be said that so far as the Poles are concerned they have enough capable professors and so on to provide their own staffing. That may be so, but it does not account for the accommodation, and we have been told that there is insufficient accommodation at the universities to allow for the further education of all those British ex-Servicemen who desire it. In view of this, I ask the Minister for an assurance that no Pole who receives education shall do so at the expense of any British ex-Servicemen, and that such accommodation and facilities as exist shall be allotted in a reasonable proportion to the British and the Poles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to bear in mind the figures that have been quoted—and which are based on information given by the Minister—showing that whereas only 18,000 British ex-Servicemen have been granted further education out of a total of some 5 million who served, about 4,000 Poles are to be given such education out of a total of roo,000. I think that these are figures which will be received with great interest and perhaps with some concern by British ex-Servicemen when they learn of this contrast. Therefore, the least that the Minister can do is to give us such an assurance and I hope he will do so.
12.15 a.m.
I think the Committee would like to know what are the intentions with regard to the setting up of this Polish University College. As I understand it that proposal is justified on the grounds that at the present time the British universities are full, and, therefore, it is necessary to have some special university college in which to accommodate the Polish students now wishing to undergo technical education. I hope, however, that this is merely a temporary feature of our education, and that the Polish children, who are now in secondary and primary schools, will in the course of time be accommodated in the national universities. I think we would like the Minister to give us some assurance that this Polish college will be of a strictly limited duration.
In reply to that point, I would say that the time factor is one on which I cannot at this moment say anything definite. However, I look upon this as something of a temporary character, and the sooner the students who pass through can be integrated into the normal life the better. I would point out how difficult it would be to meet the request made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that no Pole should be taken into our institutions until all the requirements of our ex-Servicemen have been met. While the figures which the hon. Member has given as contrasted with numbers of our ex-servicemen, would seem impressive, I must not only point out that the figures are wrong but object to the way he has put them, because as presented, they throw a reflection upon what we are here attempting to do. It seems to me that all this Clause as it stands does is to place the Ministry of Education in a position to carry out on behalf of the Minister what hitherto would have been carried out by the local education authority. Because of that fact it has set up a special machine for the purpose. It is my intention, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to appoint a committee to work out all the points brought to notice by hon. Members, but in carrying out our duty, we do not intend to imperil the opportunities which are being offered to our own ex-Servicemen.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The hour is getting late It is after midnight and well past our normal hour of Adjournment. We are using a lot of electric light and I understand that that is a scarce and valuable commodity at the present time. I think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will agree that we have made progress with the Committee stage of the Bill. The progress made may not be as rapid as he would like, but I think he will acquit both this side of the Committee and his own followers of any disposition to slow up the passage of the Bill. I suggest that the Minister should now allow us to go home. It would be to the convenience of every Member of the Committee, and I do not think that it would effectively delay the passage of this Bill at all, because I think that from the way the Committee stage has been conducted to-night it is clear that the Committee are as anxious as the Minister to secure its passage. That indicates that if we take the remainder of the Committee stage on another occasion we should be able to dispose of it rapidly. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that, at this advanced hour we can now go home.
I am thankful to the Committee for the way in which the discussion on the Bill has been conducted, but I must ask hon. Members to conclude the Committee stage to-night. I hope that an announcement which I hope to be able to make later on what might otherwise prove a contentious part of the Bill, will help us to conclude our work. Until we get to the new Clause in my name there is not any matter of substance left. I hope that the answer I shall be able to make when we reach that new Clause will enable the Committee to report Progress at a not very distant hour.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 8.—( Provisions as to service in the forces.)
I beg to move, in page 9. line 7, after "forces," to insert:
The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the application of the first part of the Clause to a period not exceeding two years from the passing of the Bill. Hon. Members will be aware of the fact that a Section of the Army Act does restrict to one in 5o the number of aliens who can be employed in the British forces at any one time. I fear that the Polish Resettlement Corps and its ancillary bodies are in excess of that number, being, in fact, too per cent. Polish, and, therefore, if the Polish Resettlement Corps and other bodies under the general heading of the Polish Resettlement Force are to remain in being as a legal force, it is necessary to waive that Section of the Army and the Air Force Act, in respect to the Polish Resettlement Force. It has, however, been quite definitely stated by the Home Secretary and, I think, by other responsible Ministers, that this Polish Resettlement Corps, although technically a military unit within the British Armed Forces, in its character is not essentially military; that its character is substantially civilian in that it is a preparation of these Poles for civilian life; that, to the greatest possible extent, it is a demilitarised unit; and that, in fact, the only purpose for which it is retained within the British Armed Forces and under the control of the War Office and Air Force at all is in order to ensure. that its members shall be subject to British military discipline. That, I understand, is the sole purpose aimed at, and there is no intention whatsoever that this Corps shall constitute anything like a foreign legion. If that is so, then surely it is highly desirable that this Corps shall be terminated as soon as its functions have been completed, and that there is no possibility in the form of this Bill, when it is finally passed into law, that the Corps can continue as a distinct Corps within the British Army. We have been told that it is generally understood that the Polish Resettlement Corps shall complete its functions within a period of two years, and that within that time it is hoped the Poles will have been trained for, and translated into, civilian life and absorbed into our community. If, at the end of two years, there are a few individuals still remaining for whom a place has not been found, then it will not be necessary to retain military discipline for them, because they can be dealt with in other ways. The Corps will, in fact, be substantially liquidated within that period. Therefore, I hope that we shall he told by whoever replies that it is possible to accept this Amendment."during a period not exceeding two year, from the passing of this Act."
