With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the subject of the vesting date under the Electricity Act, 1947.

After careful consideration, and after consultation with the British Electricity Authority, I have come to the conclusion, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the vesting date should be 1st April, 1948, and I have made an Order today giving effect to this conclusion.

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

This Bill gives effect to the decision which was made by the Government, and announced by the then Secretary of State for War on 20th November, 1946—which I think, at the time, was generally approved by the House—that the Women's Services would continue on a voluntary basis to form a permanent feature of the Armed Forces, and that

"the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, with such changes in titles as might be necessary and appropriate to their altered status, will be incorporated in the Army and in the Royal Air Force respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20Th November 1946; Vol. 430; C. 859.]

The House was told at the same time, for reasons which I will explain later, that it was not the intention to make the Women's Royal Naval Service subject to the Naval Discipline Act, and accordingly this Bill does not apply to that Service.

All our experience has shown, and I am certain the House will agree, that manpower is one of the chief limitations on this country's capacity to wage a major war. We have seen it turn out to be necessary, both in the first great war and, more particularly, in the war which has ended recently, for us to employ women in large numbers and for a great variety of duties with all the Armed Forces. I do not know whether it is realised by the public—I know hon. Members here realise it—that well over half a million women served in His Majesty's Forces during the war. The Auxiliary Territorial Service actually reached a peak strength at one time of 212,000, the Women's Auxiliary Air Force reached 182,000, and the Women's Royal Naval Service nearly 75,000.

Thousands of women volunteered to assist the Services and there is general agreement about the magnificent contribution they made, and their complete success, whatever their duties might be, sometimes in clerical or domestic jobs, but also on occasions in posts requiring great individual courage, general adaptability and resource in other more active and more technical spheres. The House will recall with pride the work of the women in the anti-aircraft barrage defence, in the balloon barrage, and in the operations rooms of the Royal Air Force, where I had the privilege of seeing them at work many times during difficult bombing periods, and with highly technical and urgent signals to handle. I have never ceased to have a great admiration for them. If one could have shown a picture to the whole country of that enormous organisation of women, with the staff officers of the various Services who were behind that tremendous operation of the landing on the coast of Normandy, I think all would agree that we could never contemplate having to go into such wide operations again without having the best trained women for the purpose. Beyond doubt, therefore, the women have proved their worth to the Armed Forces and established their right to a place in those Forces in any future emergency, and they would certainly insist on exercising that right to the full.

The Auxiliary Territorial Service was constituted by Royal Warrant in September, 1938. The Women's Auxiliary Air Force did not separate from it as a self-contained service until June, 1939. There was all too little time to organise and train them before war broke out. I think one of the main lessons learned from this experience was the great difficulty of bringing about a rapid extension of these forces and fitting them into the most useful employment without some peacetime basis of experience, organisation and training. That is one main reason why, for the future, we want to maintain the Women's Forces permanently. Apart from that, they have an invaluable contribution to make to the maintenance of our necessary peacetime Forces. Only by continuous service and experience can the full value of women as members of the Armed Forces in peace or war be realised.

The original members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force were civilians, subject to the appropriate regulations only by virtue of an undertaking to observe them. When the war broke out, they remained on an essentially civilian basis, although legally they became to a very limited extent subject to military and Air Force law. This was not in keeping with the status they acquired by their duty; it was, moreover, a status which had major defects in the matter of discipline.

In 1941, by which time the Women's Services had expanded considerably, and were being employed on a much wider range of duties in substitution for men, it was decided to commission their officers and extend application to them of the further disciplinary provisions of the Army and Air Force Acts. Whole-time members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, together with women doctors and dentists and members of the Army and Air Force Nursing Services, were then declared to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown by the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations, 1941, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. These regulations made them subject to the Army and Air Force Acts to such extent as might be specified by the Army and Air Councils. Later by reason of their service overseas, where Defence Regulations did not apply, a similar provision was embodied in Section 176 (A) of the Army and Air Force Acts by the Army and Air Force Annual Act, 1943. Under these provisions, the Army and Air Force Acts were applied, though again only to a limited extent, to the Women's Forces; their commanding officers were, for example, empowered to administer certain summary punishments.

Defence regulations are, however, temporary in their operation, and the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations will come to an end in 1950. This Bill is intended to put the Women's Forces, including reserve and auxiliary elements, on a permanent basis and at the same time to bring them generally on to the same disciplinary basis as men. Naturally in practice the code of discipline employed in the Army and Air Force Acts will be administered in relation to the Women's Forces with due regard to their sex; but, with one or two exceptions, it is intended that they shall, in law, be subject to disciplinary processes and penalties similar to those which are applied in the case of men. The Women's Auxiliary Air Force will be very closely integrated with the Royal Air Force proper. Members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, while in the main continuing to serve as members of a women's corps, will, nevertheless, frequently be serving in mixed units side by side with men. In these circumstances, broadly similar codes of discipline are clearly desirable, subject to the point I have already made as to their practical application to women.

The House will expect me to say a word or two about the position of the Women's Royal Naval Service. Members of that service have never been declared to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown in the same way as the Auxiliary Territorial Service or the Women's Auxiliary Air Force. They were not included in the Defence (Women's Forces) Regulations, 1941, as were their sister services. They have remained a civilian organisation, and it is intended that they should continue to do so. They will be considerably smaller numerically than the women's components of the Army and the Air Force, both because the Navy will itself comprise a smaller personnel than the Army or the Royal Air Force, and because the scope for employing women in a Service which spends much of its time at sea is necessarily much more restricted.

For the same reason, the Women's Royal Naval Service will not be so closely integrated with the Navy as will the other Women's Services with the Army and the Royal Air Force. Moreover, the policy of retaining the Women's Royal Naval Service on a civilian basis is not inconsistent with many other parts of the Naval system under which ancillary services—for example, the supply service—are run by civilians, although in the Army and the Royal Air Force they are organised on a military basis. It is intended therefore, that W.R.N.S. are to retain their existing civilian status. This difference in practice has been accepted hitherto. It has operated in practice very satisfactorily. We therefore see no reason to change it. My terms of reference as a Minister enjoin me to secure that the Services follow the same policy in matters of common concern where this "is desirable." For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think a common policy in this matter is strictly necessary and I hope the House will accept that.

Turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, to a considerable extent they merely make permanent the existing temporary provisions of emergency legislation. Clause 1 extends the statutory power to raise air forces, embodied in the Air Force Constitution Act, 1917, to cover women, and declares that the prerogative power, not embodied in any Statute, to raise regular land forces, is similarly extended. It also extends the statutory powers to raise Army and Air Force reserves and auxiliary forces, to include forces composed of women. The Clause covers not only the regular women's components of the Army and the Royal Air Force, but also women's reserve, auxiliary and territorial forces, and women doctors and dentists. It will also cover the Army and Air Force Nursing Services, whose members at present have commissioned status in the Army and Air Force by virtue of the Defence Regulations to which I have referred. Clause 2 empowers women to hold commissions in the land or air forces and in the corresponding reserve and auxiliary forces.

The first part of Clause 3 makes what I will call a general translation in all the enactments, including in particular the Army and Air Force Acts, which affect men of the Army and Air Force. It provides that in all these enactments the words referring to men shall be read as if they included also members of the Women's Forces, who will thus be put on the same legal basis as soldiers and airmen. The second part of Clause 3 enables any necessary consequential modifications of enactments to be made by Order in Council, subject to affirmative Resolution. This provision is intended to cover three things:—first, it is intended to enable certain modifications to be made in the Army and Air Force Acts for application to the Women's Forces in addition to the general translation provided for in the first part of Clause 3. In this respect it merely continues the existing provision in Defence Regulations and in Section 176 (A) of the Army and Air Force Acts, which enable those Acts to be applied in whole or in part as modified or amended by instructions of the Army and Air Councils to whole time members of the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force. Instructions of the Army and Air Councils modifying the Army and Air Force Acts for this purpose are not subject to the control of the House and, in the view of the Government, are not therefore appropriate instruments in peacetime. Procedure by, Order in Council, subject to affirmative Resolution, has, therefore, been substituted in this Bill.

Secondly, Clause 3 (2) will enable us to apply to the Women's Forces the provisions of a small number of enactments which clearly should apply to them, but which are not legally made to apply simply by the general translation effected by Clause 3 (1). An example is the Disabled Persons Employment Act, which gives disabled members of the Forces certain advantages as regards training for and placing in employment. I am advised that a specific Amendment to this Act will be necessary to cover members of the new Women's Forces; this will be made by Order in Council, to be submitted to the House. Thirdly, although all Statutes known to be affected by the first part of Clause 3 have been carefully reviewed, without, as one would expect, revealing any that cannot properly apply to women, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that, as the result of experience, it may be necessary at some time in the future to limit or amend the operation of a particular Statute on members of the new Women's Forces. Clause 3 (2) would enable this to be done by Order in Council.

Clause 4 provides that the National Service Acts, and particularly the 1947 Act, are not to be extended to cover women. There is, of couse, no intention of departing from the position which I made quite clear during last year's Debate on National Service that women would not be made subject to the National Service Acts, but it might conceivably be argued that the general translation by Clause 3 (1) of references to men so as to include references to women, brings women within their operation. To avoid any such misunderstanding the possibility has been specifically ruled out in Clause 4.

The new women's components of the Army and the Royal Air Force will be constituted on a date to be fixed by Order in Council as soon as the necessary administrative preliminaries can be completed. When they are constituted, members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the W.A.A.F. who are at present serving will have the opportunity of volunteering to transfer to them and of finding in them opportunities for a stable peace time career. I want to make it clear, however, that these new forces will be entirely voluntary. No one will be compelled to serve in them. I am, nevertheless, quite certain from my experience of these Services that we shall find that in these conditions the new forces will attract willing volunteers and that they will worthily carry on the high traditions of their predecessors, and bring still more honour and distinction to the Women's. Forces.

I never forget all the services the women rendered during the war. Surely, there is no more shining example of deliberate cold-blooded courage than that of those members of the Women's Forces who parachuted into France in the heart of the enemy-occupied territory to do work which heartened and encouraged the Resistance movement there. We are very proud of them. We think it is a good thing to recognise their achievements and to put them into the Regular Forces in this way. With this brief, but I hope sufficiently detailed, explanation, the House will, I trust, give a Second Reading to the Bill.

This Bill is not quite as simple and uncontroversial as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I have quite a number of questions to put which I have no doubt will be answered by the Minister who is to reply to the Debate. Before putting those questions, I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying my tribute to the value of the Women's Services during the war. Naturally, I did not have the great official experience which the right hon. Gentleman had, but I had considerable experience of those Services, because I was connected with welfare in London, working under a noble Lord in another place, Lord Nathan, who, as the House will agree, did most admirable work in connection with welfare in its earlier days. I saw the growth of the A.T.S. and I also had the opportunity, late in the war, of paying a visit, at the invitation of the then General Officer Commanding the Air Defences of Great Britain, to see the magnificent work of the Women's Services in what might be called the English front line at the time when the V.I's and the V.2's were coming over.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill places the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F. on a statutory footing, and applies to them, subject to adaptations and modifications, military and other law applicable to the Army and the R.A.F. My first point of comment, if not of criticism, is that, despite the intention which has been expressed on more than one occasion to increase uniformity and co-ordination between the three Services, the reason which is indeed responsible for the right hon. Gentleman's official existence as Minister of Defence, opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to include the W.R.N.S. as well as the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F.

I would like to examine a little more fully than did the right hon. Gentleman the reason for that decision. I thought he skated over it rather lightly. He attempted to excuse the lack of uniformity by saying that there were certain differences between the organisation of the Navy and the other two Forces, and he referred to the Supply Services. Frankly, I do not think that that is any analogy whatever. Because the Navy happens to have certain Supply Services which are more or less under civilian control seems to me to be no reason for not having the W.R.N.S. put on the same footing as the other two Women's Services. I do not want to introduce unnecessary controversy into this Debate, but I feel bound to say that the real answer was not given by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that he has not succeeded in persuading the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Naval advisers that it is desirable. We all know the great power which the Admiralty always has vis-a-vis the other Services. Without breaking the Official Secrets Act, those of us who have held high office in connection with the Services know the constant struggle that goes on, and I am sure that privately the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me in that regard.

Between the Ministers?

The struggle that goes on between the three Services is not merely between Ministers but more often between their Service advisers. It has always gone on and always will, but it was hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman was created Minister of Defence that struggle would be abated.

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is a most popular and respected Member of this House, but in his Ministerial capacity he appears to be figuratively, though not physically, a rather dim and insubstantial person. He has certainly missed the opportunity, in this Bill, of seeing that that co-ordination takes place. I have listened carefully to his remarks and I see no reason why the W.R.N.S. should not have been included. I do not think it is satisfactory to have two women's forces on one basis and the third women's force on an entirely different basis. I hope we shall have from the Minister who replies some much fuller explanation than that given by the right hon. Gentleman.

That is not the only difficulty about this Bill and the regulations under it. I think that in the opinion of all hon. Members, on whichever side of the House they sit, and especially those who represent garrison or dockyard towns, who have given attention to these matters, there is an unsatisfactory state of Statute law in regard to the Armed Forces. There are already separate Statutes governing the service obligations of the Regular soldier, the Volunteer, the territorial and the National Service man. In the opinion of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, there should be consolidation and codification of all the Statutes under which persons serve. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that that matter is being considered. It is relevant to consideration of this Bill. I would point out, though I have not the quotation by me, that such codification was distinctly promised during the passage of the National Service Act, 1947. The promise was given by a Minister, a noble Lord in another place, and I wish to ask whether we can receive any information upon it.

Regarding the reference to Orders in Council, the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very adroit and popular Parliamentarian, suggested that everyone in this House loved Orders in Council. Certainly the Government do. It is their fetish and glittering idol. For my part, I wish to see many more things put into the law, so that we know where we stand. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was making a great concession to the House, because he was proposing to deal with many of the regulations by Orders in Council. Some of these adaptations may be very far-reaching, and while it may be necessary, as an interim measure, to have Orders in Council, in my opinion they should, sooner or later, be embodied in appropriate statutory law. I think that is only fair from the point of view of the people in the Services.

One point which I wish to put may seem to be in contradiction to what I have just said. I admit that here my argument may appear weak, but I merely ask for information. As the Secretary of State for War will be aware, the A.T.S. throughout the war insisted on what might be termed a double command. While for their actual duties the women were under the command of the appropriate Army officer, they were, for discipline and welfare, subordinate to their own hierachy. I think that is a fair description of the situation. It had the effect, which I think was valuable, of enabling the special interests of the A.T.S. to be protected, and their case to be presented at all levels up to the Army Council. I understand that under this Bill that will be abolished.

The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to it, and I think that it will be agreed that in peace time, just as much as, if not more than, in war time, the success of the Women's Services will depend on the quality, and particularly upon the training, of the officers and noncommissioned officers. A scheme has recently been presented—I do not wish to trouble the House with particulars of it—in a paper issued by the War Office for the training of A.T.S. officers. On the face of it, the scheme appears to be satisfactory. It is clear that the Secretary of State for War and his advisers attach great importance to this matter. I would like to have an assurance that there will be no attempt at unwise economy by the shortening or pruning of the initial or higher training of officers and non-commissioned officers of the Women's Services. It would be out of Order to make more than a passing reference by way of parallel to what is taking place in the Army generally. There is one feature apparent in the Army generally, and that is that great care is taken with the training of officers and non-commissioned officers. I wish to see the same thing applied to the Women's Services.

It will be generally agreed by those who have experience of such matters that during the war an adequate proportion of married women in the officers corps of the Women's Services was desirable for a number of reasons. That idea always was favoured by the Army, the Higher Command and the War Office. I would like to know the Government's policy in regard to the employment of married women as officers or other ranks. I admit it will be more difficult in peace-time conditions, and there will probably be a lower proportion of married women than is desirable and to be expected in war time, but, so far as I know, there has been no announcement by the Government on this matter, either in reply to Questions, or in any statement. I wish to know, also, whether we are to have any statement of plans for part-time A.T.S. That affects this Bill, at any rate indirectly. I would add, by way of comment, that experience before the war, and in the F.A.N.Y's., showed that annual camps and part-time Women's Services were as essential an element as they were in the Territorial Army.

Wide latitude is always allowed by custom on the Second Reading of a Bill to raise questions which are analogous to the matters dealt with by the Bill. I think, therefore, it is appropriate to ask the Government whether some announcement may be made on the question of purely voluntary organisations, and I use the term "voluntary" in the sense of those who are not in the Regular Services. I do not think the establishment in peace time of a full-time and part-time A.T.S. will render superfluous such voluntary organisations as the F.A.N.Y.'s and the W.V.S.

If it is impossible, or the Government consider it would not be in Order to give an explicit answer to that question in connection with this Bill, I would request that they do so when we come to the Debate on the White Paper on Defence. It is very important that we should be aware of the intentions of the Government in regard to these Services. Though they were voluntary and not directly subject to Parliamentary control and Government responsibility, these organisations during the war showed themselves able to fulfil roles in which the employment of the A.T.S. was either refused by the Government, or only tardily conceded. It was for this reason that F.A.N.Y.'s were able to do work in Burma before the despatch to that theatre of any regular Women's Services was authorised.

I hope there will be all-party agreement with this Bill. I see no reason why it should be voted against at this moment. I hope that the Government will be able to give an answer to the points which I have ventured to make, and that they will be borne in mind when the general Defence Debate takes place. I end on a note which will be received with universal agreement. The Women's Services have proved to be an integral and essential part of the defence of this country. I hope it will not be wounding to any other country, or our Allies, to say that no country in the last war employed women more fully, efficiently or effectively in the Defence Services than did this country. All in this House, whatever our ordinary political views may be, will take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the magnificent service which those women performed, and also a tribute to those of them who lost their lives in giving that service.

Subject to the reservation that I look forward to the time when national armies, navies and air forces will have given place to an international force, I welcome this Bill. There is no doubt that a very large number of women will expect to find a career open to them in the Forces. Knowing that to be true, I am glad that, with the exception of two important matters, I can regard this as an egalitarian Measure. Those of us who had anything to do with the Women's Forces during the war must agree with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that they formed an absolutely essential part of our Services. As in almost every other walk of life, men would be of very little use if they were not supported by the work of women. During the war, it was obvious that the great base of the Army in many forms of ancillary service was formed by the Women's Services.

The first point I wish to discuss is one which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord. I was distinctly dissatisfied with the statement of the Minister of Defence that the W.R.N.S. are not to take their share in this new Service. One knows the standing of the Senior Service. I presume that we find here some analogy to the House of Lords—the last place from which women are excluded. Those who remember how difficult it was to get into the W.R.N.S. realise what magnificent material did eventually enter that Service. We recognise the intelligent and splendid work done by W.R.N. writers and cooks alike, as well as by their commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and we are astonished that the Navy have not welcomed them with open arms. Certainly that is what I would have expected. The Minister of Defence must find some better excuse than the one already put forward if we are not to assume that the noble Lord was right in his view as to why they have been left outside this new integrated Force.

The House will expect me to raise another matter. How long are we to wait for the women in the Forces to get the rate for the job? I must assume, though I would like a definite answer, that where doctors and dentists are concerned they will get the rate for the job. If these Forces are to be integrated in the way explained this morning, it is obvious that women will be doing exactly the same work as men in many spheres. I should have thought this new Measure provided an opportunity for the Government to make some practical expression of their faith on this important economic matter.

I am glad that the noble Lord raised the question of the marriage bar. I am not sure whether or not it is intended that it should operate. I hope it is not intended. One appreciates that it is difficult for married women in peace time to do very much work outside their homes but we are constantly urging them to undertake jobs. I should have thought that on home stations we would have found extremely important work for married women to do, in cases where their husbands are engaged on work which takes them to foreign stations, and if women are to go there, it would be an enormous help to girls in the Forces to have married women stationed there also. I should be very sorry to see any kind of marriage bar, and no doubt the Minister who replies to this Debate will be able to explain the situation.

On the question of discipline, I am not such a determined feminist that I think every kind of discipline, and every kind of sanction which applies to a man, must necessarily apply to a woman. I would very much regret to see some of the inhuman disciplines that are applied to men in the Forces being applied to women. I hope that with our new attitude towards women we may hope to see in the Army a changed attitude shown in regard to the men. That kind of thing has often occurred, for example, in Factory Acts. The gentler attitude towards women has pushed open a door which has made things very much better for men as well. Those of us who deeply disapprove of the kinds of discipline so often applied to men in the Forces hope to see the entrance of women having its effect on the discipline applied to men.

I am not sure how far the Forces really are to be integrated. My right hon. Friend said that there would be mixed groups of men and women. I do not know whether the women's commanding officers are to be separated as they were during the war. My right hon. Friend did not explain that point. I hope that he will make clear how far a woman who is a commissioned officer or a non-commissioned officer will be integrated with the commissioned and non-commissioned officers among the men. Also I hope that he will explain whether the women's commanding officers are only to deal with the cases of women, and whether the senior officers or directors of the Women's Services, will be concerned primarily with women's welfare.

My final reason for welcoming this Bill is that on many occasions I have had to call attention to the bad show the women get in the case of Army education. During the latter days of demobilisation we were frequently told, "Well, you know, the women cannot have this or that course; they are very busy and must do some particular piece of work." Over and over again, we found that the women were doing work which was properly men's work, while the men got the educational courses and the women missed them. I assume that, if there is to be complete integration, the educational courses for the women will be exactly the the same as the educational courses for the men though, naturally, more suited to women's needs.

On all these grounds, I welcome the Bill. I believe it to be an egalitarian Measure. I hope that the Minister who replies to the Debate will take note of my comments. I would particularly like to know whether there is any chance of more favourable treatment for the W.R.N.S. All hon. Members feel that this Bill is really a tribute to the magnificent courage of the women during the war, and their desire in peacetime to make the Forces a career and to get a proper training equal to the training given to the men. We hope to see them treated as the intelligent, important part of the Services which they really will become.

I have little to add to what has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), though I cannot go the whole way with her regarding discipline. Perhaps I may be considered to be a rather bigoted believer in discipline as the most important single preparatory thing for men who are about to fight. Although I see her point, I hope that the incursion of the A.T.S. into the Army will not have too astonishing an effect on the sergeant-major. Of course, that will remain to be seen.

I join in what has been said regretting that the W.R.N.S. are not included in this Measure. We cannot tell the exact reasons, but I must say that I heard no convincing or good reason put forward by the Minister of Defence. Possibly what has happened is that the First Sea Lord has said, as far as the Navy is concerned, that, in the words of Mr. Sam Goldwyn, "You can include them out." The Minister of Defence said one argument was that it would be difficult to include W.R.N.S. in a service which spends most of its time at sea, but with our present Navy that seems a very poor argument indeed.

I also join in regretting the fact that this Bill contains a great deal of delegated legislation and Orders in Council. That cannot be a good thing, especially for the Services who like to know where they stand in these matters. I cannot help feeling that it is a habit when preparing a Bill to leave things out, the view, of course, being, "We shall say anything we think of later." It seems to me that a great many things have been left out which might well have been stated.

I would like to follow the noble Lord the Member for Horsham in his remarks about voluntary organisation. It seems to me that the fact that we are going to have a corps of Regular women in the Services in no way diminishes the importance of the voluntary element, whose contribution in war is a very large and important one. For that reason, I very much hope that the Regular women in the Forces will not take complete charge, to an undue extent, of the voluntary effort which comes into existence in a war. I believe that would be most unfortunate; it is most unfortunate in the men's side but it would be even more unfortunate in the women's side.

I am told on all sides that it was found in the war that many of the most important posts were filled to a large extent, and filled very well, by married women. Probably many Members of the House had experience, as I have experienced, that married women are very good commanders. Perhaps they have a great deal of experience as leaders of men in their civil life. It is likely, however, that the proportion of married women will be unduly low and I hope if and when war comes—and we pray it will not—and we have more volunteers, that there will be good fusion among the more important posts, which should not be retained to an undue extent, as they sometimes are in the men's forces, for the Regular element.

I hope that in this system, the women will think out and put forward to some extent their own suggestions and their own policy for ensuring a really good and smooth mobilisation of the voluntary elements in wartime, because I think women have not had very much opportunity of thinking out their schemes in peacetime. One thing which should be organised in the event of war or of mobilisation is a scheme whereby a really rapid team of secretaries and clerks would be available. At the outbreak of the last war the shortage of clerks and secretaries made things absolutely chaotic for a time, and I can well remember when G.H.Q. went to France there was an extremely difficult problem on the clerical side, a difficulty which was enhanced by the fact that the typewriters were all lost on the way out. The boxes were then found and were opened with great ceremony and were found to contain the saddles for the Duke of Gloucester's chargers. This sort of thing happens in war. A great deal of chaos could be avoided if many girls were earmarked so that they could go immediately to their wartime posts, because that needs no previous training but is of absolutely inestimable value to those who are working very hard with the enormous amount of paper which is necessary nowadays in the conduct of a war.

I join with other Members who have spoken in welcoming this Bill and I should also like to pay my small tribute to what the women did in the last war. The Minister of Defence mentioned the astonishing bravery of the women parachutists behind the lines in France, and that really was an extraordinary performance, but I would also like to mention the countless women who carried out the most dreary dull and unglamorous jobs, working very long hours, in a way which was rewarded with little or no notice throughout the country. Nevertheless, these women did release a large number of men to be employed elsewhere fighting, and they assisted the smooth running of that immense administrative burden which war imposes and in the jobs which have to be done but which many people do not like doing. With the establishment of women in the Forces it will be the duty of everybody in the Regular Forces to see that they are not only welcomed, but are given the fullest opportunity to display their talent.

I regret that, unlike previous speakers, I cannot welcome this Bill. I am opposed to it because it is a further step towards acquiescence in the belief that we must organise for war. I believe this is a view which must be challenged on all occasions, whether they arise on big Bills or small Bills. The more I listened to the discussions and the explanations of this Bill, especially by the Minister of Defence, the more I am convinced that this Bill should be scrutinised very carefully by Members. Last Friday I ventured to put what I thought was a very relevant question to the Minister of Defence when I asked him what sort of a war we are preparing for. We got no reply. The Minister of Defence looked as if he had been torpedoed amidships. He sat there and it was like "The Wreck of the Hesperus":

"The skipper answered never a word,

For a frozen corpse was he"

We have had no more enlightenment as to why women are to be organised into the war machine than we had in explanation of the Marines Bill last week. I hope I shall always oppose any extension of military activity in this country because I believe it is perfectly futile, and because I am asking a question which the right hon. Gentleman who was the Secretary for India in the last Government asked in a Sunday paper last week: "After all, were not Mr. Gandhi's ideas the most effective way of keeping peace throughout the world?" I wish Mr. Amery had been present in this House to put that point. I always look at these Bills in the light of the general background of what happened in the last war and what is likely to happen in the next war. What kind of activity is to be asked from these women? I join entirely with the tributes paid to the courage of the women in the war. It was very courageous—probably one of the most wonderfully courageous things done in this world—to go down on a parachute into a France occupied by Nazi troops. It would also require a very great deal of courage for a woman to parachute into Soviet Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the United States."] Or the United States, or any other country.

We are very careful to avoid in these discussions facing up to the realities: who is this war to be against and what sort of war is it likely to be? The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) have talked about co-ordination of the different Services. There seems to have been no co-ordination by the War Office on this question of how the women are to be used. Last Tuesday the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) put a Question about the headquarters of the A.T.S. in Windsor, and asked whether the Secretary of State would:

"give an assurance that as soon as alternative accommodation is found for the A.T.S. at present occupying the Imperial Service College in Windsor, these premises will be derequisitioned and handed back to the Windsor Borough Council."

Apparently the welcome given by this hon. Member to the A.T.S. is to try to get them ejected from their headquarters at Windsor. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton asked:

"Is the Secretary of State aware that part of his own flock, namely, the Household Cavalry, are in urgent need of these premises also?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1948; Vol. 446, col. 1635.]

There appears to be a question here of the relativity of importance. I cannot understand this co-ordination when the military Members of this House are anxious to know whether the headquarters of the A.T.S. will be handed over to the borough council or requisitioned for the Household Cavalry. My prejudices are in favour of the Windsor Borough Council. Every office existing at the present time is needed for housing somebody, and I do not believe the housing situation either in Windsor or anywhere else is so good that we can afford to contemplate an extension of the A.T.S. and so make further housing difficulties for the local authorities through premises being requisitioned to accommodate the recruits.

We are not agreed as to what kind of headquarters this organisation is to have. What are we going to do when the strength of the organisation is increased? There is only in this country a certain amount of woman power, and how are these recruits to be obtained for these women's Services? Are they to be obtained from the very small proportion of women who are unemployed? Are we going to have competition between the organisers of the A.T.S. and other organisations, such as the nursing service which are anxious to enrol women labour? I object very strongly to a recruiting campaign for the A.T.S. at a time when in Scotland we are short of nurses to the extent of 4,500, many of whom are needed to nurse the tuberculosis victims of the last war.

Are we going to compete for the women with those services which are supplying personnel so badly needed in the hospital services? Is this extension of the A.T.S. to be in opposition to and in competition with the Women's Land Army. The Women's Land Army is of immensely more importance than any of the activities the A.T.S. are contemplating. Only last evening I saw in an evening paper that 30,000 women were likely to be brought over to this country to work in the textile industry. These German women are needed here because there is a shortage of labour in our factories. There is a shortage of woman power in the hospitals, in the Land Army and in industry. On them depends our future as a country because we need an expand- ing export trade to which women workers contribute so much. This is not the time to take away from our woman power to provide women for the A.T.S.

I want to know precisely what these ladies are going to do? I have read a sort of preliminary statement put out by the War Office, and I am not at all convinced—I hope the Secretary of State for War will pay some attention to this argument when he replies—that these ladies will be serving a useful purpose in the A.T.S. when they can be employed in any of the other services which I have mentioned. In the "Star" of Tuesday evening we were told that the Sandhurst A.T.S. will get 4s. a day. In what way are they going to be trained? We had some pertinent questions from the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton about the training for soldiers and marines and we got absolutely no satisfaction from the Front Bench. Last week the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty told us that these details would be worked out later. In other words, the practical details of training are to be worked out after they get the men. First they want the men, and then, afterwards, they will think of what they are going to do with them. That is precisely what we are going to do with the women.

Here is this "Star" report and from it it seems to me quite obvious that the organisers of the A.T.S. have simply no conception of what training is to be adopted for the new personnel. I read this:

"Visits to factories and magistrates' courts will be in the syllabus of the A.T.S. who will train for commissions under the new War Office scheme"

I should like the Secretary of State for War to explain that. These ladies will be visiting factories watching other people work when the need is to man the factories. The second item in the syllabus is that they are to visit the police courts. Why the police courts? In the old days there used to be beautiful recruiting posters on the hoardings of the country declaring, "Join the Army and see the world." Some of the men of this country joined the Army and saw far too much of the world. Now the new slogan issued by the publicity department of the War Office is, "Join the Women's Service and see the underworld." If the War Office can think of nothing else for these ladies to do except visit factories to watch other people work and go to the police courts, there is no reason why this House should pass the Bill, certainly not until we get some idea of what these people are going to do and how the taxpayers' money is to be spent.

The Minister of Defence spoke about discipline. That is a word that always has some meaning for me. His argument was that it was necessary to apply to these women the same regulations in regard to disciplinary treatment as apply to men. I have some idea of the disciplinary treatment applied to men. I have been in a military detention camp, and I do not want to see an extension to women of the discipline adopted there, because that is what the Minister of Defence means when his words are worked out to their logical conclusion. If that is not what is meant, what is meant? Are we to give power to courts martial to sentence women to terms of military detention? The skipper still answers never a word. Are we to send these ladies to military detention camps run by the War Office, or are we to have special military detention camps for women? I shall never vote for establishing a military system which will result in court martialling women and sending them to military detention camps.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said that this was an egalitarian Measure for women and that she welcomed it as such. But that is precisely what it is not. Clause 4 of the Bill says:

"Nothing in this Act or done thereunder shall render a woman liable to be called up for service under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1947."

Thus men are to be in the unfavourable position of being conscribed while women are not. If the hon. Lady did believe in a really egalitarian Measure, she would have suggested that women should be conscribed as well. She also spoke about education in the A.T.S. I wish that hon. Members, before this Bill is passed, would read the Report of the Committee on Amenities and Welfare Conditions in the three women's services. It is an interesting document from which I wish to make one or two brief quotations. It was written by a committee set up by this House, which committee went very thoroughly into the organisation of the A.T.S. The Report is very interesting and lucid, and with a great deal of it I agree. It says:

"The widespread ignorance about current affairs in the Army had attracted the attention of all thoughtful regimental officers. Many men had not even an elementary idea of why the country was at war. Yet, clearly, a man who understands what he is fighting for fights better than one who does not."

The organisation of education has been dealt with briefly, but I would ask for some assurance that there will be some reasonable education for these people enlisted in the Forces.

I apologise for having taken up so much time, and I am sorry to disturb the unanimity in the House, but I believe that it is the duty of those who take a realistic view of what the next war will be like and of what it will mean, not to tinker about with the A.T.S., but to face the fact that it is a fundamental change in our international policy that can be the effective defence for this country in the event of another war.

I want to say a word or two on the disciplinary aspect of the Bill. My reason for doing so is that during the war I had a fairly considerable experience of dealing with disciplinary problems in the Army; and I had also a slight and short experience of dealing with those problems in the A.T.S. As far as I was concerned, if I had had any control over my appointment to do that particular work with the A.T.S., it would have been of even shorter duration than it was, because it was not altogether a pleasant or easy task. My experience was that courts martial under the Army Act were totally inappropriate for administering discipline, and I am sorry to see that this method is to be perpetuated by the Bill.

Although its application to the A.T.S. was modified then, as I see it is to be modified now, my view was that an Act, which, after all, applies the very stringent discipline required in a fighting force of men, however modified, could not be expected to work with women. Members of the A.I.S. could be court-martialled only for absence without leave or for the conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, and they could be sentenced only to 14 days' confinement to barracks. So we had all the lengthy rigmarole of officers coming to a long trial very often over some trivial matter, and at the end the unfortunate girl was sentenced to 14 days' confinement to barracks. I do not think the discipline of the A.T.S. or anyone else was in the slightest degree advanced by that. It was different in the case of officers, because they could be dismissed the Service, and that, of course, was the heaviest sentence.

There must be some method of control in such a force as this, but I do not think it should be by the Army Act. I am certain a method of discipline could he worked out by the officers themselves. I am fortified in this belief because the W.R.N.S. during the war—and now—did not come under the Naval Discipline Act, and yet nobody has ever suggested that their discipline or the way in which they behaved were in any way adversely affected by it. I do not know how they ordered their affairs, but I am certain, judging by their standards and by their qualities, to which tribute has been paid, that there was no lack of discipline amongst them. I do not think the Army Act or the Air Force Act are of the slightest assistance in respect of the other Women's Services. I do not pretend to say how the method of maintaining discipline should be worked out, but I am certain that the good sense of the officers concerned would enable them to evolve a code which would work perfectly well, and that it is not necessary to bring in all the business which is inseparable from the operation of the Army Act. Trying girls and sentencing them by court martial is inappropriate, and I am sorry to see it perpetuated by Clause 3 of the Bill.

I should like to make an observation on the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have seldom heard a speech in this House so far removed from present-day realities. He talked about organising for war. No one suggests that this Bill is an attempt to organise for war. It is a Bill to bring women into the Services as an insurance against war. The hon. Member said that women entering the Services should be doing other jobs; but by entering the Services women will be relieving men who will be able to go to jobs in the factories. This country has gone far enough in giving a lead to other countries in the reduction of armed Forces.

I welcome the Measure, with the one exception that it does not extend to the W.R.N.S. I should like to have seen the scope of the Bill extended to cover all three women's Services. The women of all three Services did a magnificent job of work throughout the war; indeed, I sometimes wonder if, without their assistance, we should have won the war.

Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind new names for the women's Services? Surely, they are not to continue under the old names? I should have thought that this would have been the appropriate time to announce to the country new names for the women's Services.