I have no wish to treat the Committee with discourtesy, but I think it might be for the general convenience if I said straight away that we are not willing to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved, and to explain why. His argument was that this Corps is a civilian Corps in character, for all practical purposes, that it ought to be wound up as quickly as possible, that two years seems to be a reasonable time to expect it to last, and that if anybody were left at the end of two years, they would not matter very much,
It is our hope that within two years we shall have completed the business of this Polish Resettlement Corps and that it will have finished its natural function and passed out of existence. It is obviously possible that that may not be so, and that there may be a certain number of people still left in it at the end of two years. I want to make it perfectly plain to the Committee that there is no conspiracy or hidden hand in this at all, but these matters are affected by a good many imponderables; for instance, the absorption into civilian life and civilian industry of a large body of men of this kind would probably be affected by such a crisis as we have been passing through in the last two or three weeks, and for a great variety of reasons it is quite unacceptable to be tied down in statutory form to a fixed period after which it would not be legitimate to continue the existence of this Corps. I will give an assurance to the Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government that there is every intention of winding this up as quickly as it can be done, but we cannot be tied in statutory form like this, and it is an invalid argument to say that if there are only a few people left, it does not matter what happens to them, because it may well be that the last members of this Resettlement Corps to be disbanded will be the cadre staff who have been administering the Corps, and who have complicated financial and legal provisions to tidy up before they can go, and who would have to remain in military conditions and subject to the same laws and regulations under which they have been serving all along to carry out that task. Therefore, with those arguments and with the assurance which I readily give, I trust the Committee will reject the Amendment.I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider the possibility, at least, of inserting some time limit. I felt his argument was not very convincing because a good many of us had taken the view that this matter could have been dealt with in another way, and that there would have been a possibility of placing this Corps under civilian control long ago, for example, under the control of the Ministry of Labour. I am not at all sure that the kind of control that these men have been under in the past, under some of their own officers, has maintained a very high standard of discipline. From reports that I have seen from the Italian Government, of their behaviour in Italy, for example, they had not a very high record of discipline.
That is not true.
My hon. Friend is, no doubt, fully acquainted with these things—
I am.
—but I may say that I have seen a record prepared by the Italian Government and submitted to the Italian Control Commission, giving a very long list of offences of ill-discipline committed by members of these Forces.
Submitted by whom?
I do not wish to transgress the rules of Order, but, since I have been challenged on this point, I would say that I can show my hon. Friend a copy of this document. To come back to the point which we are discussing, some of us take the view that it is not necessary to deal with the matter in this way. If it is necessary to deal with a large body of men—with 80,000 or 90,000 men—in this way, surely, at the end of two years it could have been possible so to adapt these men to the British way of life that it is not necessary, for the sake of an odd few thousand who may remain, to retain them under military discipline in this country. Therefore, I submit that this time limit would not impose any undue restriction but, on the other hand, it would remove any possible misunderstanding there may be, and that under this Clause, particularly in the first part of it, we are seeking to establish what is, in effect, a, kind of foreign legion within the British Forces.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 15, and to insert:
Before this Bill was presented to the House, a number of hon. Members were good enough to discuss with us what might be the effect of these provisions, and we felt at that time that Clause 8 was not drafted as well as it might be in one respect."Polish resettlement forces."
Hear, hear.
12.30 a.m.
I trust the hon. Member will remain in agreement as we proceed. We are anxious to make it perfectly plain that the object of this Resettlement Corps is to fit people for civilian life, and that in no circumstances are we seeking to recruit a foreign legion. It has occurred to us that, as originally drafted, it might appear that people can be taken from the "rump," the Poles who have not yet decided to go into the Resettlement Corps, and recruited into the British Army. If that were so, a suggestion might be 1evelled at us that we were not very serious about accepting these Poles in the British Army on equal terms with Englishmen. In order to remove any misunderstanding of that kind we are by this Amendment, in effect, giving an undertaking by which we shall be bound that we will not accept Polish recruits into the British Army, until they have passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps.
Amendment agreed to.
The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major BRAMALL:
In page 9, line 15, leave out "be disregarded," and insert:
"apply as though 'for the word 'fifty,' there were substituted the word 'five,' provided always that the total number of Poles so serving in corps or units of the Army and Royal Air Force other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces shall not exceed five thousand."
In view of the assurance given by the Financial Secretary, that there is no intention to form a foreign legion, and that that point will be borne in mind in all transactions with regard to the Poles, I do not wish to press my Amendment.
Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?
I do not wish to move it.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "officer," to insert:
The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the possibility of giving the rank of commissioned officer to a Pole serving in the Polish Resettlement Forces. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I have already used in relation to the previous Amendment, but merely to emphasise again that this Corps is essentially a preparation for civilian life, and particularly for absorption into the British way of life. Therefore, in these conditions it is clearly desirable that there should be the least amount of militarisation among the Poles themselves, and particularly that the Polish soldiers in this Resettlement Corps should not be subjected to the kind of control which they have experienced in the past from a number of senior Polish officers who, although it may not suit the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), were of a reactionary character and were definitely, and are still, entirely hostile to the Polish Government in Warsaw, and to good relations between this country and that Government. I do not wish to weary the Committee with quotations from some of the utterances which have been made by these people. I have a sheaf here of the kind of thoroughly reactionary anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist statements which have been made by these gentlemen."other than in any of the Polish resettlement forces."
Anti-Communist.
Anti-Socialist and pro-Fascist, I said. I am not concerned with whether they are anti-Communist.
Moscow, please note.
It does interest me that these statements are anti-Socialist and hostile to the Polish Government which we recognise. These people are not democrats in spirit, and are therefore not the right kind of people to exercise control over men who are being trained in the British democratic way of life. Therefore, I suggest that it will be for the benefit of the future conduct of this Corps if the officers in control are Polish non-commissioned officers, subject to the higher discipline of a small number of British commissioned officers. That is quite sufficient for the military discipline required for this Corps. There is no need, we have been told, for any great amount, but this would guarantee that these men are trained in a democratic way, which they have not been in the past year or so.
I did not intend to intervene at this stage, but since the hon. Member keeps repeating certain remarks, I think it is necessary to say something in reply. I know all about this. There are large numbers of Polish soldiers in Scotland, and for vile, vicious Fascism, one cannot beat the Polish officers in Scotland. Their whole attitude is just that. They are swaggering, and they are all-important—
One gets that in Whitehall.
I am talking about the Polish officers, and as a matter of fact it is well known that these very people, before they came from Poland, would have imposed imprisonment on anybody who knocked against a Polish uniform. They have been known to shoot civilians, and here they are—
The hon. Member is thinking of German officers.
I am talking of my own country. I know what happens there. We have them in Scotland, and they would never think of giving any encouragement at all to democracy. If this Polish Resettlement Corps is to be used for absorbing people into the industrial life of this country, it should not depend on Polish officers, but on democratic organisations within the Resettlement Corps. I want to tell the Committee that these Polish officers are very dangerous from the point of view of democracy.
It is perfectly clear that any arguments which I might address to the Committee will have no effect in silencing my hon. Friend (Mr Stokes). There are a variety of reasons why I would ask the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) to withdraw this Amendment. The first is that it is not, I am told, acceptable from a legal point of view, and, furthermore, if we were anxious to do what he says he is anxious to do, I am assured that this would not be the way to do it. My hon. Friend is anxious to demilitarise this Corps, and he says that we should prevent any Polish commissioned officer from belonging to it. I cannot see how that is going to have the effect he wants Are these Polish officers to be accepted into the Corps and brought down to the rank of n.c.o. and private? If that is in his mind, does he think it is likely that they will want to volunteer to come into the Resettlement Corps? Or does he not want them to get into the Resettlement Corps?
Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me hear what he is saying?
I beg your pardon, Major Milner. I am flattered by your interest.
The Financial Secretary says, "Do I want these officers brought in, and invited to accept the rank of sergeant or private?" I thought that the object of the Corps was to fit them for civil life. Is not that its purpose?
Nevertheless, we are faced with the problem of very large numbers of Polish military personnel of all ranks, drawing the benefits of those ranks, and we are inviting them to volunteer for the Resettlement Corps. It will not be a very hopeful prospect if we start by saying that anybody who has earned high rank during his war service must start by coming down to the rank of lance corporal. That is one of the effects of the proposed Amendment. If my hon. Friend does not want these officers to come into the Corps then all that has been said about the democratisation of these people, and fitting them for civil life, falls to the ground. If these people are Fascists—which I do not accept for one moment—surely it is desirable that they should he brought into this Corps, and be susceptible to the control and direction which the Corps is designed to give.
Further, I suggest that we cannot reopen now the question of the military organisation of these people. There are two views about this, and the House has had many months in which to think over this problem. I have no doubt that the vast majority of. people have come to the conclusion that this method of using the Resettlement Corps as a military transit camp, in order to fit these Poles for civil life in this country, is the best method. I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he will not withdraw the Amendment.Before my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) considers whether he will, or will not, withdraw his Amendment, I cannot resist the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I am amazed that he should protest on grounds of democracy, because he represents a philosophy which is a complete denial of democracy—
We cannot go into a discussion about the respective merits of different philosophies.
On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for me, Major Milner, to invite the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to discuss democracy with me in Ipswich, any time he likes?
Any time the hon. Member likes to come to Ipswich I shall he delighted to meet him.
The hon. Member has never been there when I have been there.
12.45 a.m.
That is because the hon. Member has never done me the courtesy of telling me that he was corning. That, of course, is not the least surprising, given his performances in this House. With regard to these swanky journalists and the rest, surely the idea that we should take note of the example set from the East—
The South-East.
No, the East. As I was saying, the idea that we ought to pay more attention to the example set us by Marshal Zhukov, who considers a battledress as ridiculous and dresses himself up in a great panoply—
That is irrelevant to the Amendment under discussion.
That was the argument used by my hon. Friend and I wanted to show what awful humbug it was. Having said that, I am prepared to sit down.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 9, line 21, leave out from "the," to "who," in line 23, and insert "Polish resettlement forces."—[ Mr. J. Freeman.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I share the opinion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office—
On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you intend to call the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend and myself, in page 9, line 4, to leave out Clause 8?