In supporting the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) in her plea for the rate for the job I do not wish to get involved in the controversial subject of equal pay, but I must say that there is a very strong case for paying these women more than they receive at present. In the W.A.A.F., the airwomen have been given a token increase of 8d. and the officers of 1s., but in some cases their pay is still well below two-thirds that of the men. That must be rectified. These women do their work well, and in some cases do the job better than the men, particularly in certain operational matters, such as the handling of radar, in photography, and in numerous other directions.

I hope the Minister will examine this problem and give the women some encouragement. All the Services are underpaid, but a woman, who gets less than two-thirds the pay of a man, has insufficient to keep her in nylons, and her other needs. I welcome the integration proposal, because from my war experience I believe that women work particularly well under the direction of male officers—sometimes better than under the command of female officers—and I hope that will be continued. I welcome this Bill except for the fact that the W.R.N.S. are not included. The women's Services have earned their places in all three arms, and I take this opportunity of wishing them good luck, for I am sure they will render valuable service to our country.

First, let me say how pleased I am at the introduction of this Bill which gives women the chance of a career in the Armed Forces. They did magnificent work during the war, and it is a just reward that those who wish to continue to serve in the future should have the opportunity of making it a career. I regret very much that the W.R.N.S. have not been included. I cannot understand why that should be so when such a Measure is introduced, and when all the Armed Forces are being re-organised. During the war I was a provost officer in the Royal Air Force, and had many opportunities of seeing the difficulties which arose. As far as I could make out, the only reason why the W.R.N.S. were different from the A.T.S. or the W.A.A.F. was because they were not under the naval disciplinary code. If a seawoman went absent or deserted, she could not be arrested, as could an airwoman or an A.T.S. private.

The Minister was asked what would be the position under this Bill of absentees or deserters from the A.T.S. or the W.A.A.F. There was dead silence. I am quite certain that the Government do not know the answer. As a provost officer during the war, I was the first to encounter the problem of what to do with an airwoman who had been arrested as a deserter. In the result, the airwoman was taken to an R.A.F. station where six other airwomen were used to guard her during the 24 hours. A lot of telephoning with the Air Ministry ensued, and they eventually decided what was to be done in future. Before this Bill becomes law it is important to make clear exactly what is to happen should any unfortunate woman go absent or desert, or get into other trouble.

I support the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) on the question of equal pay for women officers in the Armed Forces. I maintain equal pay to be the only fair treatment. Members of the Armed Forces are paid very badly, and in many cases officers cannot be housed on their station. For instance, officers stationed in London have to live out, finding their own lodgings, at very high rents, and this faces them with a difficult problem. This would be the opportunity to see that justice is done. As the hon. Member for Epping said, there may be difficulties in regard to doctors in the Services. Are they to be paid the same or not? I understand that they are. But if a woman doctor is paid the same as a man doctor, why cannot a woman adjutant be paid the same as a man adjutant?

I regret, too, that in reorganising the Services the opportunity has not been taken of trying to achieve better co-ordination. This would be a good chance to co-ordinate the Services, and thus effect a great saving of manpower. In the provost branch, for example, why not have one organisation, with power over both the W.A.A.F. and the A.T.S., instead of two separate entities as at present, with two lots of military patrols and provost officers. Were that to be carefully thought out, a great saving of manpower would be achieved.

We have not heard from the Minister whether under this Bill, the uniforms will be changed. What arrangements have been made to incorporate what is called the "new look" in their uniforms. If the W.R.N.S. issue such a uniform, we ought to know whether the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F. will be permitted to do likewise, for great interest is taken in dress by the women's Forces. Recently, the W.A.A.F. have been authorised to issue a new hat, which will take a great deal of extra material, although it does not look any better. Why cannot they have a "fore and aft" if they want it? That had a great appeal to the W.A.A.F. in the Middle East, and it would save a lot of material. Now is the time to try to introduce a good uniform, and one which will save material during this time of shortage in civilian life. When the Minister replies, I hope he will answer some of the questions that have been put to him today. I conclude by repeating my pleasure that the women have been given a chance to make a career in the Armed Services.

I would not dare to comment on what the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) said about uniforms. I am quite ignorant on women's clothing, and all that side of life. I leave it to those who have greater knowledge, like the hon. and gallant Member for Henley or the Home Secretary. Before referring to the speeches of the Minister of Defence and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) I wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes). He, as we all appreciate, has tremendous sincerity, and a belief in everything he says. However, today he was treading on rather dangerous ground in referring to Clause 4 and the fact that the Government are laying down the principle that women are not being conscripted—on which I give them my fullest support. The hon. Member was extremely logical in the way he dealt with equality; but, realising that very often the Government get hold of the wrong end of the stick, I felt that the Government may take the view that he was urging conscription for women. I am sure he did not mean that, but knowing the Government I ought to warn him that in future he should be much more careful in his approach to the Government on such matters, because they often badly misinterpret people.

Here, I should like to add my support to the tribute paid by every hon. Member who has spoken to the valuable service rendered, and the immense courage shown, by British women in the Armed Services during the war. They faced up to terribly hard conditions with great gallantly. When I heard the Minister of Defence referring to the sea, I remembered that the W.R.N.S. did a considerable amount of boating during the war under the most adverse conditions, and did it very well. I do not want to be more controversial than I can help, but I may be more controversial on this matter than some of my hon. Friends. I thoroughly agree with what the Minister of Defence said on the subject of the W.R.N.S. Brigadiers and other people of that kind have never been able to grasp the fact that the Admiralty are at least a generation in advance of the other two Services. The real reason why the W.R.N.S. are not included in this Bill is that there is no reason for them to be included. I am also doubtful whether the two other Services should be included, but I suppose that the brigadiers and air marshals think that they should.

When hon. Members say that they want to see the W.R.N.S. included, they give no reasons, and I can only suppose that it comes from the rather dull sort of brigadier outlook that every one should be treated in the same way. This is not the Navy's point of view. What the Navy wants is the best every time. The fact is that it is the ambition of every woman to join the W.R.N.S. rather than either of the other two Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Naturally, there are exceptions to that. For example, if a girl comes from a soldier family, she might wish to go into the Army. That is the tradition, and everyone is proud of it. In general, however, the W.R.N.S. is the Service which attracts women more than the other two Services. The Minister of Defence is on strong ground in keeping the W.R.N.S. out of this Bill, because naval discipline has always been different from that of the other Services; and there are also very many other differences to be found in the case of the Navy. I congratulate the Government on not doing something to upset a Service which is going on very well. Up to now, I think that I have been more in support of the Government than my hon. Friends who have spoken on this Bill. I think that they have been wrong on the subject of the W.R.N.S.

On the other hand, I agree with some of the criticisms which have been made in regard to other aspects of this Measure. In Clause 3, we have the provision which is so often found in other Bills, that certain matters are to be left to be dealt with by Orders in Council to be approved by both Houses. I understand that the present system is to carry on until 1950, but if we are legislating for a considerable period of time, it is far better to have it laid down in the Bill what we wish to have done, rather than leave it to Orders in Council. I do not say that Orders in Council may not be necessary on certain occasions, but in present circumstances it is entirely impossible for Members to digest all the Orders in Council which are being made by this Government. I am afraid that in this case it means that the question of discipline in these Services will not get the attention it deserves, and that is a very serious defect arising from the Bill.

I wish to ask one question, which I hope will be answered by the Admiralty, because naturally the Admiralty will give a more effective reply than any other Department.

Is my hon. Friend contemplating joining the Board of Admiralty?

I have not thought of doing that. Coming from the West country, I am naturally prejudiced in favour of the Admiralty, although I consider that the Army and the Air Force are the most efficient services of their kind in the world. I cannot really be accused, therefore, of showing any bias in this matter. My question is whether we can have some idea as to the numbers affected by this Bill. I do not expect to have a specific reply, because this is a very technical matter, but we have a right to know the approximate number of people to whom this Bill may apply in the future. I do not want to get into the realm of national defence, but when we are passing a Bill affecting a class of the community which is highly thought of in the country, we ought to have some idea of what is involved.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley on the subject of equal pay. This is a matter which is likely to affect discipline, because there can be a tremendous difference in the rate of pay which is paid to men and women doing the same job. We should have some enlightenment on this subject. I am not one of those who think that a job can be done in the same way by a man or a woman. There must inevitably be cases where men and women have to do approximately equal jobs, and some kind of feeling of the kind I have described arises. It is, therefore, essential that we should get somewhat nearer to equality of payment. I strongly emphasise again that it would be fatal to bring the W.R.N.S. into Army discipline. I hope that the Government will not be shaken from their decision by the attacks upon them.

The observations which were made by my right hon. Friend on the subject of the services of women with the Forces during the war have been endorsed by every hon. Member who has since addressed the House. I cordially share their views, not only as regards the services rendered during the war, but as regards those rendered at the present time. We are happy to have women members of the Forces with us. If we are unable, because of varying conditions fully to integrate the three Women's Services with those of the male members of the Forces, it is not because we have no desire to achieve complete integration, but for reasons which were stated by my right hon. Friend. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) referred, presumably facetiously, to the Women's Services acquiring a "new look." In our view, members of the Women's Services are sufficiently attractive and do not require any further aid.

In a characteristically sincere but in my view completely illogical speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes) indulged in some facetious remarks about the training arrangements both for the women's and for the men's Services. He referred to the procedure whereby—I believe it applies equally to the three Services—men and women are taken from time to time to various industrial establishments to acquire information upon industrial matters. That is a very valuable part of their training. It is desirable that members of the Services, both the rank and file and the officers, should acquire such knowledge as is possible, having regard to their duties, of economic matters. Indeed, they have a wide and varied syllabus which relates to training facilities.

Let me take an example. They have a syllabus of lectures, which I think applies equally to all the Services, upon the British Constitution. We impart information about Parliamentary procedure and the activities of Members of Parliament, and about what they do in their spare time. It is quite proper that questions relating to these important matters should be asked by members of the Services, who, let it not be forgotten, are citizens equally with the civilian population. Sometimes it is just as difficult to answer questions put by those men and women as it is for me to answer some of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.

There was one important point. Will the Secretary of State for War deal with the question which I put to him about prison discipline? Will women be liable to be sent to military prisons after courts-martial?

I shall come to that question. I would say, in passing, although it is not really relevant to this Measure, which is a modest one and seeks only to elevate members of the women's Services to a proper legal status—that is all that is in it—that my hon. Friend is in favour of the complete abolition of the Forces, and has said so quite frankly in this House. He is in a minority in this matter, and if he starts a speech in a Debate of this character by postulating the abolition of all the Services, it seems to me that the rest of his speech does not matter quite so much. I will now deal with the points which he and other hon. Members raised.

One or two questions were asked of which I can dispose at once; for example, in relation to rates of pay in the Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) and other hon. Members asked questions about the rate for the job. We cannot possibly apply different treatment to the Forces from that given in other spheres of State activity. This is a very wide issue which has been debated in this House more than once, and hon. Members are fully informed of the principles involved and the difficulty of their application. I am afraid that I can make no further comment at this stage upon that point, which does not mean that the matter will not be raised again. No doubt it will be raised frequently until it is decided definitely and we know where we are.

As regards the suggestion made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) about codification of the various provisions and enactments relating to the Services, I am advised—at short notice, because I did not expect that the point would be put to us—that we have not been able to trace any promise about codification. It is true that in another place a reference was made to some consolidation of the National Service Acts, but that is another matter. Although it is another matter, it is being considered. Codification would be a very big job and would take draftsmen and others a considerable amount of time which cannot be spared at the moment. It is doubtful, I am informed, whether there is any particular disadvantage in the present position. The various enactments are set out in the manuals and regulations published for the information of all concerned. That is as far as I can go at this stage on the subject of codification.

A question was asked about a "dual chain of command" for members of the A.T.S. The right hon. Member who put the question from the other side of the House was concerned because he suspected that a change was about to occur. I am advised that there is to be no change and that there are to be, as there are at present, women directors in each of the Services who will have, as they have at present, direct access, in the Admiralty to the First Lord, in the Air Force to the Secretary of State and, in the War Office to me without any difficulty at all. Access has been sought, and found easy, in the War Office. Conversations have taken place. At any time the respective directors of the Women's Services can make representations direct to the political chiefs in their Departments. Of course, more often than not and for obvious reasons, it is much more desirable that representations should be made through the appropriate superior officer. There is no difficulty about that. Women officers in the Service as a whole must be concerned in particular with questions of welfare and discipline as they affect members of the A.T.S. in the sphere of administration though not necessarily of policy.

The noble Lord asked about a new scheme for A.T.S. officers, whether it was proposed to continue with the present form of training, and mentioned a report which he had seen in a newspaper. He wanted to know whether, because of financial stringency, we intended to skimp and prune training. The answer is that the financial stringency—of which more will be heard when we deal with the Estimates—naturally imposes limitations upon us at present, and is likely to do so for some time, but we shall endeavour to see that training is of the most efficient character. The War Office have been devoting considerable attention, daily, to the subject of training, having regard to the financial and physical limitations with which we are now faced.

I have in my mind a statement which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 1st February on the subject of A.T.S. commissions. I gather that if there is to be any departure from what is already laid down, the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make an announcement on the subject during the Debate on the Army Estimates.

We shall no doubt discuss many points, some wide and some detailed, when we come to the Estimates. I have here the document to which the noble Lord has just referred, but I can see no particular advantage in discussing its details now. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we had better leave that matter until we come to the Estimates.

I agree, but I wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to deal with the matter then if there had been any departure from this very important announcement.

Yes. Now I come to the question of detention. Women will be subject to court martial for serious offences. If there is to be some form of integration the principle of equality must apply but always, of course, having regard to the difference in sex. All things being equal, the same treatment will be meted out—

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a court martial will be able to send a woman to a military prison?

Women will be liable to detention. Let us be quite clear about the definition of "detention." We are concerning ourselves now, and have been for some time, with this matter, and we are providing what are called "corrective establishments."

"…a rose,

By any other name would smell as sweet."

The hon. Member has vast experience of these matters.

So has my right hon. Friend.

My experience was of a very limited character, and for an offence not quite so serious as that of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes). I know that my hon. Friend behind me, the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) is an "old lag"—

So is the right hon. Gentleman.

Is it intended to put a woman in a cell, and turn the key on her, or put her in a room with a wardress to supervise her?

I cannot give a picture of the kind of establishment we have in view. At Colchester recently, I saw an establishment for men where there were three tiers of treatment—

Tears?

No, t-i-e-r-s. According to the nature of their offence and sentence, their general conduct, general demeanour, and their capacity for improvement, the men are treated somewhat differently. I was very pleased, on the whole, with what I saw, although there were some blemishes to which I directed attention, and which we hope to correct. It will be necessary to establish special detention barracks, but there is no question of a "glasshouse," or anything of that sort. I think it may be assumed that we should hardly dare to impose severe punishment upon women; I can imagine the resentment which would be expressed if we tried to do anything of that sort. But if there are serious offences, and courts martial, the women themselves could hardly expect to be excused.

Now I come to the question of part-time service. When I was in Germany, recently, I saw the work being undertaken by members of the W.V.S. It was highly commendable; the influence they are exercising there is substantial and beneficial, and I cannot praise too highly what I saw being done. This organisation will continue, although it is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who has some jurisdiction in this matter. I was asked about part-time service. We shall be only too glad to avail ourselves of volunteers for the Territorial Army, for administrative and other services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I put about married woman officers?

Yes, I am sorry. Married women are quite acceptable, provided they ask for no special conditions. But we obviously cannot accept those who have children for whom they have immediate or direct responsibility while they are attached to the Service. Subject to conditions being satisfactory, we shall be able to have the services of married women.

On the question of lack of uniformity in treatment, I can only advance the case which has been presented by the Minister of Defence. I am obliged for the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), all the more so because it is so unusual.

I have never done anything except support the right. The unusual thing is that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should be doing right.

I was trying to be appreciative. At any rate, we welcome the support accorded by the hon. Member, and we hope that if there are substantial differences between him and his right hon. Friend below him, they will be resolved happily and with no subsequent discord in the party opposite.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of "arsenic and old lace" about it.

The hon. Member is now dipping into history. However, the case he presented was 100 per cent. right. If a system is working well, there is no reason why we should disturb it. That applies not only to this Measure but to a variety of other contexts. The system in the Navy, we are advised after careful consideration, is of such a character that, in the judgment of those most competent to express an opinion, it should not he impaired. They advance arguments not unlike those advanced by the hon. Member. One is that the traditional naval practice of manning its ancillary services is on a civilian basis, and as it has worked well in war, it should be continued. I understand that the Navy have availed themselves of civilians for a longer period than any of the other Services, and this is just a continuation of the practice which is working satisfactorily on the whole.

Another argument is that the W.R.N.S. are not as fully integrated with the male element in the Navy as are the Women's Army and R.A.F. Services. Finally, there is the point raised by the hon. Member about the Naval Discipline Act If we sought integration of the W.R.N.S. with the male element in the Navy, that Act would require considerable modification, and we do not know how far that would lead us. In all the circumstances, therefore, it is thought better to leave it where it is.

The Noble Lord raised the general question of uniformity. This is not the appropriate occasion for a discussion on that matter, though no doubt the time will come. This is just a beginning, not necessarily in the sphere of unification or co-ordination, but a practical step which we thought it desirable to take to promote greater efficiency. We shall have to watch this modest beginning, see how it evolves, and make what necessary adaptations are required in the course of time.

Is it the intention to rename these Services?

I beg hon. Members to allow us a little latitude in this. As we say in the House, it is under active consideration, exceedingly active consideration. We had hoped to be able to make an announcement today but, in the circumstances, we would prefer to defer it for a little while. In all the circumstances, and with the good will of every hon. Member, I hope this Bill will be allowed to pass,

I would like to pay my tribute to the skilful and gallant service given by the Women's Services during the war. I had some experience of working fairly closely with women in anti-aircraft regiments, and I know from practical experience the high degree of skill and the very great courage which the women displayed in action.

I want to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman his arguments against the inclusion of the W.R.N.S. in this Bill. One reason he gave why the W.R.N.S. should be excluded was that the present system has worked in the past. Surely that is a Colonel Blimp attitude—if the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) desires to accuse either side in this controversy of taking the part of "Blimpish Brigadiers." [Interruption.] The House of Lords works very well at the moment, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite still want to make a change. We think that the W.R.N.S. should have been included and I believe the W.R.N.S. themselves would wish it if they realised—which they certainly did not in the last war—that they were civilians. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the W.R.N.S. were awarded the War Medal? If they were, they were not entitled to it any more than any other civilian. I am perfectly certain that only a small proportion of women serving in the W.R.N.S. appreciated that they were still civilians.