That is not an Amendment in the proper sense. It is unnecessary to move to leave out a whole Clause. If the hon. Member desires to do so he may raise his point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I fully share the opinion of the Minister as to the obscurity of this whole Clause. I have read it many times and have received innumerable letters from my Polish friends asking me for an explanation of the meaning of certain passages in it. I have not been able to give them a satisfactory answer. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but there is one important point in this connection. A commander in the Polish Navy came to see me on Saturday as a deputation from his colleagues and put various questions to me which I asked should be put in writing. I find it very difficult to understand why the Navy is omitted from Subsection (1) and only the Army and the Royal Air Force mentioned, whereas in Subsection (2) the Navy is mentioned. Perhaps I may read the question to which the Polish officer desires an answer? He says:
I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me an answer to this question so that I may transmit it to my friends."The Bill provides in Clause 8, Subsection (1) for the service of Poles in the British Army and the Royal Air Force, but nothing is said about the Royal Navy. Before the enrolment of the Polish resettlement corps started, an official pamphlet was circulated among members of the Polish Navy. Among other things it stated that it was not possible yet for Polish sailors to join the Royal Navy, which at present admits only British citizens and those of British origin. On the other hand, the same document explained that Polish sailors can, if they wish, join the British Army. This, in the first place, seems a waste of trained personnel, while from the psychological point of view it certainly is a mistake. No sailor will ever join an Army, however glorious may be its traditions. In view of the exceptional situation, it is suggested that an Amendment should be introduced to Clause 8 of the Bill which would enable Polish sailors to join the British Navy."
I should like to say to the Financial Secretary that I am not in favour of bringing them in as privates. I would put them on the retired list and bring them in as retired officers. After all, when an officer retires. he receives retired pay. They should come into this Resettlement Corps not as a force of the Polish Army. That is all very well in connection with the situation as it is now, but I would honestly ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. By all means get them into the force and get them prepared for our industrial and civilian life. As hon. Members in the Committee know, I would prefer to see them all go back to Poland, but if that is not to be the case, I would like to see them all brought in and trained, particularly the officers. I would like to see them being trained in industrial and domestic life. In no circumstances should the Minister retain that relationship between officer and men which existed in the Army. What we want is a new relationship between officers and men, for that is an essential part of training them to be absorbed into our industrial and civilian life.
In answer to the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory), I will look into that point. The real reason why the Navy is not mentioned in this Clause is because this Clause relates to the Army Act and the Air Force Act and the Polish Resettlement Corps is really a transit camp into civilian life, or if suitable, into the Armed Forces of this country but not as a unit, only as individuals. In regard to what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, I am glad to hear his remarks about not wishing to demote these men. After all, many of these officers did good service and as long as they continue to observe the forms of democracy which we understand in this country and which we are teaching them—[Interruption.] Yes, the Committee will be surprised to learn that we are teaching them not only elementary English but the democratic forms of life, which they must have before they can be assimilated here, or before they can emigrate overseas. I ask the Committee not to be suspicious of the good intentions of His Majesty's Government in setting up this Polish Resettlement Corps as a method of rehabilitating these Poles, either in getting them back to Poland, which is what we desire, or to prepare them for some useful form of occupation in civilian life.
The point simply is this: Cannot a Polish naval officer join the British Navy in the same way as a Polish army officer can join the British Army? I should like the Secretary of State for War to have a copy of these questions and I will hand them to him now.
The hon. Member's action is very irregular.
I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to have the questions.
I understand that the main point of the Polish Resettlement-Corps is to rehabilitate these Polish soldiers and get them into the civilian way of life. It seems to me rather peculiar that in order to do so, we should retain in this Resettlement Corps the military set-up that was in operation in the Polish military forces. I should have imagined in order to teach them the English way of life it would have been necessary for them in this force to live as closely to the English way of life as possible. I do not consider it demoting them by putting them into civilian life and I would think it would be better if this Resettlement Corps were brought into close contact with our experience of the way of life. I cannot accept fully the argument that has been put forward.
I ask the Government to reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory). All the legal luminaries of the Government are on the Front Bench. Surely one of them could answer. The question was a simple one—what legal difficulty stands in the way of a member of the Polish naval detachment joining the British Navy? Could we not have an answer to that?
I am always glad to satisfy the thirst for information which hon. Members opposite exhibit from time to time. In the Army and Air Force Annual Act, aliens may be permitted to join the Army under Section 95, which is referred to in this Clause. Under the existing Regulations they may not join the Navy.
Having regard to what the Attorney-General has just said, could we have the benefit of his advice in regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps? Under this Bill, the scheme is intended to apply for five years. If it is necessary to legalise the position in the future may we know what the present law is? Does it not follow that Section 95 of the Army and Air Force Act is invalidated at the present time? If so, is it proposed to take steps to make this Clause retrospective or is an indemnifying Bill going to be brought in?
His Majesty's present Law Officers have had regard to those difficulties, and have anticipated them by dealing with the matter under the Defence Regulations at present in operation.
I think that it is entirely unnecessary to import into this Corps, which is intended to be a preparation for a civilian and democratic way of life, the entire military hierarchy which has been in operation in the Polish forces from the general commanding, right down to the second-lieutenant.
Could the Attorney-General tell us whether this new Force will come under the Defence Regulations; and is it a fact that discipline can be enforced in those circumstances? If it is not a fact how can discipline be enforced, and what use can the present set-up be to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who wants it for that purpose?
I was dealing with another point. I was dealing with the question of the extent to which aliens might be admitted into the British Army, not the extent to which discipline can be exercised over a force which is not part of the British Army. The point my hon. Friend has in mind does not arise on this Clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 10.—( Application to Scotland.)
1.0 a.m.
I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
I should. like to discuss both this and the next Amendment to page 10, line 33, together. The Bill proposes that the Assistance Board should give certain benefits and recover charges from the persons liable, but in Scotland the position as regards the recovery of charges differs somewhat from the English position, and does so in two respects. First there is in Scotland no procedure for obtaining maintenance orders; the person liable has to be sued in court like an ordinary debtor. Secondly, the persons liable to reimburse the Assistance Board differ in the two countries. In this first Amendment we propose to delete a provision that we in- serted to cover the difficulty in Scotland, but we find that, in fact, it does not do more than is done in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Bill. We think, therefore, that the position can safely be left under paragraph 5. As regards the second Amendment, we consider that, that since a limited class of people is being dealt with in the Bill under these provisions, a very limited number of people will be called upon to reimburse the Assistance Board. There is no necessity, as we have provided, to provide for recovery under two different sets of provisions, so we propose in the second Amendment to apply the English law to the whole of Great Britain.(2) Subsections (8) and (9) of section three shall not apply."
Amendment agreed to
Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 33, leave out paragraph ( a), and insert:
"(a) paragraph 3 shall have effect as if the Poor Law Act, 1930, extended to Scotland."—[Mr. Thomas Fraser.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 11.—( Application to Northern Ireland.)
I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, at the end, to insert:
This is to enable a Pole who happens to be in Northern Ireland and applies for, and is granted, assistance from the Assistance Board and wishes to appeal against the decision, to have the appeal heard in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that the Committee would desire to give him that facility."Provided that, in the application of that Act by virtue of this subsection, there shall be substituted, for references in that Act to the appeal tribunal constituted thereunder, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, references to the appeal tribunal constituted under the Unemployment Assistance Act (Northern Ireland), 1934, to the chairman thereof and to rules relating thereto, respectively."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page it, line 9, after "in," to insert "sections four to seven of."
This is a drafting Amendment to cure a verbal defect in the Bill.Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Ede.
On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I ask for your Ruling as to whether or not the new Clause which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary—[Continuance of provisions as to discipline and internal administration of certain Polish forces]—is in Order. I do not wish to take long on the point, but if I am successful on it, it will perhaps result in our going home rather earlier than we would otherwise have done.
I think it is generally accepted, and it is my submission, that any Clause in a Bill must be within the general scope of the Bill, and that any Clause which is outside the purpose of the Bill cannot be introduced on the Committee stage. In 1907 in the case of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which had been before the House of Commons in one form or another since 1856, so that the provisions were by then fairly familiar, it was held that a Clause dealing with the re-marriage of a divorced wife's sister, was out of Order. In those circumstances, my submission is that if a new Clause goes at all outside the general scope of the Bill, it is not permissible to introduce it on the Committee stage. This new Clause deals with a subject which is entirely foreign—What Clause? It has not been moved.
The hon. Member has raised a point of Order on it.
It is not before the Committee.
The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me, but I called upon the Home Secretary to move the new Clause, and it seems to me that it is in Order to raise a point of Order at this stage.
The proposed new Clause standing on the Order Paper deals with a subject which is entirely different from the main object of the Bill. Hitherto the purpose of the Bill has been to deal with aliens who owe allegiance to the Crown and with aliens for whom some Minister has some responsibility. What is now proposed, as a kind of "side kick" at the last moment, as far as I can see, is to repeal, in part, at any rate, the Bill of Rights, and to propose a provision which is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Army Act. It is of course within the competence of Parliament to do such things, but if it is desired to raise such matters, they should, at least, be announced on the Second Reading of the Bill and not at this late stage. Perhaps I might ask for your ruling, Major Milner, whether you consider this new Clause in Order.
Further to that point of Order—
The Home Secretary has not formally moved the new Clause, and it is not before the Committee, Perhaps he will formally move it, and I can deal with the point of Order.
New Clause—(Continuance Of Provisions As To Discipline And Internal Administration Of Certain Polish Forces)
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Further to the point of Order of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), in my submission, this Clause is not only extraneous to the purpose of the Bill, but is extraneous to the purpose of any Bill which has ever been before this House. The conception of a crime as known by law is an offence against an authority. That is the distinction between a crime and a mere offence like slander, which is an offence against an individual. Here we are dealing with and creating crimes when we have no sovereign authority which is being offended against. The second difficulty which arises from that matter is this: Where there is a crime, the trial is between parties, and where we have a criminal trial it is a trial between the sovereign authority—in this country the King—on the one hand, and the accused on the other. Here you are creating trials without a party. Lastly, there is this point that every crime, being an offence against a sovereign authority—
Perhaps the hon. Member will get to his point of Order. He cannot indulge in these discussions.