The right hon. Gentleman defending the fact—I think he was right to defend it—that women in the W.A.A.F. and A.T.S. may be subject to court martial, said that there must be in force the principles of equality, but he is departing from that principle completely, and will not apply it, or his right hon. Friends will not apply it, to the Women's Service of the Navy. He said also, in defending the decision, that the W.R.N.S. were not integrated with the Navy as the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F's are with the Army and the Air Force I think that they should be. I see no reason why the W.R.N.S. should not be integrated with the Navy. Surely we have reached the time when everyone appreciates that women are part of our fighting Forces, and a very valuable part.

I was not quite able to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman about the Naval Discipline Act, but it seems to be no reason why W.R.N.S. should not be included in this Bill because subsequent changes would be necessary in that Act. The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that this was not the time to think about unification for it was only the beginning of legislation to deal with the women's part in our fighting Forces. That was the only reason he gave with which I have some sympathy. If he really meant that he thought the W.R.N.S. should have come under this Bill and that on a subsequent date there will be legislation to bring the W.R.N.S. under a code of discipline, as is the case of the women's Forces in the other two Services, then that meets our view to a certain extent. I do not suppose that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be prepared to meet the very cogent arguments which have been adduced this morning. But I hope that on some subsequent occasion, not very far ahead, the W.R.N.S. will be given an opportunity of playing their part, not as civilians, but as part of the Fighting Forces of this country.

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

Police pensions now paid are the subject of a great many Acts of Parliament. They are very complicated as a result and we have taken this opportunity of doing a good deal of simplification. The reason for having a Bill at this particular time is that some provision must be made in order to see that proper integration between the present police pensions and the Measures of social security coming into effect on 5th July of this year shall take place in time.

In order that the House may be fully informed of the extent of the changes which are involved, it may be as well if I state precisely what they are. After 30 years' service now, a police constable on retirement is entitled to a pension of two-thirds of his salary. When the National Insurance Scheme comes into effect, the following arrangements will become operative. A constable on retirement, who will be somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age, will still be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of his salary. Like everyone else in the community, he will have been a contributor under the new National Insurance Scheme, with the result that at the age of 65 he will get an additional pension of 26s. a week for himself and, if married, of 16s. a week for his wife. Under the regulations to be made under the Bill, a reduction of 1s. a week will be made from the rateable deductions from his pay in respect of this National Insurance pension and in consequence his police pension when he attains the age of 65 will be reduced by 19s. 6d. a week; that is to say, if he is a single man, or a widower, his pension on reaching the age of 65 will be increased by a net 6s. 6d. a week—26s. extra from the National Insurance fund, minus 19s. 6d. deducted in respect of a reduction in his contribution of 1s. a week. His contribution to the scheme will also be reduced 2d. a week in respect of the benefits he will secure under the Industrial Injuries Scheme in future.

A police officer who is found guilty of certain offences after retirement may suffer forfeiture of pension in common with other person who receive pensions from the State. That forfeiture will of course, only apply to the police pension. The National Insurance pension is of a different category and will not be affected by anything that will happen to the police pension. In addition, some modifications have been made in the grounds on which forfeiture can take place in future. At present forfeiture can take place if the retired police officer knowingly associates with thieves, or reputed thieves.

We have decided, after consultation with the Police Councils that if retired police officers like to have friendly relationships with former customers, we shall not deprive them of their pension as a result. He could also forfeit his pension if he refused to give to the police all information and assistance in his power for the detection of crime, for the apprehension of criminals, or for the suppression of any disturbance of the public peace. We see no reason for putting a retired police officer under other responsibilities in those matter than those which fall on the ordinary citizen. In fact, possibly, by withdrawing this ground of forfeiture, we may emphasise the fact that speaking generally, those are requirements which every good citizen ought to undertake.

We propose to modify a further ground for forfeiture. At present the pension is forfeited if the man enters into, or continues to carry on, any business, occupation or employment which is illegal or in which he has made use of the fact of former employment in the police in a manner which the police authority considers to be discreditable, or improper. In future, forfeiture under that provision can only take place after warning has been given to the man that if he continues in a certain course of conduct his pension will be placed in jeopardy. If, after warning he decided to continue, it would be agreed that he had been given a reasonable opportunity of mending his ways.

It will be seen that the new Bill differs from the former provisions in that power is taken to prescribe the exact details of the pensions by regulation. One of the difficulties of dealing adequately with police pensions from time to time has been the fact that hitherto it has been necessary to have an Act of Parliament if the slightest alteration was to be made. I am not asking the House to vote blindly in giving this power of making regulations. In conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have published a White Paper which gives in considerable detail a statement of the regulations which it is proposed to make, and the House will, therefore, be in full possession of what the intentions of the two Departments are.

It is, of course, impracticable to continue the existing police pensions code and the National Insurance Scheme with both applying in full to policemen. I know that the amount of contributions which would be required would be beyond what the police feel they can afford to pay. I have taken this opportunity of achieving what I hope the House will agree is the very desirable object of enabling a single general police pensions code to be drawn up.

Some of the Measures alluded to in the First Schedule to the Bill indicate some of the complexities which at present arise, and it is to the advantage of all concerned, both police officers and police authorities and the officers of police authorities who have to calculate pensions, that they should be able to refer to one general code instead of having to take several Acts into consideration. The Schedule and Clause 2 (4) provide that a large number of the existing provisions shall cease to have effect when the main body of regulations is made except to the extent that the regulations provide to the contrary. The existing complicated provisions must inevitably continue to apply in respect of existing pensioners. Their rights are fully secured, and although this does not make for greater simplicity, I am sure that no one would desire that anything should be done which would worsen the position of existing pensioners. The only alterations that apply to them are those which I have detailed in regard to forfeiture. These particular provisions apply to officers who have served in the past as well as to those who are now serving.

I hope that the House will feel that I have provided sufficient safeguards against the arbitrary use of the regulation-making powers, and in particular for consultation with the Police Council, on which all the interests in the police service are represented. I have also to obtain the consent of the Treasury, and the regulations have to be laid before Parliament. The proposals for inclusion in the new scheme have already been considered by the Police Council, and it can be taken that general agreement has been reached on the lines indicated in the White Paper.

Perhaps I might make a few comparisons with existing provisions beyond those I have already made. Pensions and gratuities will be paid to retired policemen on grounds of long service or ill-health, with special provision for those who have to retire because of incapacity caused by injury or disease received in the execution of their duty. Continued provision is also made for the payment of pensions and allowances to widows, children and dependants, with some improvement, from the man's point of view, on the existing provisions.

I ought to say a few words about the problem of the widow's pension, because I have from time to time received representations in regard to it. The existing widow's pension is £30 a year, with the appropriate additions under the various Pensions Increases Acts, which in fact bring it up to £42 a year for most of these women. This will be increased in three years from 5th July, 1948, which is the date when the National Insurance Scheme comes fully into operation, by a pension of 26s. a week. It is a matter of regret to me that I have not been able to come to an arrangement with the Police Federation whereby an increase in the widow's pension could take place. One of my predecessors appointed a Committee over which the late Lord Snell presided, to inquire into the problem of the widow's pension. They recommended that the pension should be increased to £52 a year from the £30 at which it then stood and now stands. But a concomitant recommendation was that the rateable de-deductions for the Service should be increased from 5 to 7 per cent. In addition to the recommendation for a pension of £52, there was a recommendation that there should be a supplementation for existing widows, according to their need. It is a matter of regret to me that up to the present the Police Federation have not found themselves able to agree to the increase in the rateable deductions which were recommended by the Snell Committee. I would very much have liked to do something for the widows, but it was necessary to take the Snell's Committee Report as a whole, and not merely to choose that part which would be favourable to the Service.

This is a Measure which I hope will command the general support of the House. It preserves for the Police Service a special place in the pensions schemes of the country. It continues to give to a man at a comparatively early age a very substantial pension indeed. It enables him also to obtain from the National Insurance Fund the full benefits that will be secured by every other citizen in the country. I hope that as a result the work of the police will be suitably recognised by the community, and that the members of this Service, which in a time of great difficulty for it is maintaining its highest traditions, will continue to receive the respect and esteem of their fellow citizens.

Will the pensions of present widows eventually be brought up to the new scale? Secondly, where do they stand when the new Insurance Scheme comes into operation in July?

They will not come into the new scheme on 5th July, because their husbands have not been contributors. No police officer's widow benefits from the new scheme until 5th July, 1951, because it is only after three years' contributions that the ordinary civilian widow—where a civilian himself has not been a contributor—will come into benefit. The police widows are in exactly the same position as the widows of any other persons who have not previously contributed to the National Insurance Fund.

It is not the intention of myself or my hon. Friends to do other than support this Bill on the Second Reading, but there are questions raised by the Bill which we shall have to examine at a later stage. As the Home Secretary has said, this Bill has been brought in, partly as a consolidating Measure, and partly to meet the new set of circumstances which will arise through integration of the new social insurance schemes with Police pensions. We are making a very big departure in principle, because until now, policemen have had their pensions guaranteed by Act of Parliament. In the future that guarantee will no longer exist. Their pensions will be provided for them under regulations. Moreover, the regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure of this House, and cannot be amended.

The complications which may arise through the integrating of Police pensions with the new social insurance schemes will lead to variations having to be made from time to time which it will be inconvenient to bring before Parliament in the form of a Bill. While admitting that there is a case under those circumstances for acting under regulations, I think there are definitely certain things which must not be left to regulations, and should be embodied in the statute. Those are matters which we shall have to look at in the Committee stage. I wish to give one particular instance which I regard as very important. Under Clause 1 (3) of this Bill, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the manner in which disputes are to be determined, and provisions as to the cases in which pensions are to be varied, suspended or terminated.

Under the Police Pensions Act now in force, a pensioner has the definite right, by Statute, to appeal to quarter sessions and on a point of law to the higher courts. That is a valuable right, and this House should be very careful before it takes away that statutory right and makes the matter—perhaps it would be a little unkind to say on the whim of a Home Secretary—merely subject to regulations which need not necessarily be brought before this House. It is true that in the Command Paper which the Home Secretary has been good enough to produce before the Second Reading of this Bill, it is announced that regulations will make provision for this right to be continued, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the second paragraph, in which it says:

"This Paper sets out the main provisions which, in the light of discussions at the English and Scottish Police Councils, are likely to be included in the first regulations to be submitted to Parliament."

However well-intentioned the Home Secretary may be—and one does not question his intentions at all—I think the House must be very careful before it parts with a Bill which leaves the position in this way, that the preservation of the right of a citizen to appeal to a court is left to something which is likely to be included in the regulations. I do not think we should be discharging our res- ponsibilities in the House if we left the matter in that position. There will be other things, but on this particular point I believe that that right should definitely be included in the Statute.

It is true that the regulations are subject to negative procedure, but I think that in the matter of the pensions conditions of the Police forces of this country—which is very important—the Government should be compelled to bring these matters before the House of Commons. When we come to the Committee stage I hope that the Home Secretary will accept an Amendment to see that these matters are brought under the affirmative procedure. That is quite apart from the other questions, one of which I have instanced, which we consider ought to be included in the Statute in any event.

I wish to be quite clear as to the present position of pensioners. As I understand it—and I am subject to correction—a present pensioner is completely protected under Clause 2, and his pension and rights will be quite unaffected. With regard to the present pensioner who is married, with his wife still alive, I take it that the rights which she is expecting to obtain in the present position my be altered by regulation. In the case of men serving in the Police Force at the present moment, I take it that they are to have the choice as to whether they will go on paying the present deductions and get the full Police pension, and the whole of the new insurance benefits when they come into force, or whether they will modify their Police pension contribution and then enjoy something less. I take it that they will definitely have the choice between those two alternatives?

Existing members will have that choice, but not future entrants.

That is what I wished to be quite clear about. The existing people will definitely have that choice. In other words, if they like to go on paying they can have the whole of the new pension and the whole of the social insurance pension, but those who enter after the appointed day will not be allowed to enjoy both pensions to the full.

The House will, no doubt, remember that fairly recently—I cannot remember exactly when it was—the Royal Warrant in connection with pensions in respect of widows and children of men who had been disabled in the war was altered, in order that a pension might be awarded to a widow who had married a man after his disablement, and children, who had been born after the disablement, could be included. It seems to me that in the case of a policeman who has to be retired from the Force owing to disablement incurred in the execution of his duty—and not by accident—he should enjoy this extension of rights recently granted to the disabled ex-Service man. I raise the point on the Second Reading, and it is one we might look at in Committee.

As will have been realised, most of the matters that I mention are Committee points, but I feel uneasy that the whole realm of these conditions is being taken out of the statutory position, if I may use that term, and made subject to regulations. We shall have to be very careful, if we are eventually going to allow it to be passed in this form, to pull as much back into the Statute as we can, especially where rights of appeal are concerned.

The Home Secretary has said that we want a contented Police Force of the highest standard. In order to attract the right type of man, we must give him as much certainty as we can in regard to the conditions under which he joins the Force, and we should endeavour to assure him that those conditions will not be arbitrarily changed during his service. In so far as those conditions may be subject to regulation by the Home Secretary, an element of uncertainty will exist in the future such as did not exist in the past. That may well militate against recruiting. It is known that the Police Forces are short of men now. We must do all that we can to encourage recruiting. Though perhaps this is a small point in comparison with the wide question of principle, we must not lose sight of it. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Home Secretary will be prepared to consider very sympathetically the points which I have raised.

I must say in my opening sentence that this Bill may have connotations vastly wider than appear on the surface. It comes to us as a Bill

"to make provision as to the pensions to be paid to … members of police forces and their widows, children and dependants."

But, as I shall show later, we may find that, in fact, in this Bill we are setting a pattern which will affect not merely the 60,000 or so men employed in the Police force, but some 720,000 employed in the Civil Service, some million or so employed in the local government service, some scores of thousands employed in the teaching service, some few thousand employed in the prison service, and so on. At a later stage in my remarks, I will ask the House to be good enough to give the closest attention to that aspect of my argument, because we do not want to find at the end of the day that, under the guise of dealing with 60,000 policemen, we have in fact taken committal steps which affect approximately two million people in the public services of Britain. I will come to that point later, but I mention it now because this is of the greatest importance to the public service and to the House.

I join with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in representing to the Home Secretary that a far more extensive use is being made of the method of regulation under this Bill than is, in my opinion, right and proper. I would agree that there are many points on which, if he ever wants to alter them, he does not want to have to come to the House of Commons to obtain permission. I recognise that there are many points touching the pensions of the police which can properly be dealt with by the method of regulation. But the issue is not whether the method of regulation should be used: it is the degree to which it is to be used.

Hon. Members will see that this Bill is entitled, "Police Pensions Bill," and then the words of paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum say:

"The purpose of the Bill is to make provision as to the pensions, including gratuities and other similar allowances, to be paid to members of police forces and their widows, children and dependants.—

After reading those words one would expect that, on looking inside the Bill, one would find what were the pensions that were to be given; under what conditions they were to be given, what the basis of the calculation of the pensions would be, what the facilities for appeal in the case of dispute would be, and so forth. In other words, one would not expect the Bill to cover every fine detail, but one would emphatically expect the Bill to cover the fundamental and main provisions of the Police Pensions scheme. I submit that it ought to cover at least four points. First, it ought to cover the legal entitlement to pension. This Bill does not even give a legal entitlement to pension. Even that fundamental thing, the basis of everything else, is left to regulation. I submit that the Bill certainly ought to include the legal entitlement to pension. It ought to cover the right of appeal on medical grounds; the right of the policeman to sue in the courts to sustain his rights; and, finally, it ought to give us, if not the amount of the pension, at least the basis for the calculation of the pension.

I suggest that there is no difficulty whatever in covering those four fundamental points in the text of the Bill. Indeed, in all other superannuation Acts—and the House has had a great deal of collective experience of superannuation Acts from 1831 onwards—it has been found possible to include the entitlement to pension, the broad conditions under which it is earned, and the basis by which it is calculated. If it has not been impossible to do that in respect of teachers, local government officers, civil servants, and all sorts of other people, it ought not to be impossible to put that in the Bill dealing with the pensions of policeman. If the hon. Member for Westbury puts down an Amendment to that effect when we come to the Committee stage, he will find the whole support of my party mobilised behind him.

The Bill tells us that regulations will be issued by the Home Secretary after consultation with the Police Council. I would like to emphasise this, because it is essential that we should be clear. If we give this Bill a Second Reading today, we shall not know what the regulations are to be. We know what is in the mind of the Home Secretary. He has been good enough to tell us what is in his mind in the form of the White Paper; but the passage of this Bill does not ensure that the regulations which will be issued after consultation with the Police Council will correspond with the contents of the Command Paper which has been given us. They may, or they may not: there is no assurance. We do not know what the Police Council will do.

In my opinion, these are not matters for the Police Council at all. As a Member of Parliament I am not disposed to put the Police—for whom I, with every other Member, have a responsibility—at the mercy of the Police Council in determining what the pensions shall be. That is for Parliament to decide; not the Police Council. Indeed, I regard the Police Council as being a body not so composed that this House ought to repose its confidence in it in relation to this particular matter. I do not say that it does not do useful work. It is no part of my purpose to attack it root and branch. I limit myself to the statement that I do not think that Parliament ought to divest itself of its responsibility for the treatment of policemen, and put it in the hands of the Police Council.

The Home Secretary knows that I have pressed upon him, and upon his predecessors for many years past, that there ought to be proper machinery in the Police Force for the settlement of differences between the administration and officers of the force. Season in and season out I have pressed that. I was told that it would be improper to have a trade union of policemen because the police are what is called a disciplined force. I have given the reply, sometimes I fear almost to the point of reiteration, that the more disciplined a force is, the more essential it is that that force should not resort to the weapon of strike, and the more essential it is that the force should go on functioning in the public interest, then the more essential it is that the force should be provided with adequate means of settling, by conciliation and arbitration, issues which might arise between itself and the Home Office. That seems to me to follow absolutely automatically, and even axiomatically.