My point of Order, with respect, Major Milner, is to show that the purposes of this Clause are right outside the purposes of the Bill, and I do that by showing how the purposes arise. Since a crime is an offence against sovereign authority it is inherent in crime that the sovereign authority is in a position to forgive. The prerogative of mercy is inherent in a crime. Here, for the first time in our legal history, quite apart from the purposes of this Bill, we are creating an offence which is not subject to any prerogative of mercy.
The hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, but that is quite outside the point. The simple question is that put by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that this new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. I have considered that question. I have also considered the precedent which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I am satisfied that the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill. The analogy drawn was not an accurate one, because the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill and the other Bill mentioned, both covered a very narrow point. This Bill covers a wide range, and the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill, even if it is not within the Title of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is taking steps to deal with this last point in the last Amendment on the Order Paper. In my view, therefore, the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill.
With respect, Major Milner, you are giving your Ruling before you have heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He was developing his argument, I thought, clearly and very shortly. Certainly he had not finished developing a further argument to show that this new Clause could not be within the scope of the Bill. He was showing the very extraordinary nature and the quite unprecedented character of the Bill. Surely it is impossible for the Chairman to rule that something is within the Bill, until the argument has been heard showing exactly what it is that might prove it to be without the Bill. I humbly submit, Major Milner, that you should hear the argument on that before expressing an opinion.
It the hon. Member tot Northampton (Mr. Paget) wishes to develop any further relevant argument I am quite willing to hear him. But if he will forgive my saying so, the argument which both he and the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) have advanced, that this, subject matter is unprecedented, does not affect the question at all. Many things are done in this House which have not been done before. The simple question is whether the new Clause is within the scope of the Bill. I have considered that, and I had the advantage of a written communication from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who was good enough to let me have it in good time, and I must ask the Committee to accept my Ruling.
Although you have received an argument from the hon. Member for Hornchurch, Major Milner, and have considered it, there was going forward when you interrupted him, an equally good and an equally cogent argument by the hon. Member for Northampton. It is true that he said it was unprecedented, but some of us say things which are not the whole argument. That he was going on to say other things was quite clear. It is for you to say, Major Milner, whether those arguments are good or bad, but I respectfully submit that you should not say they are bad, until you have heard them.
1.15 a.m.
The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has made an observation which is ill-founded. He has put forward, as did the hon. Member for Ndrthampton (Mr. Paget) the argument that the new Clause was unprecedented. This was no ground whatever for ruling the new Clause out of Order, but if the hon. Member for Northampton has any fresh argument, I will hear it.
This is not a Bill to alter the Constitution of this country. The added Clause fundamentally alters the Constitution of this country, by introducing a new conception of crime, a new conception of trial, and by introducing an offence which is not to be subject to the prerogative of mercy. That prerogative was a subject considered in detail by this House during the Stuart period. But we are doing here, just by a whim during a Committee stage, the very thing which, after tremendous constitutional Debates, this House decided it had no power to do in the Stuart period.
I am not an authority on the Rules of Order, and I cannot speak, therefore, with the authority of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken previously. But, with respect, it would seem improper to introduce on the Committee stage of a Bill a new Clause, the terms of which have been held, by precedent, on previous occasions to be casus belli. I am quite sure that such a serious step as introducing a casus belli into a Bill ought not to he taken on a Committee stage. The proposals set out in this Clause seek to recognise the laws of another country which existed before a certain date in the past. That is precisely the procedure which was carried out by the court of the French kings in the first half of the eighteenth century, when they recognised, in so far as it concerned the king, the laws of Great Britain only so far as these laws were passed before 1689.
The hon. Member is not speaking on a matter of relevancy—he is speaking on the merits. May I sug gest that the Home Secretary should make a statement on the point of Order?
On a point of Order
I have asked the Home Secretary to speak.
I did make the promise al an earlier stage that, when we came to this Clause, I would make a statement. May I first refer to the question on which you, Major Milner, have ruled, namely, whether the Clause is within the scope of the Bill As has been said, this is an unprecedented situation, and in view of the misgivings which have been expressed, it was not my intention to proceed with the new Clause at this stage of the Bill.
Then why move it?
Unless I moved it, I could not make a statement on it. I should have thought that even a Tory Chief Whip would have known that. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to the House the form of words that I prefer, and which I intended to move on the Report stage, so that between now and then I can discuss the matter with all those who are concerned about this unprecedented situation. It is an unprecedented situation to bring into the British Army a unit of this composition, and at the same time to preserve the civil liberties of all persons within the Realm, whether they are in the Army or not. I desire to put these words on record before asking leave to withdraw the Motion. I think that they are a better form of words to secure the object we have in view, the ability to maintain discipline inside an organisation of Poles who have not agreed to come into the Resettlement Corps. The proposed new words are:
"(1) The Polish forces mentioned in paragraphs (a) and(b) of Subsecion (1) of Section one of this Act shall be under the command of a person of British nationality appointed by the Secretary of State, being a person appearing to him to have a good know- ledge, and to be experienced in the administration, of British military law.
Provided that the powers exercisable "—(2) It shall be lawful for the person for the time being having command as aforesaid of the said forces to exercise within the United Kingdom, as regards matters concerning discipline and internal administration, in relation to those forces all such powers as were conferred by the law of Poland in force on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-five, on military, air force and naval courts and authorities, and to delegate either generally or in particular cases, to authorities, commanders or other officers of those forces such of the powers exercisable by him by virtue of this Subsection as may appear to him to be requisite to be so delegated for securing the maintenance of discipline and efficiency of administration:
Does this really arise on the point of Order?
The right hon. Gentleman was reading the new words which he proposes to move on the Report stage, before asking leave to withdraw his Motion. Is it the wish of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should, if he is willing, discuss his new proposal at some later stage in the Bill?
Further to the point of Order. With great respect, Major Milner, at the beginning of the Home Secretary's speech I understood you to say that you were appealing to him to speak to the point of Order, to indicate why the new Clause on the Order Paper was in Order. It seemed to me that his departure from that point has rather altered the circumstances.
That was so But because I thought it was for the general convenience of the Committee, and in view of the turn which matters had taken—of which I had no previous notice—I permitted the Home Secretary to explain what he was proposing to do, by proceeding with his statement. This seemed to me to offer a way out of the difficulty.
On a point of Order. I am certain, Major Milner, that you put to the House the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I called "Aye," and I do not know how many other hon. Members did the same. Once you put Clause 12, the Committee stage of the Bill is finished, and I do not consider that any new Clause now is within the scope of the Bill. Am I to understand that after you have finished the Bill it is possible to take other Clauses?
The hon. Member must forgive me, but it is not only permissible but, indeed, the correct procedure, after the Clauses of a Bill have been dealt with, to consider new Clauses and the Schedules The hon. Member is quite in error.
Can we go on with them when they are out of Order?
I suggest that the Home Secretary be permitted to finish his statement.
He is out of Order.
With great respect, Major Milner, I should perhaps point out that I did in fact give notice to your Deputy who was in the Chair at an earlier stage of the proceedings that I was intending to adopt the course which I have followed. I am only anxious to get this Clause into print so that I can discuss it with hon. Members who may desire to do so. I was reading a proviso and, if I may, I will resume where I left off. It continues:
"Provided that the powers exercisable by virtue of this subsection shall not include power to impose the punishment of death on any person, and no person shall be imprisoned, or shall be held in detention for any period longer than three months, pursuant to any sentence of imprisonment or detention awarded in exercise of any of the said powers which may have been delegated as aforesaid except with the consent of the person for the time being having command as aforesaid.
(3)His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the application to any of the said forces, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as may be provided by the Order, of subsections (2) to (4) of section one, section two and subsections (2) and (4) of section three of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, as amended by or under any enactments whether passed before or after this Act.
Any Order in Council made under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
Provided that—(4)Nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court of the United Kingdom to try a member of any of the said forces for any act or omission constituting an offence against the law of the United Kingdom:
(a) if a person sentenced by an authority or person exercising jurisdiction by virtue of this section to punishment for an offence is afterwards tried by any civil court of the United Kingdom in respect of any act or omission which constitutes an offence, the civil court shall, in awarding punishment in respect of that act or omission, have regard to any punishment imposed on him by the said sentence; and (b) no authority or person shall have jurisdiction by virtue of this section to try any person for any act or omission constituting an offence for which he has been acquitted or convicted by any civil court in the United Kingdom."
1.30 a.m.
If I may say so with great respect, the Home Secretary has achieved a remarkable treble. He has confused the Committee, as far as I can understand it, he has confused you, Major Milner, and he has completely confused himself.
On a point of Order. What is before the Committee? Could you, Major Milner, make it quite clear?
I understand that the point of Order has been dropped. The Home Secretary has formally moved the Second Reading of the new Clause and he later proposes to withdraw it. I would say this to the Home Secretary with all respect, that it would have been more convenient if he had, in the first instance, not moved the new Clause standing in his name but contented himself by handing in his revised version to the Table, when it could have been printed on the Order Paper tomorrow morning.
What is the Motion, now?
The Motion is that the new Clause be read a Second time.
On a point of Order. Surely the position is quite a simple one. The Home Secretary made a statement to the Committee, and I was commenting on that statement. I hope I shall be allowed to continue my comments.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not do so at length, having regard to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was going to make.
We did not hear it down here.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will now put in a revised version to be printed on the Order Paper, and later there will be an opportunity for a Debate on it.
I quite agree it would be impossible to debate the merits of that rigmarole which the Home Secretary read out, because nobody could possibly understand those comments of the Home Secretary.
On a point of Order. Will you, Major Milner, make it clear to those of us below the Gangway what is the Motion before the Committee?
The Motion before the Committee is "That the Clause be read a Second time."
But, Major Milner, you have ruled the new Clause out of Order.
On the contrary, I distinctly ruled in reply to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that it was in Order and that is precisely what is before the Committee.
The Home Secretary has withdrawn the Clause and has tried to insert a new one which nobody has heard.
On the contrary, it has not yet been withdrawn, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was speaking on the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
How can we discuss whether this Clause should get a Second Reading when we have not yet decided that the original Clause should be withdrawn? You, Major Milner, have told us that the Home Secretaary has asked permission to withdraw it.
I think hon. Members can leave that to me. What we are discussing at the moment is the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time." I understand that, at some appropriate stage, later on, the Home Secretary will ask leave to withdraw it.