When I went to the Home Secretary's predecessor, the present Lord President of the Council, during the war and, with other Members, urged this upon him, I thought we had made some impression upon him. It is never safe to assume anything when dealing with the Lord President of the Council, but I did think we had made some impression; because at the end of the discussion he said, while there could be no radical change during the war, if we came back to the Home Office after the war, and re-submitted the case for the establishment of proper conciliation and arbitration machinery, it was probable that we should not find the door closed. He was not so rash as to say it would be open, but he did say it would not be closed. We were entitled to draw from that the assumption that it might at least be partly ajar. That would not be an unfair assumption. Since the end of the war I have approached the Home Secretary, as he knows, and I have made speeches in the House about it, and I have begged that policemen should have no more rights, but equally should have no less rights, than those possessed in Britain by the ordinary public servant—the civil servant, the prison officer and so forth.

There are two freedoms involved—the freedom of a man to join an organisation of his own choosing to protect his interests, and the right of the individual and his colleagues, if they cannot reach a settlement by agreement, to have access to an independent body which will give a decision. As long as the Home Office is judge and jury in its own case, there will never be contentment in the Police Force of Britain. I do not say that because I desire to generate discontent, but because I think it is utterly wrong that we should deny this body of men rights and facilities which we give unquestionably to public servants employed in another capacity. I do not think Parliament should pass to the Police Council this responsibility of determining what the regulations are to be, as proposed under the Bill.

The third point to which I come is the possible effect of this Bill upon the whole structure of pensions in the public service, in which there are approximately two million people employed. It is necessary to go back a little to make this point clear, but it is vital that it should be made clear if the House is to understand what may be the consequences of this Bill. Under the old social insurance legislation—the old Health Insurance Act, the former Old Age Pensions Act, the old Unemployment Insurance Act—established public servants, that is to say, public servants in respect of whom it could be certified that their employment was permanent, were not obliged to contribute to the social insurance legislation. They were not obliged to pay unemployment insurance contributions, or health insurance contributions, or to pay towards the old age pension. It is true that the public servant could do so if he desired; he could become a voluntary contributor under these earlier Acts of Parliament. But he was not compelled to contribute as an ordinary workman or a clerk in industry was compelled to contribute.

Under the new Act, which comes into operation in July, to which Act this Bill is related, civil servants and public servants generally are compelled to become contributors. The old choice of entering the scheme in a voluntary way or staying out disappears. They are compelled to become contributors to the new social insurance scheme just like every other citizen. I am not arguing against that at all. I always felt in the old days that it was a little anomalous that we should subtract from the total area of insurance certain specified tracts of extremely good lives, because the more good lives which are kept outside the scheme the more actuarially difficult it is for the less good lives, if I may so describe them, included in the scheme. I do not dissent in the least from the Home Secretary's view that public servants should come into this scheme.

But I ask the House to notice this great difference. I think the best way I can make it clear is to give an example. Supposing I were a civil servant whose maximum salary was £400 a year and who would retire at the age of 60, with half my retiring salary as pension—that is to say, £200. Supposing I said, "I do not want to drop from £400 to £200, and during my working life I will make provision by paying into an insurance company in order to secure an annuity of £200 when I reach the age of 60, so that my total income from pension and annuity will not be less than my income in the year before my retirement." Next, suppose the Government came along and said, "Because, by paying contributions to a private insurance company, you have obtained for yourself an annuity of £200, we shall not now pay you the £200 which we ought to pay you by way of pension." If any Government did that, I am quite sure every single Member of this House, without distinction of party, would regard it as an outrage.

The moral argument is not altered if the civil servant, instead of paying, to a private insurance company, pays into a State insurance scheme. If, by the conditions of his employment, he is entitled to a State pension, which he earns, and if he pays out of his own pocket into the State insurance scheme for certain benefits in his old age, then he is entitled both to the pension and to the benefits. He has paid for both—the one by his labour over the years, and the other by cash in common with every other member of the community. It would be an outrage to deprive a man of either of the elements which he has earned, either by his labour or by his money. That is an important point. Now this House has not yet dealt with the impact upon all the superannuation schemes which now exist—teachers' superannuation, local government servants' superannuation, prison officers' superannuation and many other categories—of the new social insurance legislation which comes into operation next July.

I think if the hon. Member looks back he will find that, in dealing with pensions, superannuation schemes as they affect workers have been taken into account and a certain allowance has been made. If a similar measure is taken with civil servants, that will be right in this country.

I am not quite sure that I understand to what particular point the hon. Member is referring, but I am limiting my remarks to the State pensions scheme. There may have been all sorts of adjustments and rearrangements in private industry, I do not pretend to know. I am limiting my own remarks to a field which I do know—the field of the public service. All I am saying is that the House has got to get to grips with this question and see to what extent the public servants in Great Britain from now on will come under the new social legislation and what effect it will have on the Superannuation Acts from 1831 up to 1947.

If we accept this Bill without getting some assurance, we may find at the end of the day that we have set a pattern in dealing with one element of the public service, the Police Force, which will be thrust upon us in relation to the vast number of two million people who comprise the public services of Great Britain. Later on, the House is likely to be told that it accepted this in principle in the case of the Police Pensions Bill, and that it cannot be resisted in relation to the teachers, local government officers, civil servants, and so on. I want to press the Home Secretary for the most categorical assurance that when we come to deal with the other public servants, we shall not be prejudiced or damnified in any way because of what we may or may not do on this particular Bill. This comes to us as a Home Office Bill. I am not at all sure that it is not a Treasury manoeuvre, the full deployment of which we shall see at a later stage.

I want to reassert the principle which ought to govern the Police and everybody. If a man is entitled to a pension by virtue of his labour, the Government are not entitled to take any part of that pension away for any consideration whatsoever. If I am a police officer and my contract with the State says that at the end of 30 years I am to have a pension of two-thirds of my retiring salary, the Government are not justified in abating that two-thirds pension by one iota because, in my capacity as a citizen, I subscribe to the social insurance fund and am entitled in certain eventualities to benefit from that fund.

Supposing the man says: "I do not want to pay the full contribution for both these statutory schemes"?

Let us investigate that. Supposing the man says as the Home Secretary has mentioned, "I do not want to pay," and quits. May I remind the Home Secretary that he is leaving the new recruit no option at all in the matter?

He is paying 1s. a week less because he gets a reduced benefit.

I will come to that point in a moment. I am at the point raised by the Home Secretary when he intervened to ask what happens if a man says that he does not want to pay both contributions. My answer is that under the regulations based upon this Bill, so far as the new recruit to the Service is concerned, he is not given that option at all.

He makes a contract with the State on a known basis. He is coming in under circumstances where he will pay 4s. 11d. to the National Insurance Scheme and he will pay five per cent., which is now deducted, minus 1s. a week in recognition of the fact that he will not get as big a benefit as the man who has paid five per cent. of his salary.

I want to put this point because I want it to be made perfectly clear. The man who is at present serving is not going to be interfered with, but let me put it this way—what the Home Secretary tells us is that in the future a person who wants to come into the Service will only be offered such conditions as those which he has just specified.

When a recruit joins the Force, he knows that he will pay his National Insurance contribution in respect of which he will get as a right whatever National Insurance benefits there may be. He knows that he will get a pension of two-thirds of his salary on completing 30 years' service until he reaches 65 years of age, and then he will suffer a reduction of 19s. 6d. per week plus an increase of 26s., a net increase of 6s. 6d., but because he is going to suffer a 19s. 6d. reduction he will pay 1s. a week less than other people have done. That will be part of his contract with the State into which he freely enters when he joins the Service. If he does not like the treatment, he is not compelled to enter the Service.

Let us carry that point further. Existing police officers have an option. So far as the new police officer is concerned, he will get no option except the option of refusing to come in, which he has always had. But it is axiomatic that we want people to come into the Prison and Police Services. What happens to the fellow who comes in the future? As things are, he will be entitled to retire after 30 years with a pension of two-thirds of his salary. From another source, the insurance fund, at the age of 65 he is entitled to a benefit in respect of the contribution he has paid in. That benefit, which he is entitled to, is set off against the pension which he has earned by his labour so that he is worse off than he ought to be.

What the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will not face up to is the fact that this new recruit about whom we are talking—I think we can confine the argument to him for this purpose—pays less contribution than the existing man in the Police Force, and, therefore, on any actuarial basis is clearly entitled to less benefit at the end. The less benefit concerned is the losing of 19s. 6d. after he attains the age of 65. If he wanted to keep the existing rates of benefit, he should be compelled to pay the same as the man now in the service. Representations have been made to me—and I think they are justifiable—that two deductions from the man's wages—National Insurance plus the rateable deduction—are too much to ask a man to pay.

Perhaps we can deal with this in two bites. Let me make an assertion. Let me speak for the rest of the public service, excluding the Police Force for a moment, and say that I regard it as a matter of principle and an inalienable right for any member of the service to draw the pension he has earned by right and, in addition, by contributing to a State insurance scheme, to draw what benefits he is entitled to from that source.

I do not want to prolong this unnecessarily, but the hon. Member says he earns this pension by his labour. He earns it as a result of the scheme and, as a matter of fact, the Police Fund is part of a very highly subsidised pension scheme to which the State makes a very substantial contribution. This man does not earn this pension by his labour if by that is meant that it is a self-sufficient scheme. It is a very much better return than he can get by making a private arrangement with an insurance company or anybody else.

All right. The Police Fund is subsidised from the Exchequer. We have got several kinds of pension schemes to consider here, and that is why I am concerned about the possible impact of this Bill on them. For example, there is the teachers' fund, into which the employee and the local authority both pay. There is the general run of Civil Service pensions which are not contributory at all, but where the individual by right is entitled to a pension of so much in respect of each completed years' service. In my opinion, if I, as a civil servant, with a contract with the State which gives me such and such pension in respect of such and such a length of service, desire also as a citizen to be a full contributor to the National Insurance scheme and to whatever benefits I am entitled to under that, I ought to have the right to benefits from both.

Now the hon. Gentleman is moving away from a contributory scheme to a non-contributory scheme.

I moved away only because I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get in. I was going on to say that, if that is the impact on a scheme which is wholly non-contributory, then we have schemes which are half contributory by employers and employed and finally we have the unestablished man who has no pension at all. All that I am arguing is that we have to consider here what is to be the impact on all that area of superannuation schemes affecting 2,000,000 people—if we pass this thing without getting an assurance about where the Government stand. There have been no negotiations between the Police and the right hon. Gentleman on this issue. So far as I know, the negotiations between the teachers and the Ministry of Education are not complete. So far as I know the negotiations between the Staff Side of the Whitley Council for the Civil Service and the Government are not complete. I am strongly opposed to committing ourselves to steps here which can have a profound, but as yet unascertainable, impact upon a vastly larger number of people than are immediately affected by the Bill.

I turn to the proposed regulations. I had hoped very much that the present Home Secretary would have been an improvement on his predecessors in the whole question of looking after the Police.

He is an improvement upon the previous one.

It would be difficult not to be, but he is not nearly as big an improvement on his predecessor as I had hoped he would be. When one looks at the figures one cannot feel anything but contempt for the kind of provision that we make for the retired policeman and, above all, for his widow and other dependants. The present provision for the widow of a chief officer is £50 per annum; for an officer, £40 per annum; for a sergeant and a constable £30 per annum. It is true that there have been some increases by the provisions of the miserably inadequate Pensions (Increases) Acts, 1946 and 1947. But can we feel proud of that amount of provision for the widows and dependants of men whose occupation is extremely unpleasant even when—and it very often is—it is not extremely dangerous?

I was hoping that if we were to have a Bill dealing with Police pensions, it would be a Bill conceived in the spirit of humanity, if not of generosity; that it would be a Bill which would do something for the present widows and children, as well as for those who are to become widows hereafter and their children; and that it would once for all have put the question of making pension provision for the Police upon a basis which all of us could regard as being, if not generous, at least reasonably just. I do not find that to be true of this Bill. I do not think it ever will be true until we have proper machinery for negotiation and arbitration in the Police service. The Police Council is a nominated body and not a representative body. I think that, whatever we do, we ought to put the essentials, at any rate, into the Bill, and not leave them to regulations to be made later on. In short, I regard this Bill as a profoundly disappointing Bill in content and in method, and I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, it will be radically altered in many respects.

Upon the majority of subjects which we discuss in this House we can usually avail ourselves of the services of, at any rate, one or two hon. Members serving in the occupations involved. Owing, of course, to the peculiar conditions and functions of the Police we have not at the moment, and are unlikely to have, serving policemen here among us. Therefore, I would submit that, when we come to a Bill of this kind, it is wise that we do give extra care in studying the provision proposed for the benefit of our Police Force. We have, probably, the most unobtrusive and most efficient Police forces in the world; but the fact that the policemen themselves are unobtrusive leads us frequently—not only we who are here but the public generally—to lose sight of some of the policemen's problems.

I should like to think that the present Bill was conceived, first of all, as an act of elementary justice towards the policemen or their dependants; and, secondly, I should like to see it in the setting of part of the effort I am quite sure the Home Secretary must make—or must wish to make—to increase the numbers at present in the Police Force. Indeed, at the present time the matter of numbers is a very great problem; and the pensions which are being granted under this Bill, and the conditions on which they are granted, are, of course, part of the conditions of service which attract or which repel people from joining the Police Force. I do not want to weary the House with a lot of statistics, but I think it should be realised that the Police forces in Great Britain at the present time are grossly under-established, and that, therefore, a very heavy burden is thrown on those who are now serving.

In an answer to a Question of mine last September, I was told that the recently authorised establishment of the Police Force in England and Wales was 66,935, whereas the actual strength was 54,324, which was a deficit at that time of 12,611. Similar figures could be given in respect of the female members of the forces. In the annual report of the Inspectors of the Constabulary considerable concern was expressed not only at the failure of efforts at recruitment but also at the number of people who were retiring from the forces prior to qualifying for pension. In page 9 of the report—and I commend it to the Committee—they say:

"It is worthy of note, that although the aggregate of the numbers involved are not heavy, Chief Constables have expressed their concern at the number of men who have voluntarily resigned from the forces before becoming entitled to any pension"

The Home Secretary, himself, when he was answering a Question in October last, said of the resignations since January, 1946, which amounted to 11,400, that 25 per cent. of the men concerned had less than 15 years' service. Therefore, it is quite clear, at any rate, in the eyes of the serving members of the Police forces, that something fairly serious must be wrong with the conditions of service. Whether or not they are right in this is something which Parliament will have to decide. If I were to dilate on the conditions of pay and service in the Police forces you would, Sir, very properly rule me out of Order; but I would submit that one has to consider the pension provisions of this Bill in that setting. I very rarely agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), but I must say that this morning I did find myself in a very considerable measure of agreement with him.

This is an enabling Bill. It is not a Bill setting forth in any detail the various conditions under which pensions should be granted; nor does it settle the actual amounts which will be granted. I am not an expert on this matter, but I am told that in many ways the Police Pensions Act, 1921, did not serve too badly. At any rate it gave some feeling of stability to members of the Police force, who came to look upon an Act of Parliament as something which could be shaken only by an amending Act. But this is a very short Bill which, although repealing the substance of the 1921 Act, leaves what I consider a wholly disproportionate amount of substantive and unchanging conditions to be dealt with by regulation. I can sympathise with any Home Secretary who says, "Well, owing to the variation in the cost of living, and other factors which vary during the passage of time, I should be allowed to maintain a certain tolerance in the regulations." But I should have thought the conditions tinder which pensions should be granted were of a more enduring kind, and might have been put into the Bill itself. I hope the Home Secretary will not regard with disfavour endeavours by hon. Members in all parts of the House to seek to incorporate into the Bill during Committee, possibly by the introduction of new Clauses, substantive conditions which should govern the granting of pensions to the Police force.

I turn to the draft regulations, which we are bound to do because so many of the conditions are not in the Bill. One of the first things to be noticed has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Rugby, namely, that widows who are now receiving pensions, and will qualify for pensions prior to the date when the regulations come into force, are not affected by this Bill. One of the defects of the 1921 Act—and it was pointed out by those hon. Members who sat in this House a long time ago—was that it left the 1918 class of widows cornplc3tely out of the pension scheme. The number of those widowed before 1918 and now alive is not very many; and those who are alive will not, with a normal expectation of life, have very much longer to live. Surely, it would have been an act of elementary social justice, even at this late stage, to have made some provision for those widows who are not covered under the 1921 Act, and who, when they have fallen upon bad times, have had to go on public assistance. I am very sensible of the fact that, owing to the recent passage through this House of the Public Assistance Bill, it will now be possible for those falling on evil times to obtain what many hon. Members consider their due in a rather less distasteful manner; in fact, in a much more humane fashion. However, in view of the fact that the number of widows is so small, I should have thought that it would have been possible to make some provision.

The class with which I have been dealing is the pre-1918 class. There is also the class of widows who are in receipt of pensions now, or who will qualify for pensions prior to the appointed day. Here again, I should have thought it would have been possible to make rather more substantial increases in the pensions now being paid. I appear to be supporting the hon. Member for Rugby quite considerably this afternoon. I do not think any hon. Member—especially those who have had the opportunity of studying the various price indices and the Statistical Digest for the current month—can consider that the pension increase awards under the 1946 and 1947 Acts are adequate in all the circumstances. I hope the Home Secretary will see fit to reconsider this.

I now refer to the question of forfeiture of pensions in the regulations. This, of course, raises a great question of principle, and one which it is difficult to resolve. I agree immediately with the hon. Member for Rugby that normally a person who works for a pension, and who pays for it in part, on becoming entitled to it by the passage of time, should be so entitled as an inalienable right. That is the normal position which I should take up; and when the Under-Secretary replies I should like to hear exactly what are the reasons for laying down conditions under which there can be a forfeiture of pension.

It may be said—and indeed the Home Secretary gave some hint of it in the course of an exchange with the hon. Member for Rugby—that they are receiving a pension, not because they have earned it or have paid towards it, but only because it is under the scheme. That may very well be so; but it is equally true to say that the reason why the present rates of pay in the Police Force are rather less than those in outside industry and other branches of life is precisely because the policeman agrees, as a condition of service, to abate part of his present entitlement of wage, and to compound it into the pension he will receive later. Unless there were very strong reasons against it, I should have thought that a policeman on retiring from the force, after shaking the dust of the police station from his feet and becoming an ordinary citizen, should, as an inalienable right, be entitled to anything he has earned and paid for.