May I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again? Such a Motion, if accepted, will give the Government time to consider this whole matter.
I am afraid that I can not accept that Motion.
Major Milner, you just said that you had heard the point of Order and had ruled that the new Clause is not out side the scope of the Bill. I understood that that was the point raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) Having given that Ruling you did, I understand, go on to hear further pleas from a different point of view regarding this Clause. There was a second point of Order raised by the hon Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the new Clause was ultra vires on the Committee stage, in view of the fact that it involved a new precedent in constitutional law. I understood you had not vet given your Ruling on that point.
I thought that I had given it.. I will give it now. In my view, the new Clause does come within the scope of the Bill, and I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)
May we hear what the position is? As I understand, the Home Secretary has withdrawn the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said so. If he has withdrawn it, how can there be a point of Order on the new Clause?
He did not withdraw it.
What is the position now?. Is the new Clause not withdrawn?
I have already told hon Members what is the position. I will go over it once again. The Home Secretary moved at my request the Second Reading of the new Clause on the Paper. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a point of Order and that point of Order I disposed of. The Motion for the Second Reading of the new Clause is still before the Committee. At a later stage, the Home Secretary proposes to withdraw the new Clause, but hon. Members are at present entitled to discuss it.
On a point of Order. Surely the position is that you, Major Milner, were considering further arguments from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as to whether or not the proposed new Clause was within the scope of the Bill. Then at your suggestion, the Home Secretary spoke on that point of Order, and indicated a certain course that he would be prepared to take, which was inaudible down here. During that discussion, hon. Members sitting here, were waiting to hear what was going to be proposed by the Home Secretary in order to have an opportunity of advancing further arguments before you gave any Ruling on whether the proposed new Clause which was going to be moved, was or was not within the scope of the Bill. May I respectfully submit that it is in the interests of all that we should have some clarity in the Committee stage of these proceedings. There is a matter of constitutional importance involved in this, because this House gave a Second Reading to this Bill in a certain form. On the Committee stage, we find on the Order Paper a proposed new Clause which we now under stand is not to be moved.
It has been moved.
It has either not been moved, or it has been moved and withdrawn.
No.
It is going to be moved again. It does seem that there is a very important question of principle involved in this. The House gave a Second Reading to this Bill after a full day's Debate, and it is quite obvious from arguments advanced during the last few minutes that several hon. Members who supported it in its original form would not have done so if, at the outset, it had contained this proposed new Clause.
The hon. Member must forgive me, but the matter on which he is speaking is in no way connected with the proposed new Clause, which the Home Secretary is to put on some future Order Paper. The House on the Report stage presumably—
Which Clause?
The Clause which will be proposed when the present new Clause is withdrawn, and which will be put on the Order Paper for future discussion on the Report stage. I do not express any opinion on that proposed new Clause—it is not at the moment before the House. It will come before Mr. Speaker, presumably on the Report stage, and it will be for him to decide whether that new Clause, when it is put on the Order Paper and comes up on the Report stage, is in Order or not.
rose—
I must ask hon. Members to restrain their exuberance. The matter is perfectly clear. It is not proposed, I understand, to proceed with the new Clause at present on the Order Paper. The matter is perfectly open for the House to decide upon any future new Clause that the Home Secretary may put down, and is in no way prejudiced.
Further to that point, may I ask whether any hon. Member of this Committee will now be in Order in discussing the proposed hew Clause which was not on the Order Paper and which nobody except a few privileged people above the Gangway has heard?
They will not be in Order. I myself have not a copy of it, nor has it been put on the Table, and hence it cannot be discussed.
Perhaps. I may now address myself to the Motion which I understand the Home Secretary has moved namely—
On a point of Order—
No, I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat. The hon. Member has raised a number of quite false points of Order, and I must ask him to resume his seat. We must make progress. I am the servant of the Committee, and the Committee must make progress.
Hear, hear.
But, Major Milner, on a point of Order. This new Clause has been put down for Second Reading. The Second Reading must be before the House, and cannot be discussed in Committee. That is a fact.
Mr. Law.
I will now try once again to address myself to the new Clause which is on the Paper, and to the speech which the Home Secretary made in moving that this Clause on the Paper be now read a Second time. The only argument that he produced relevant to this Clause which he put on the Paper was that it was an extremely bad Clause and that he proposed to withdraw it. But I would like to offer the Home Secretary these reflections on his proceedings here this evening. About one and a half hours ago—
Is that in Order on this new Clause?
—I moved to report Progress, and the Home Secretary refused to accept the Motion on the ground that when we came to this new Clause he would make a statement so clear that it would solve all our troubles—
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks do not seem relevant to the Question whether the new Clause on the Order Paper should be read a Second time or not. That is the matter before the Committee.
I regret very much, Major Milner, that the Committee should have been put to any inconvenience through the course which I followed, and I sincerely apologise to all hon. Members on both sides for any inconvenience that has been so caused. I ask them to believe that I did it with the intention of trying to help the progress of the Bill, and to facilitate the progress of this business. But, like many other good intentions of myself and other people, that miscarried. I therefore beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the new Clause on the Order Paper.
The Committee are glad to have that expression of regret, and will no doubt accept it in the spirit in which it has been offered. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the new Clause be withdrawn?
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
Adjournment
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes to Two o'Clock.