What do we find? Under paragraph 13 of the White Paper, issued as an intimation of the regulations the Home Secretary proposes to institute:

"The police authority to have power, at their discretion, to withdraw a pension, wholly or in part, either permanently or temporarily, where the person to whom the award would otherwise be due:

(i) is convicted of any offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months."

There are various other conditions, to which I shall refer before I conclude. Suppose a person who has been employed in the public service, receiving a smaller wage than that received in industry, who has paid towards a pension and has received it; and suppose after such period of commendable rectitude, he suddenly, for no explicable reason, departs from the straight and narrow—possibly because he may have some knowledge as to the efficiency or otherwise of the methods of detection—is caught, sentenced by a court and awarded punishment. Why should he be subject to the additional punishment of the pension he has in part earned, and has in part paid for, being taken wholly or partly from him? I realise that the most obvious answer is that it is in the interests of the efficiency of our Police Force that those who have had the honour—and it is an honour—of serving in it, should at all times in their subsequent private life preserve such a high standard of behaviour as will reflect credit not only upon the general body of citizens which they have joined, but also on the force which they have left. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary develop the Home Office view on that point.

There is another condition under which a pension may be forfeited, which I regard as slightly sinister, and that is the condition contained in paragraph 13 (iii), which lays down that a pension can also be forfeited if the person to whom the award has been made:

"Supplies to any person or publishes in any manner which the police authority considers to be discreditable or improper any information which the person may have obtained in the course of employment in the police."

The obvious state of affairs that this is designed to cover is the ex-police officer, or ex-constable, making improper use of information he has obtained about individuals during the course of his service in the Force. I would point out that it is laid down here, as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, that,

"in any manner which the police authority consider to be discreditable or improper,"

there is a right of appeal to quarter sessions; in this case there is also a right of appeal to the High Court on any question of law. But, if the regulations are drafted in almost precisely the same form as this White Paper, all that has to be shown before any court—and perhaps any hon. Member who has more experience of the law than myself will help me here—and all that has to be proved on the police side, is that the police themselves consider it to be discreditable or improper. No question as to whether a particular action was improper or not will become the subject of discussion at quarter sessions, or even in the High Court. I think that many Members will want the Home Secretary to consider this again, otherwise many of us may seek, if we can obtain the necessary legal advice, to try our hands at drafting the Clause for ourselves for consideration on a later stage.

It is necessary to point out that, as at present drafted, these regulations can be subject to the greatest abuse. It may be that a police officer, in the course of his service in the Force, finds out something about the organisation of the local force, or of the larger force, about which he considers the general body of citizens, or his Member of Parliament, ought to know. It might involve the past conduct in certain organisational matters of the officers of that Force. Clearly, these officers, or the other people in that Force who might be affected by a disclosure of information of that kind, would obviously consider such disclosure to be discreditable or improper. If the right of forfeiture must remain, which I seriously contest, it should be so circumscribed as to make the meaning absolutely clear. Moreover, it should be put in the Bill itself, and not left to regulations.

I am not one of those who are convinced always of the efficacy of appeals to quarter sessions and to the High Court. Appeals to the High Court can often be a two-edged weapon, because if the employee in the Force is given the right to appeal, the same right must also be given to the Minister, and the Minister versus the individual in a High Court might conceivably present a balance of power which the majority of us might consider, under our present legal system, to be weighted in his favour. I should like the Home Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible for appeals on questions of forfeiture to be made finally to the Home Secretary himself. With the Home Secretary being responsible to Parliament, it would enable Members of the House of Commons to query his actions, as and when any conceivably injustice might arise.

My final point concerns the paragraph entitled "Infirmity due to Misconduct." It is stated here that:

"Where a person retires from a police force on account of infirmity of mind or body and the police authority are satisfied that he has brought about or contributed to the infirmity by his own fault or vicious habits, the police authority to have power, at their discretion, to reduce the amount of any award by an amount not exceeding one-half."

I very much query this right. I have not seen this right introduced in respect of either the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or, indeed, in the case of any other service. I should very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to give some justification for the inclusion of what, on the face of it, appears to be an entirely arbitrary provision. The trouble is that in many ways the Police Force is regarded by the Home Secretary as an armed force. When the Home Office wish to refuse to make any concession, they invariably apply the analogy of the Armed Forces—the police force is not regarded as an ordinary body of citizens, but as a body which is more analogous to the Army. On the other hand, when one seeks to obtain similar conditions to those which obtain in the Army, one finds that the police tend to become ordinary citizens.

I will give one example of that. Special pensions on account of injury were awarded under the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and it is proposed to continue them under these regulations. If one is injured in the Army, whether it is accidentally or by the enemy, then, according to the extent of the disability, there is entitlement to a pension. Under this Bill, we find that a distinction is made between an accidental injury incurred by the policeman in the course of his duty, and an injury brought upon him by an action of a felon or by someone he has tried to apprehend. I am aware that the Police Federation have brought this to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that a compromise was suggested which was that instead of having a higher rate for injuries incurred by a policeman, no doubt by some action on the part of a third party, and a lower rate for a policeman slipping on the proverbial banana skin and breaking his leg, there should be an intermediate rate to cover both cases.

I am advised—I put forward the view with all humility because I am not an expert in these matters—that the existing special pensions are so much on the low side that to bring them down to a mean would be unjust. If the Under-Secretary will consider giving the House reasons why it is not possible to bring the accidental rate up to the non-accidental rate, I shall be very grateful.

It would be churlish, after having made a series of criticisms, if one were not to thank the Home Secretary for having made valued concessions in the Bill, and no doubt in the regulations which are to follow it. There are many improvements, but I am sure the Under-Secretary would be the last to insist that the Bill is perfect. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend will not take it amiss if hon. Members in all parts of the House seek to do their best in Committee to improve the Bill.

I hope that it will not be thought to come from me in any niggardly spirit if I say that I feel increasing dissatisfaction with this kind of legislation, which puts all of us in a dilemma. I recognise that the Bill is an effort towards the improvement of conditions, in the matter with which it deals, but it does it in an unsatisfactory way, being merely a framework which leaves the Department of State to do as it wishes by regulations within that framework. The dilemma is this: we should like, on the one hand, to see the Bill withdrawn and substituted by one which would deal with the merits and substance of the scheme, while, on the other hand, we do not want to vote against a Bill, which is at least intended to improve the pensions of the Police.

It is right to make it clear, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) emphasised, that no member of the Police has any right to pension at all, as the Bill is drawn. There is nothing to compel the Home Secretary to make any regulations, and there is very little about what he shall put in those regulations. There is no legal entitlement to pension, nothing about length of service or contributions by anyone. There are two things which should certainly be inserted in the Bill, and on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept Amendments in Committee, namely, a definition of the circumstances in which a member of a Police force will lose or forfeit his pension, and a right of appeal when there is a dispute about his pension. I will not go so far as to say that there are no circumstances in which a member of a Police force should forfeit his right to pension, but if a question of forfeiture arises, the circumstances in which it should occur, should be exactly defined, and should not be left to the discretion of anyone. Such definition of the circumstances should be set out in the Bill itself.

The right of appeal should also be contained in the Bill. The House will be wrong to leave it to the discretion of the Home Secretary or of any other Minister whether there should be a right of appeal, especially when the regulations are to be of such a character that they can only be annulled, after they have been laid before Parliament, by negative Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) was correct when he said that in many cases in the proposed regulations where a Police authority have the right to declare a pension forfeited, there is no appeal at all as to the substance of the case. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the White Paper, certain circumstances are stated in which a Police authority may order reduction or forfeiture of the amount of a pension, at their discretion. Paragraph 14 expressly says:

"No appeal to lie against the exercise of any discretion."

I think it entirely wrong that a member of a Police Force should be subject to the exercise of discretion in that manner. By the time a dispute about pension arises a man is, more often than not, at a late stage in life. Police work has been his life work, and he has paid the contributions. There is all the more danger because of the vagueness of the words which are used as enabling a police authority to order forfeiture:

"Discreditable or improper, in the opinion of the police authority. …"

It is wrong that there should be no appeal against the way in which a Police authority exercises its discretion against a member of the Force. One strong reason why it is necessary that guidance relating to forfeiture or reduction of pension should be put into the Bill and stated with precision was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rugby, namely, that there is no machinery in the Police Force in the shape of a democratically elected body which can negotiate on these matters. The police have no trade union or representative of the men such as exists in other industries. It is a great pity that that concession has not been made to the Police Force. I have more than once discussed with members of the Police Force in various parts of the country their conditions of service. I hope it will not be considered improper for them to discuss their conditions of service with Members of Parliament. As the conditions for forfeiture of pension stand, a Police authority may think it is improper for members of the Force to give information to a Member of Parliament. I have often noticed—

I have stated from this Box that I do not regard it as improper that a member of a Police Force should discuss his conditions of service with a Member of Parliament.

I appreciate the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. The point I was making is that it should be safeguarded as a matter of statutory right and not be left to the discretion of a particular Home Secretary.

May I remind the Home Secretary that we have had experience of Police Forces being prevented from holding meetings to discuss their own conditions among themselves—much less with a Member of Parliament—and that it is all part of the chronic chaos which exists?

That question carries the matter a great deal wider, but I can tell the House that I have assured the Police Federation that if any such case comes to my notice, I will take steps to see that such a prohibition of what Parliament desired the police to have shall be removed.

These matters should be safeguarded by statutes and not rest on the good will of Ministers. I was about to say that I have often noticed that, cheerful, valorous and bearing their arduous duties with fortitude, as are our policemen, there is often behind all this a certain sense of frustration, because of lack of machinery for discussion of grievances. The setting up of machinery such as the hon. Member for Rugby has so often advocated would go a long way to dispel that sense of frustration, and would be a very distinct contribution towards the recruiting of able, intelligent and honest men for the Police Force. There is no branch of the public service and no aspect of the activities of democracy, particularly at this time, in which we have more need of outstanding, upright and able men, than in our Police Force.

The House must admit that the Home Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did make out a case for a new Police Pensions Bill. It is obvious that steps must be taken, among other things, to integrate this pensions scheme with our national security legislation. I was much more impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's argument on that part of his speech than by the attack made upon him by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), but I am sure that Members on both sides were rather shocked at what the right hon. Gentleman said on the subject of pensions for police widows. The right hon. Gentleman told us that for three years from 5th July next—which is nearly three and a half years from now —it is proposed that the level of pensions for widows of policemen in the lowest category shall remain at a nominal £30, going up, possibly, to £42 per annum. In view of the present cost of living that is a pitiful pension; it is extremely regrettable that for three years that appalling level of penury is to be permitted for the widows of these gallant men.

The right hon. Gentleman hinted that the reason for this was failure to obtain agreement on the terms of contribution with the Police Federation. If that is so, it is so, but that does not end the matter. This House has some responsibility, and it is unthinkable that we should consent, whatever the reasons, to allow this very unfortunate state of affairs to continue for another three and a half years. The right hon. Gentleman, having gone as far as he did in giving reasons, should, I think, go a little further, and tell us precisely what the point of disagreement was, what was the amount of difference between his attitude and that of those with whom he negotiated. If the point of difference was small, I am sure that Members of all parties would be prepared to urge him to go a little further to meet this crying need.

The Federation declined to consider any increase in contribution.

Then there is, presumably, the question of a certain contribution from the public funds. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us now what the amount involved would be, but perhaps the Under-Secretary can obtain the information and let us know when he replies. We should know what is the financial difference which prevents action being taken to remedy this great wrong. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) brought up the case of the pre-1918 widows. There are very few, and I should have thought that with a minimum expenditure from public funds something might have been incorporated in the Bill to help this small and extremely unfortunate class of people. I hope it is not too late for the Home Office to reconsider their attitude on this aspect of the matter.

The point on which Members on all sides, including the Casabianca of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) seemed to be agreed, was that the method of dealing with Police pensions which the Bill incorporates is thoroughly bad in itself, and a most damaging and dangerous precedent for the future. The Police Pensions Act of 1921 provided a statutory basis, a charter on which those entering the Police Force could rely. After all, we are legislating for a long time for the people whom we are hoping to induce to enter into the Police Force today for perhaps 35 years of service. It seems right to give those people the sense of security which a statute gives, and which a regulation that may be altered at the whim of a Minister of the Crown emphatically does not give. It seems a thoroughly retrograde step to pass from the statutory basis of the 1921 Act to the basis of regulation under which it is now proposed to operate.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that this is a most dangerous precedent. If this is done for the Police Force, whose independence of the Executive Government is perhaps more important than that of any other branch of Government service, it is a precedent for doing it for every other form of national service, and it seems a wholly wrong and dangerous method of setting about it. The right hon. Gentleman said power was taken to prescribe exact details by regulation. If that were the whole truth of the matter, there could not be much objection, but if hon. Members will look at Subsection 1 (1) they will see that the regulatory power is to prescribe:

"as to the pensions which are to be paid and in respect of members of police forces, whether as of right or otherwise; and (b) as to the contributions . … and (c) as to times and circumstances."

Those are not precise details, those are fundamental questions. The habitual argument in favour of proceeding by regulation is that it gives flexibility but, surely when you are establishing the legal basis of a great national service, flexibility is precisely what you do not want. You want conditions which can only be altered with some difficulty, so that those who go into that service shall know that they have stable and secure rights which can only be altered by the express will of Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to circulate in the White Paper his intentions, but the intentions of a Minister are transient and fragile things. Ministers themselves are transient and fragile, and what a Minister intends or, indeed, who is to be a Minister, can vary as the months pass. It is really not good enough to expect men to go into our at present under-manned Police Force with the knowledge that their vital pension rights are left almost, if not quite, at the unfettered discretion of a Minister of the Crown. Who, joining the Police Force today with a prospect of 35 years' service, can possibly speculate as to who will occupy the place of the right hon. Gentleman in the 35 years immediately ahead? Who can speculate as to the political colour, the personal competence, or the particular views of the innumerable occupants of that great office who will pass in succession during 35 years? Yet every one of those persons is to be entitled by these regulations to alter rights already earned and acquired by loyal service in the Police during those years.

Quite frankly it is not good enough, and the habitual argument of flexibility is in itself the most damning argument against regulations because this is not a matter in which flexibility is desirable. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the difficulty of laying down all these provisions in detail in the Bill, but he has laid down in great detail in the White Paper what he intends to do. I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary can tell me why it was not possible to follow the procedure of the 1921 Act and incorporate as a Schedule the proposed conditions? If it is possible to draft the conditions in the White Paper, why cannot that be done? What insuperable objection is there to that?

Finally, as to Parliamentary control, if there is any matter upon which it is desirable that Parliamentary control should be effective, it surely is this subject. Yet we are being fobbed off with the highly illusory safeguard of the procedure by negative Resolution, which means that if the House desires to discuss the matter, it has to do it upon a "take it or leave it" basis. The very fact that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) found it necessary to go into the details of the White Paper and, in particular, paragraphs 12 and 13, shows that this is a matter upon which the House should be allowed to consider Amendments. Yet under the negative Resolution procedure there is not the slightest chance of amending one word. That is quite wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman had followed the suggestion I have just made of scheduling the conditions in the Bill, it would have been possible for hon. Members interested to put down Amendments to clear up the doubtful points. As it is, hon. Members will be denied any possibility of effecting the slightest Amendment, and they will be faced with the alternative of rejecting a set of regulations, much of which may be excellent, because they happen to dislike certain points.

It would have been more honest for the Government to abandon the farce that there is any effective Parliamentary control obtained by this method. The safeguard is illusory, the possibilities of effecting amendment negligible, and the least that could have been done would be to bring these regulations before the House in a manner in which Amendments could be moved against them. There is also the fact that the fundamental basis of security of the police, the appeal to the courts, is left dependent upon the whim of the right hon. Gentleman. He has said he will allow that appeal, but it will be open under this Bill for any of his successors to eliminate that right altogether simply by amending the regulations. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman would desire in any way to limit the right of access to the courts, but there are other right hon. Gentlemen in the present Government, as there may be in future Governments, who are not over-enthusiastic about access to the King's courts, and it is imaginable that some right hon. Gentlemen of that frame of mind might occupy the right hon. Gentleman's place and would be perfectly within their rights under this Bill if they swept this right out of the regulations and removed it from the police.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position. He knows better than anybody else in this House how serious is the position as regards police recruitment. He must know that one of the most important factors in any recruitment drive is the knowledge of the pension conditions which can be obtained at the end of service, and not only as to the precise conditions themselves but, above all, as to the certainty of obtaining them and the security behind them. Would he not be serving a good purpose in supporting that recruitment of the Police Force, which he knows to be necessary, were he to say even now that he appreciates that at any rate the major matters concerned—the appeal to the courts, and so on—should be incorporated at a later stage in the Bill, and the regulatory power maintained merely to enable him to fill up the details? If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would be serving a good purpose so far as the police are concerned and, if he will allow me to say so, would be increasing his own reputation as a good House of Commons man.

I have learned a great deal from this discussion. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that one of the primary things which are important to the ordinary man-in-the-street is what he is going to get when he is an old man. To most people the chief thing is what they are likely to get during the ordinary course of their working lives.

Indications have been put forward that policemen are not being remunerated to the extent to which they should be, but I think it is correct to say that in the last 12 months they have received much higher remuneration than before. I have heard nothing to lead me to believe that they are feeling sorely about the present position. I notice in the Memorandum to the Bill that Parliament pays half the expenses relative to all the benefits that ensue. Therefore, Parliament has a very important responsibility. When I first read the Bill, I did not think there was much to discuss in it, but it has been mentioned that the Police Council is a nominated body.

That was quite inaccurate. The Police Council is not a nominated body. Representatives are elected by all the bodies which are entitled by Act of Parliament to send members.

Do those bodies represent the ordinary policemen?

One of them—the Police Federation—does.

When I first looked at the Bill, I thought that, on the face of it, it gave a fairly sound basis of representation, but, after all, there is a weakness attaching to the situation. The Home Secretary can consult with the Police Council, but our experience in life is that while one can consult, on many occasions one does not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Where a dispute arises and the Police Council, representative of the men, after consultation on important matters such as general wage conditions, differ strongly from the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman has to take individual responsibility for settling the dispute. That is a weakness. The Home Secretary has too much responsibility in important matters where the Police Council and he cannot come to some reasonable terms.

Although it may be suggested that matters of that character should go to court, I do not regard that method as always being satisfactory. As I get on in life, and see this country developing into big organisations representing big bodies of men, I turn largely to the view that there should be a forced stage of arbitration on all matters of importance. I think that should apply here, and that when the Police Council and the Home Secretary cannot come to satisfactory terms of agreement, they ought to have the power to call in some outside body to decide the issue, and so satisfy those concerned—the policemen particularly—that they have had a fair crack of the whip.

The question of forfeiture, and the position that arises when some ex-policeman has perhaps broken the law and got himself into a position which is not satisfactory, taken in conjunction with the fact that he was a policeman, has been particularly mentioned in the discussion. The arguments which have been put forward on this point have been strong ones and in Committee these points should be considered. After all is said and done, whatever pensions or other benefits there may be, the men themselves are paying into a fund from which these benefits arise. A man can have been in the Police Force for a long number of years—20 or 25 years—and he may then commit some crime or do something which, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, is of such a character that he should be dismissed the Force and forfeit his pension. That should be reconsidered. It can be said that he has at least earned something, and the longer he has been in the Police Force the more he has paid in contributions towards a future pension. While it may be true that he has not conducted himself in the way he ought to have done in order to get a full pension, he has contributed money out of his earnings, and he should at least get a proportion, in accordance with the time he has been in the force or in accordance with the contributions he has himself paid.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) began his speech in a way that rather implied that he was about to tell us something very remarkable, and point out some particular principle in the Bill which would apply to about two million people. I have always looked upon the hon. Member as an acutely intelligent man, but he occupied a long time today and I think he was using his intelligence just to occupy the attention of the House for as long as possible. He gave the example of a man who was entitled to a particular pension and said that there was something embodied in this Bill that was likely to endanger it. It was all moonshine, and I think he knew it was moonshine, and still he persisted in that particular matter. Whatever pension such a man is entitled to, if there is a change in conditions any new member knows that he has to submit to the conditions in which he joins the Police Force. There was nothing in the hon. Member's argument.

I do not think much more of importance arises out of the discussion. The point is that a new condition has arisen and some change has to take place to meet that new condition, particularly for the new recruit to the Police Force. This Bill is brought forward to try to meet those new conditions and to fit in existing provisions with the National Insurance Scheme. The question of the widow's pension was dealt with by one hon. Member. I think there is a precedent which should encourage the Home Secretary to consider the advisability of reviewing these old cases where widows receive very small pensions, but the claim still remains. There was a similar condition existing under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. There were old pensions cases of people who had been injured many years ago and who, under the old Acts, had a very small income. It was recognised that in modern conditions they were not being treated in anything like a reasonable way. Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, it was decided that such people should receive at least another 20s. under the new scheme. I think that is something to keep in view.

I notice that Clause 6 (3) of this Bill states:

"This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland;"

It goes on to state:

"provided that this subsection shall not be construed as preventing any regulations such as are referred to in subsection (4) of section one of this Act from requiring payments to be made to a person or into a fund in Northern Ireland."

I am anxious to know from the Home Secretary, or whoever is to reply, whether these regulations are designed to prevent or alleviate the anomalous situation that has arisen about the pensions of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been employed by this Government overseas, either with the Control Commission, or other places abroad. It is a point of some importance. There are, no doubt, substantial reasons why this Bill should not apply in its entirety to Northern Ireland, but I can best illustrate my point by referring to a case that occurred.

A member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary volunteered for service with the Control Commission, and was accepted. His position in regard to his pension was that he was to retire after 25 years service on a half pay pension, and at the end of 30 years service on two-thirds pension. He served for a time with members of the Police forces of England and Scotland until he, among others, was declared redundant. He was to receive a Control Commission pension in addition to his ordinary pension, as were the English and Welsh police. It was discovered, however, that because the Overseas Police Force Act did not apply to Northern Ireland he alone, of all those people declared redundant, could not receive his pension. I am anxious to know whether that has been foreseen in this Bill and whether this Clause is designed to prevent that from occurring in the future. When the Royal Ulster Constabulary serve in Ulster they are away from the Police Force here and the difference between their pensions conditions does not cause so much concern. But when they are serving together with members of other Police forces in Germany, Greece and other places, as has happened since the end of the war and are declared redundant, they find they cannot receive a pension as members of other forces do because either one or another Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.

I hope I shall be told that that position is to be rectified, and that these regulations, about which at present we have no knowledge, are designed to do away with that kind of thing. It is a matter which has caused the greatest concern among members of this admirable force—who have been of the greatest use to the Government in service overseas. It is wrong that they should find that they are deprived of their pensions, because this Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland.

I wish to make an appeal to the Home Secretary to see whether he cannot try to come to agreement with the Police Federation on the question of widows' pensions. When the Minister replies, I hope that we shall be told what would be the extra annual cost to the Treasury if the difference which divides the two parties could be bridged. Perhaps one of the ways in which a compromise might be reached lies in the fact that when police were recruited they were told that they would have free medical and dental service. Under the National Insurance scheme they will now have to pay for these services. I do not know what the actuarial value of the benefits used to be, but that might be a bridge which would help to restart negotiations on this point.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was right when he suggested that new entrants into the Police Force should have the choice of paying the extra shilling a week and benefiting under the National Insurance Scheme in addition to drawing their Police pension. The real trouble is that the Police are so badly paid that we cannot attract new entrants. In the past the attraction was that there was security for them when they left the Force. A great part of that attraction has gone, because there is social security for everyone at the moment. If the Police were paid more, they would be able to afford these extra contributions without suffering so heavy a burden.

The only way in which the Home Secretary can solve this problem of recruiting is by making the conditions of service more attractive. I think that nearly every policeman in the land appreciates what the right hon. Gentleman has done for him. He has been a very sympathetic Home Secretary. He has listened to their arguments, and I am sure that he has done all he can to help. I suspect that this is not his own Bill. The hon. Member for Rugby was probably right when he said that it was a Treasury manoeuvre. When we come to the Committee stage, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to listen to our arguments and consider our Amendments.

I only want to touch on a very limited field. I approached this Bill having in mind certain groups of people whose interests I wanted to watch. I must confess that when I opened the Bill and found that it was really no more than a skeleton and that I had to go elsewhere to find the flesh and blood, I was rather taken aback. In passing, I re-echo and reinforce the apprehension and anxiety which has been expressed, I think sincerely, in all quarters of the House at the fact that under the new arrangement everything seems to be left to regulation in a manner quite different from the 1921 Act. Although that may conduce to flexibility—undoubtedly it has certain advantages from that point of view—it is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. I join other hon. Members in the appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter at least to the extent of putting into the Bill the essential principles—the matter of entitlement, right of appeal, and items of that kind. I think it is a most important matter and, if we let it go, there will be a precedent which will be followed in a great number of fields.

There are two other points with which I would like to deal. The first is the question of the widows who are on the minimum basic amount of £30. It has already been dealt with in many quarters and the Home Secretary has placed elsewhere the blame for the fact that nothing has been done about it. It may be that he has a certain amount of justification, but I feel it is not enough simply to place the blame elsewhere. He, as Home Secretary, and still more we, as Parliament, must accept a certain measure of responsibility—indeed, we must accept the whole responsibility in this matter—because I think it is not right even on the basis of that argument that these widows should be left even for a few years with only £30, which was brought up to £42 under the Pensions Increase Act, 1947. That means 16s. 2d. a week, and everybody knows it is fantastic to expect a widow to live on 16s. 2d. a week. In many cases, she has no addition to that amount and it will compare very unfavourably with the 26s. to which other widows will be entitled. I think the Home Secretary will have to tackle this thing again in some way and will have to unravel it; he will have to use his powers, and Parliament must use their powers if necessary, in this matter.

My second point is one on which I do not think anyone has touched, although it is quite important because it affects a group of serving police constables at the present time. It affects constables serving who were appointed before 1921. If they have not yet attained to the level in which they can claim two-thirds of their income for pension purposes it appears, by the draft regulation as set out, that they will not now be able to do so. I refer to draft Regulation 5C; retirement is to be compulsory for sergeants and constables attaining the age of 55. Under the 1921 Act there was this provision for compulsory retirement at 55, but there was also a proviso added in Section 29 (1, b) of that Act which made it possible, in spite of the age limit, for constables to continue until they had attained the length of service which would give them the two-thirds pension. As I see it, the 1921 Act has for practical purposes been swept away and, therefore, we are left with this Regulation 5C which gives compulsory retirement but which does not give that degree of elasticity in regard to the attainment of two-thirds pension or 30 years' service. I think that should be looked at again because it seems an obvious mistake.

That is all I wanted to say, except to reiterate that I hope the Home Secretary will put into the four corners of the Bill certain things which so many of us feel to be essential and which I certainly feel are essential, if the public and the force are to retain full confidence in each other.

We have had a very interesting Debate, which has raised a number of important questions of principle and, in addition, many points which Members will, I think, agree are Committee points. In the time at my disposal, I do not think I shall be able to deal with everything which has been discussed. On the whole, I think it fair to say that the criticism of this Bill has been not so much of what it is as of what it is not. To hear the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), it might be thought that the scope and implications of the Bill were very much wider than I believe them to be. The hon. Member raised points about all sorts of other public servants and, with others, referred to the general question of conditions and rates of pay and pension in the Police Force, as they relate to the modern cost of living and recruitment. I am making no complaint about those matters having been raised but, at the same time, I do not think that they could properly be expected to be dealt with in this Bill.

It is true that the conditions enjoyed by the Police have changed greatly in their relationship to the conditions enjoyed by other people, partly because of the changes in wage levels, and so on, and partly because some of the security provisions which used to be peculiar to the Police have become less peculiar to them over the years. Although that is, in every respect, a matter for which we should be glad, it means that certain attractions of the Police Force against other jobs are becoming relatively smaller. The Police Force is short of manpower, and it is possible to say that the rate of recruiting is unsatisfactory. That must be, to some extent, a matter of opinion, but I am informed that the rate of recruiting is a good deal more rapid than it was before the war. That is perhaps not a very fair test in the period immediately after the war, and it is a matter of opinion and argument as to what extent conditions in the Police Force should be such that there should be a rush into it as against many other important fields of employment. We do need more recruits. It may be that conditions, and the question we are discussing today, play a great part in retarding or increasing the flow of recruits, but we have to realise that the Police cannot, any more than any other section of the community, escape from the fact that there are today many important branches of employment in competition with one another.

Before I leave this question of conditions, I have to say that it is intended to have a review, by an independent committee, of the whole question of Police pay and conditions. It was not thought very useful to start that review too soon after the end of the war; if there were to be a scientific inquiry to lay down conditions which would last for a long time, with only relatively minor alterations over a number of years, it was thought that it would be more useful if that committee started work when we were more nearly into some kind of stable period, when people were back from the Forces, and we were able to foresee more clearly what conditions and the standard of living would be.

Will there be an announcement in the House about the composition of that committee, before it starts work, so that we can express a view about it if necessary?

There will undoubtedly be an announcement. I should think there would be an announcement about the membership of the committee.

A good deal of the argument of hon. Members was addressed to the question with which we are all now very familiar in this House—how much should be done by regulation and how much should be put into the Bill? My right hon. Friend said something about that, and I do not know that I can really elaborate it. If I got the sense of the House rightly, it was not suggested—at any rate, not by many hon. Members—that it was necessarily the best method to put the whole of the code into the statute, as was done in the past. What was more generally suggested was, that there should be rather more in the Bill than is proposed at present, and rather less in the regulations.

The hon. Member for Rugby referred to putting fundamentals into the Bill, and he enumerated one or two fundamentals, such as, for instance, the basis of entitlement to pension. We can certainly look at this in the later stages of the Bill, but I should like now to say that under the old system, under the Act of 1921, when the code was in the Act itself, a number of modifications were found to be desirable upon which, I think, all parties were substantially agreed, but they were never introduced simply because of the rigidity of the system, which required that a separate amending Bill should be introduced to make those small modifications.

I took the trouble to see what one or two of them were. I shall not keep the House by enumerating them. They were mostly relatively small modifications, but some of them related to quite fundamental matters, such as entitlement. I think that when hon. Members come to consider what the division should be between the types of provisions they would like to see in the Bill as being fundamental, and the types they think should be left to regulations, they will find it very difficult to make that particular distinction. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to say that we will look into this; we have not a closed mind upon the nature of certain particular provisions and particular fundamental rights which could possibly be put into the Bill.

When we have this argument about regulations, which is by now an old favourite in this House, I always think that there is a considerable degree of exaggeration of the dangers. Hon. Members always refer to the possibility that some anti-social Secretary of State will occupy the post now held by my right hon. Friend, and they point out to what extent he would be able to take away the fundamental rights of citizens. I think there is exaggeration, and I think so for this reason, that, after all, if a future Secretary of State had the advantage of a House of Commons so constituted that it would pass regulations abolishing these rights, it is fair to assume that he would also be able to put his will in that respect into operation by other means. The whole of our system is based on the assumption that, where these fundamental rights are concerned, the House of Commons is the guardian of the citizen. There is much less difference between the two procedures in that respect than is sometimes made out in argument.

I do not think I should follow the hon. Member for Rugby very far into his argument about Police representation. He was out of the House, I think, when my right hon. Friend intervened in another hon. Member's speech to point out that it is not fair to say that the Police Council is a nominated body. The suggestion that it was a nominated body was made by the hon. Member for Rugby. My right hon. Friend pointed out that there are certain organisations and categories of persons entitled by statute to be represented on the Council, and that they choose their own representatives. The whole question of the representation of the Police in this matter is rather more controversial than the hon. Member for Rugby might have led us to believe. We know he holds strong opinions on the matter, but it ought not to be assumed by the House that everybody in the Police Force shares his view or feels that the present position is so open to criticism as he suggested to us it is.

Most hon. Members have referred to widows' pensions. My right hon. Friend referred to that in his opening speech, and there is very little more I can add, although I should like to reply to a question asked early on by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I hope I understood the question aright. He asked whether the wife of a Police pensioner—that is to say, someone retired from the force and now enjoying the pension—who became widowed after the coming into force of this Bill would come under the new or the old scheme. The answer is that she will come under the new scheme. The question really is whether a particular type of pension is already being paid before the Bill comes into operation. The widow's pension in such a case would not be payable at the time the Bill comes into operation, but would come into existence afterwards. That would be covered by this Bill.

Most hon. Members who referred to the widows were concerned with the problem of which we are all aware, namely, the existing widows—the very small category described as the 1918 widows, and the larger category comprising those already receiving widows' pensions. There is very little I can add, except to say that, so far as the question of discussion with Police representatives is concerned, the matter remains open. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that although, as has been pointed out, the Police pensions scheme is heavily subsidised, there is, nevertheless, a considerable element of contribution, and in contributory pensions schemes it is unreasonable to assume that benefits should be altered without some kind of alteration in the contribution.

It is correct to say that in this scheme the proportion in respect of widows which is covered by the Police contribution is smaller than in most similar schemes. The total contribution of the Police to the total cost of the pensions scheme is, I am informed, 5 per cent., and only one-half of 1 per cent. is calculated to relate to widows' pensions. I have no actuarial knowledge of insurance schemes of this ind, but I am informed that that is a low figure, and that it is by no means unreasonable to suggest that if benefits were raised, there should be some adjustment of the contribution, or some compensatory alteration in some other part of the scheme. The actuarial question is one into which at the moment I cannot enter, for I should not be qualified so to do. The further information for which hon. Members have asked can certainly be made available during subsequent stages of the Bill.

From that, I take it that the Under-Secretary is not yet in a position to answer the question I put as to the cost to public funds of raising the pensions of existing widows during the period of three and a half years till the social insurance benefits come into effect.

I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Member is perfectly correct, that I am not in a position to give him those figures. We are examining it, and will get the figures, which must be readily available except at such short notice. We will see that those figures are made available to hon. Members during Committee.

Most of the points other than those to which I have already referred related to matters of detail, and were Committee points. I will refer to only one or two of them. I was a little surprised at the heat with which the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) referred to forfeiture. I am not aware—although it may be that in this, too, I am simply ignorant of it—that in the past hard cases have arisen under the forfeiture provisions. I should not myself have thought it inherently unreasonable that ex-members of a police force who became involved under the heading of any existing provision permitting of forfeiture should, in fact, forfeit their pension. The hon. and gallant Member asked on what principles any such forfeiture could be imposed. I can only repeat that this is a scheme very heavily subsidised by the Government, and that the police are in a somewhat special position, in that they acquire a lot of information in the course of their service which, if I may use the words, is "highly explosive." It is proper that they should have this information as police officers, and that it should be retained within the confidential limits of the service. It is very important, from the point of view of protecting the public, that there should be a sanction to ensure that an ex-police officer does not improperly disclose information which he has acquired during the course of his service.

My right hon. Friend pointed out that we are proposing to remove two provisions in regard to forfeiture, which seem to us to be of a less precise character than those which remain. The first relates to association with thieves and persons of bad character, and the second to refusal to give the Police information and assistance. My right hon. Friend dealt with both these points, and pointed out that these conditions were too vague in character to hold over the head of a retired police officer. I can give an assurance, in regard to the point relating to the publication "in any manner which the Police authority considers to be discreditable or improper," that it is the intention that there shall be a right of appeal in all these cases. We will certainly look at this most carefully to see whether this is open to criticism, and whether there should be some alterations made in this respect.

The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) referred to the pensions of members of the Northern Ireland Force who have served with the Control Commission. I can only say to him that there is no place in this Bill for dealing with such persons. The responsibility for the conditions of members of the Northern Ireland Force lies with the Northern Ireland Government. I do not think it would be right for us to put into this Bill some special provision for their serving officers, which the Northern Ireland Government have not thought fit to put into their own code. The Bill does not apply, except for the very limited purpose mentioned in the Bill, to Northern Ireland.

What is intended by the proviso in Clause 6? What regulations are intended to be made here?

I am afraid that I could not answer that point in detail. With regard to the contributions which we may make to the fund in Northern Ireland, that relates to transfers from one Police Force to the other. The contributions have to be made in respect of those for whom we were responsible when their careers began, and who subsequently transferred. It is to ensure continuity between the Force in this country and the Force in Northern Ireland. There is very little more that I need say. We shall have to look into the question relating to men who joined the Force before 1921. There is every intention of trying to meet the case of the rather small number of persons involved, and I should like an opportunity to deal with that matter at a later stage.

In view of what I have already said, and despite criticisms, particularly those relating to the fact that the new code is to be in regulations and not in the Bill, I think the House has shown that it recognises the Bill as a necessary piece of machinery designed not so much to alter in any major way the existing provision for Police pensions as to adapt the machinery to the situation which will be created by the National Insurance and the industrial Injuries Schemes.

As a purely practical piece of mechanics, something of this kind is necessary. Larger questions of conditions of pay, rates of pension and so on, may perhaps be more suitably left to a Measure of larger scope, if such were to be necessary at some future time. I hope that, with that degree of explanation and assurance on matters which we will be prepared to discuss later in Committee, the House will now agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

I want to take advantage of the Motion for the Adjournment to protest with all the vigour I can command against the denial of a campaign star to Anti-Aircraft Command.

During the Recess the Government published a dispatch from Sir Frederick Pile, Commander-in-Chief of that Command, on its operations against the air attacks of the enemy during the war.

From this and from other official reports it appears that anti-aircraft guns shot down no fewer than 822 aircraft and 1,972 flying bombs. Ack-Ack shared the duty of opposing the enemy raids with the Royal Air Force. During the Battle of Britain, and at some other times, the Royal Air Force had the main task, but at other times, and especially during the V-1 period, the major burden was borne, and the major success was attained, by Anti-Aircraft Command.

One would have expected that there would be no differentiation between the two Services. One would have expected no attempt precisely to allocate the share of each in victory, any more than one differentiates between the tanks and infantry who go in to attack and the artillery who prepare the way for them. Yet the Royal Air Force fighter crews received a campaign star, whereas Ack-Ack merely got, in addition to the ordinary War Medal, the Defence Medal, which is given primarily to civilians and to soldiers who are not engaged in operations. We owe an enormous debt to the Royal Air Force, but it is not too much to say that but for Ack-Ack the enemy attacks would have been far more severe and bloody, and it is not too much to say that, but for Ack-Ack, our preparations for invading Europe in 1944 might have been seriously interfered with.

When I put a Question to the Lord President of the Council on 22nd January, he said that to give a Campaign Star to the men of Anti-Aircraft Command would involve giving it also to the Dover Coastal Batteries, to the R.A.F. ground staffs, to the National Fire Service, to the Police and to the Civil Defence Services. I say nothing about the claims of the Dover Coastal Batteries or the Royal Air Force ground staffs, but surely it is an extraordinary proposition to advance that if Ack-Ack were given a Campaign Star, it would have to be given to firemen, policemen and air-raid wardens.

As Mr. Hore-Belisha, who was Secretary of State for War during the first part of the war, said, Ack-Ack actually engaged the enemy in a vital battle of the war. And as Sir Archibald Sinclair, who was Secretary of State for Air during most of the war said, Ack-Ack was an operational Com- mand. Any suggestion to the contrary simply will not bear investigation. Anti-Aircraft Command was, indeed, more continuously operational than any other Command, except perhaps the Royal Air Force Fighter Command. I assert that a civil formation should not rank for a military award, and a military operational formation ought not to be asked to be content with a civilian award. The rôle of Ack-Ack was active and offensive, and the enemy were its target. The rôle of policemen, firemen, and the other civil defence services was merely passive. The Ack-Ack men fought as soldiers and they ought to have soldier's medals. Are hon. Members aware—

Are hon. Members aware that one day's service in an Ack-Ack unit in France qualified for the France and Germany Campaign Star, and six months' service in an Ack-Ack unit in France qualified for another campaign star, the 1939–45 Star, while five and a half years' service in Ack-Ack Command at home did not qualify for a star at all? Will any hon. Member deny that Ack-Ack troops fought as hard a battle in Great Britain as in any other theatre of war?

The denial of a Campaign Star to Anti-Aircraft Command deprives many soldiers of honest pleasure to which they are surely entitled. I ask the Government to remember that many of these men as Territorials before the war gave up much time for training, at a period when they did not get much encouragement from the party opposite. To refuse the Campaign Star to these men is to discriminate most unfairly against them. They cannot understand why they are excluded. This is a grave injustice which, if persisted in, will have a very discouraging effect on recruiting for the Territorial Anti-Aircraft units. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.

We are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) for having raised this matter this afternoon, and for the way he has persistently advocated the claim of Anti-Aircraft Command for the 1939–45 Campaign Star. He has dealt very ably with the claims of the men who served in the last war. I should like to support his argument about recruiting. I am seriously perturbed at the effect that the withholding of this Star from Anti-Aircraft Command will have on the building up of the anti-aircraft defence organisation of this country.

It is universally agreed that it is essential, in the unfortunate event of there being another war, that we should have a strong and efficient anti-aircraft defence in this country. Before the last war the highest priority was given in the Territorial Army to anti-aircraft. Many of the infantry Territorial units were converted against their will to an anti-aircraft role, but they were told it was vital that they should become anti-aircraft and they accepted the fact. They worked hard to bring their units up to strength and to train themselves. At the end of the war some of them, who, because they were key men, had been kept in Anti-Aircraft Command during the whole of the war, were then told that they were not entitled to this Star. They were told that though they had been in an operational command and had engaged the enemy successfully and with vigour, they were not entitled to this Star, purely because they had not been in that particular part of the world, service in which entitled them to the Star.

The stigma of being non-operational is sticking to anti-aircraft units today. I have talked to brigade and regimental commanders at present in Anti-Aircraft Command and they are very dubious as to their ability to recruit and train people to be efficient in the anti-aircraft role. So far they have been able to recruit the old type of Territorial soldier, the man who served in the Territorial Army before the war, but they are finding it extremely difficult to recruit new men. When they suggest to men that they should join, they have thrown back at them the stigma of being non-operational. They are disturbed also as to what the effect will be on the men drafted to their units under the National Service Act, whom they expect to receive in 1950. How will these men react when told they are going to a unit which is not operational, and which would have made them ineligible for a Campaign Star?

I attach the greatest importance to another aspect of the matter. Anti-aircraft can only be successful if it has a certain number of really efficient first-class Regular soldiers. The Regular soldier today, if he is connected with the anti-aircraft element of the Regular Army, feels that he may be accused of getting a "cushy" job. He realises how the Regular soldier in the last war who was connected with anti-aircraft prejudiced his career. There were many cases of men one knew to have the greatest possible ability whose careers were retarded by being in anti-aircraft. For these reasons, the impossibility of getting new recruits, the effect on men drafted under the National Service Act, and the Regular soldier's unwillingness to join the anti-aircraft element of the Army, I feel it will be impossible to build up an efficient anti-aircraft organisation, and I beg the Under-Secretary of State to change his mind.

In intervening in this Debate, I am thinking primarily of the effect which withholding the Campaign Star from anti-aircraft units will have on recruiting. The task of anti-aircraft is exactly the same whether at home or abroad. Ack-Ack is an operational command. That, I think, is beyond all argument now. It is an offensive command and should be differentiated from defensive commands. One can say that Ack-Ack played a magnificent part in the defence of Great Britain, without detracting in the very least from our admiration of the gallantry of the civilian organisations which played their part. I would hand the palm for cold-blooded gallantry to the bomb disposal fellows, who had a task which I would have hated to tackle at any time. I wish to support with all the sincerity and conviction I can bring to -bear the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

I would like from this side of the House to support this proposition. I agree with every word that has been said about it, especially by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton). It should never be forgotten that throughout the whole of the battle areas of the last war none suffered more intensive bombardment than Southern England, especially around this London of ours, and the men who defended that area in Ack-Ack are as entitled to operational honours as any other branch of the Services. I take exception to the reference by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) to the lack of encouragement which he said had been given to Territorial recruitment before the war by the party on this side. The whole of the party on this side this afternoon have had military service. Two of us have had Territorial service. I have had 15 years Territorial service, and I would be glad if the hon. Member would remember that it is not true to speak of the party on this side of the House in that way.

I certainly withdraw the statement as regards the three hon. Members opposite who are now present, but when I made my remark there were a good many others opposite.

It would have been a bad thing if the Territorial Army before the war had consisted of the supporters of one political party. It consisted of the rank and file of the people of the country, supporters of all parties, including ours. I support the proposition which has been advanced this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will pay regard to it.

I would like to support the case which was stated most admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I speak as honorary colonel of an anti-aircraft gunnery regiment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is representing the Government will take note that this is not a small matter to a great many people. Every day and every week various members of the regiment of which I have the honour to be honorary colonel come to see me about this particular matter. They feel that they have been subjected to an injustice. As several hon. Members have already done, I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that if we are to call upon this Command again in the event of an emergency, there will be no enthusiasm of any kind to join it, and every man, however high or however low, will do his utmost to get out of it and into another branch of the Army. If that is not due to the feeling that they were given a very raw deal during the last war, I do not know to what it is due.

If the Government want to get a good Service, they will reopen this matter. It is one which is felt with grave seriousness by each member of the rank and file, who feel that they have been given a shabby deal. The hon. Member for Twickenham has pointed out that what has been said to them is that they are not an operational command. Are the Government really serious in saying that of a command which went into action in the Port of London—and in the next war we shall certainly have the war right here, in our very centre, as we did last time. If they are to be told that they are not an operational command, they will know that they will not be treated as an operational command, and that they will not be treated like other members of the Armed Forces. To say that the National Fire Service, for whom I have the greatest admiration, is really the reason for not giving the Anti-Aircraft Command a military award is sheer nonsense. Whatever the Fire Service as a civil force are entitled to—they may have been treated very badly for all I know—it has nothing to do with the question of whether a Star is given to Ack-ack or not. That is burking the whole issue.

I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who are taking note of this Debate will not say that this matter is finished and done with, because it will not only be very much in the minds of all those who are now training in Anti-Aircraft Command and those who are refusing to come into it, but also will very adversely affect their efficiency, their prestige, their confidence in themselves and their desire to be in a Ack-ack Command in the event of another crisis arising, when the country looks to them for its defence.

I wish to take part in this Debate, if only to assure the Government that everyone in the House is agreed in this particular appeal. Hon. Members have referred to their own experience in Ack-Ack Command. I speak as a Civil Defence Commissioner, and one who does not expect, or deserve, the Campaign Star. There is all the difference between the active fighting man and a person who is engaged in passive resistance. The Civil Defence workers suffered the consequence of enemy action, but the Ack-Ack people struck an active blow against the enemy. I cannot understand the logic that gives the Campaign Star to an airman who flies 500 feet above the anti-aircraft battery, but denies it to the man or woman in the Ack-Ack battery who sends a shell 5,000 feet in the air. Both of them are actively engaged in striking at the enemy.

The distinction in this matter is perfectly clear. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), who pointed that out to the Lord President of the Council. The Lord President shows less than his usual acuteness when he says there is no such distinction. I cannot imagine that air raid wardens or firemen would make a similar claim. They were engaged on passive operations. I have friends who served in the Suez Canal zone who are quite proud that they achieved this Campaign Star. They would be the first to admit that the comforts and circumstances of the Suez Canal zone were indeed idyllic, as compared with the horrors and terrors of the experiences of those engaged in the Ack-Ack defence of the County of London. I feel that this impressive unanimity, complete on the Government side of the House and on this side, except for one hon. Gentleman who has yet to speak, will cause the Government to make this concession.

I have been impressed, and no one can fail to be impressed, with the feeling and eloquence with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have put this case. One point, to which I would refer, seemed to be a little outside the Debate. The hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) expressed apprehension as to the feelings of Regular soldiers who might find themselves in an Ack-Ack Command. He said that they felt that their career in the Service was being retarded. I would submit that if there is apprehension of that kind it is caused by something deeper than the particular topic we are discussing. When he mentioned that, he was raising something that lies outside the main question.

The Financial Secretary, nevertheless, will admit that it is a fact that Regular soldiers are very chary of getting on to an Anti-Aircraft site.

I am not admitting that. I am merely saying that the suggestion cannot be produced as if it were entirely evidence in support of the claim advanced in this Debate. No one would wish to say that the great services rendered by the men in Ack-Ack Command ought not to be most fully recognised by the gratitude of the nation. Those services are not unrecognised at present. Men in this Command qualify for the Defence Medal and for the War Medal. The issue, therefore, that is put before us in this Debate is whether they should also be made eligible for a third award of a Campaign Star. One hon. Member opposite particularly mentioned the 1939–1945 Star. I take it that that really is the issue before us. Can that claim be conceded in the case of men in the Ack-Ack Command, without being conceded also to a considerable number of other groups of persons, and without further renewing a number of claims for particular decorations which have been made from time to time in the four or five years during which this topic has been discussed? The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) said in effect that he was pressing this claim but that it might be that some other group like the National Fire Service also had a claim.

I said that this was a military award. What the National Fire Service may be, and no doubt are, entitled to, is a different matter.

That is exactly the contention which I must challenge. The view I advance is that the whole question of awards, both to civil and military personnel, must be considered as one question. If we grant this Campaign Star—which would be a third award to men of the Ack-Ack Command in addition to the two for which they are already eligible—we increase the gap between them and other groups of persons. Inevitably, that would rouse again a whole series of claims which have been discussed and regretfully set aside in the past.

This is not a new matter. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) introduced any suggestion of party into the discussion. This matter was first raised and pronounced upon in this House by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he was Prime Minister. This very issue was discussed and regretfully set aside by him. He pointed out, among other things, that whereas much had been said of the actual operational work—"striking a blow against the enemy," was the phrase used by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)—if we consider not only those who fire the guns, but those in searchlight and predictor services, it is not practicable to distinguish between them. Those who render other services might be called passive just as readily as Members of the National Fire Service who are called passive.

No fireman ever killed a German.

I was surprised—

No air-raid warden ever killed a German.

Yes. But it is not on that basis solely that these honours and awards were granted. I ask the House to consider how wide a door would be opened if this claim were conceded. What are the other groups who would feel that they had a claim also to this Campaign Star? There are those who, like Ack-Ack Command, already possess the Defence Medal and the War Medal. Among them we find, in the Royal Navy, those who were engaged on valuable and important duties which kept them ashore—

They were not operational. That is the point.

Further, there are those who were engaged on bomb and mine disposal in the Royal Navy.

They were not operational.

I am aware of that, but I would point out that if this claim were granted to Ack-Ack Command, the others would have as strong a sense of grievance as has been expressed by any hon. Member opposite on behalf of Ack-Ack Command this afternoon. Indeed, a claim has already been advanced on behalf of men in the Royal Navy engaged in mine and bomb disposal work that there should be some special decoration to represent that fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that hon. Members say "Hear, hear." That illustrates the point which I was making that once we reopen one aspect of this matter in regard to claims for awards we reopen the whole question. An hon. Member asks, "Why not?" That shows where we are being led.

We are now being asked not merely to consider this particular claim but inevitably, by the logic of the matter, to reopen the whole question. That is something which at this stage it would not be either wise or dignified to do. It cannot be done either at this or at a later stage because the matter has been studied and very carefully considered during the tenure of office of more than one Government, and that is the reason why I say it is neither wise nor dignified to reopen the whole question now. There were men in the Army who were engaged in home defence or in instructional duties and there were men in the Royal Air Force who were engaged in non-aircrew duties; these groups at present have the defence medal and the war medal and in that position they resemble Anti-Aircraft Command. If this campaign star were granted to Anti-Aircraft Command, it would involve inevitably these other groups, that is to say a total of something about one million persons.

If I may refer to those who at present are eligible for the Defence Medal, it has been said that these men were not in the Armed Forces and that they are not, therefore, to be considered side by side with Anti Aircraft Command. The point I want to make is that there was one group, the Home Guard, some of whom did part-time service side by side with Anti-Aircraft Command. It has been represented with just as much eloquence as we have heard this afternoon that these men, too, should have qualified for the War Medal. I do not see how you can make a distinction between Anti-Aircraft Command and those men in the Home Guard who served part-time with Anti-Aircraft Command. If we grant the claim made this afternoon the claim of the Home Guard for the War Medal must inevitably he revised.

There are, too, the men in the Fire Service, in the Police and in Civil Defence units. It was with these in mind that the right hon. Member for Woodford regretfully set aside the claim that has been brought up again this afternoon. Indeed, there are very considerable sections of the population who, if they did not kill a German—for which, apparently, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has such enthusiasm—were engaged in saving the lives of people in this country, and of maintaining the economic structure and fighting power of this country; and it is very doubtful whether you cannot maintain that they, too, made a very valuable contribution towards the killing of Germans.

There are men who worked on the railways and in the gasworks, where there were at times very ugly and perilous incidents. Men of that sort at present have no decorations at all. If we give a third award to Anti-Aircraft Command the question must inevitably arise as to whether we ought not to give these men a decoration as well. I am sorry to weary the House with this long list of persons to whom the doors are being opened. There are also the men in the Forces who did not actually serve overseas. May I quote what the right hon. Member for Woodford said in the House in arguing against the extension which has been suggested this afternoon?

"It would become so common as to be very nearly universal. I am sure the soldier, sailor and the airman returning from prolonged active service abroad and wearing the Africa or the 1939–43 Star would feel bewil- dered when he saw all around him 12 million mostly adult, males who had not left the island but who had got the same ribbon, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1944; Vol 398, col. 879.]

There will be these groups of men in the Forces who will raise the question as to whether, if this added distinction is to be given to Anti-Aircraft Command, there ought not to be an added distinction for them.

Let me say in conclusion that the real assessment of the work of the men in Anti-Aircraft Command is measured by the gratitude and judgment of the nation, by the respect they receive from their fellow citizens and in the judgment of history. The task before this House, and before successive Governments was to try to convert an intangible thing and to put it in some measurable form. That meant an attempt to draw up regulations for clasps, awards and medals which might involve 20 million claims. It is not reasonable, therefore, at this stage, to re-open the whole matter. It is impossible to grant this request without re-opening it and it is for that reason that we take this decision and not through any disregard for the high and honoured services rendered.