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

This Bill has been prepared as a result of recommendations which were made by the Statute Law Committee. The object of the Bill, as of all Statute Law Revision Bills, is to eliminate statutes which have become obsolete, with the object of bringing the statute book in general up to date. The purpose is to publish in due course a new edition of the revised statutes. This Bill covers the centuries from 1235 to 1800. In the last century, between 1861 and 1898, some 30 of these Statute Law Revision Bills were passed and which to remove from the statute book, statutes which had been clearly shown to be obsolete in their effect.

The first edition of the Revised Statutes was completed in 1885 and it contains in 18 volumes the law down to 1878. The present edition is the second edition; it was completed in 1929 and contains in 24 volumes the law down to 1920, and there are 31 volumes in addition to that of the Public General Acts passed since 1920. In other words, there are some 55 volumes of the law in all and between them they comprise over 40,000 pages. Since that edition a number of statutes have become obsolete, or have been shown to be obsolete. A great many have been repealed, but some have become obsolete in the sense that they are no longer applicable and are never used. The present Bill starts from the beginning and removes all this dead wood, in order to pave the way for the publication of the next edition of the Revised Statutes which, it is hoped, it will be possible to publish in far fewer volumes than the present edition—the second edition.

The Bill before the House has no novel features, at any rate of any importance. It follows the pattern of the Statute Law Revision Bills passed in the latter pan of the last century. The First Schedule contains some 750 Statutes which are repealed in whole or in part; they form in their context an interesting historical commentary on the history of this country in the last six or seven centuries. The Second Schedule continues the process commenced by the Short Titles Act, 1896, giving short titles to many early Acts which at present have to be cited by their full titles—perhaps I should add, on he somewhat rare occasions when they have to be cited at all. Clauses 3 and 4 eliminate words and expressions which are found in statutes which are really obsolete or unnecessary and the reprinting of which simply serves to make longer the text of statutes which could be considerably abbreviated in their printing. The Bill originated in another place and it has already been subject in the ordinary way to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

I should not like to part from the Bill without saying this: Hon. Members will see, if they glance at it, that an enormous amount of research and labour has gone to the compilation of the 750 statutes mentioned in the First Schedule and those mentioned in the Second Schedule, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute, if I may, to the work of Sir Cecil Carr. It is very largely due to his unremitting labour and patience and his phenomenal erudition in the statutes which are on the statute book at present which has made possible the preparation and presentation of this Bill to the House.

I think the House will agree that the Bill, like all these Statute Law Revision Bills, is a useful one. It conduces to the very laudable object of bringing our statute law up to date, making it more intelligible—perhaps I should say less unintelligible—and bringing it in a more accessible form to the various sections of the public who have occasion these days—indeed, always have had—to refer to the various statutes which affect their daily lives. For those reasons I commend the Bill to this House for Second Reading.

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill and should like to add our congratulations to those already extended to Sir Cecil Carr by the Solicitor-General. It is perhaps fitting to remark that there is nothing new under the sun, for the House has just considered a Bill about the development of inventions, and on page 95 of the Statute Law Revision Bill I find that even in those early days there was:

"An Act for providing a Reward to Joanna Stephens upon a proper Discovery to be made by her … of the Medicines prepared by her for the Cure of the Stone."

Here was a Development of Inventions Bill which even in these days might prove very acceptable to the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest).

I am sorry to see that any Act

"to prevent the misbehaviour of the Drivers of Carts in the Streets in London"

should have been repealed and perhaps the Government will consider in an age where there is already too much legislation, introducing something in that sense later on in the next Session. We welcome the Bill.

May I add a word to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on this Bill? One cannot, even if one only glances through the Schedules of the Bill, fail to be impressed by what one might call this "Index to History," and very much impressed indeed by what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the phenomenal industry and learning of Sir Cecil Carr.

In fact, if hon. Members will look at the Third Report of the Statute Law Revision Bill Committee, which I have in my hand, they will see that the proceedings very largely consisted in one member or another asking Sir Cecil Carr a question, Sir Cecil stating what the facts of the situation were and the Committee proceeding to agree with him in substance. Anyone who has had the pleasure and privilege of working on the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee or the Unopposed Bills Committee will know how very much the House relies in these Committees on his advice and guidance. It seems that the organisation of knowledge and experience is one of the foundations of Parliamentary work behind the scenes. To say "behind the Parliamentary facade," would perhaps be going too far; but there is behind the work of Parliament in the ordinary way this great support of men of immense knowledge and learning on whom we rest and who guide us.

Among the Bills repealed I notice there is a Bill which originally established the registration of physicians and surgeons in the reign of Henry VIII and another which established the beginning of what is now the Royal College at Physicians, also in the reign of Henry VIII. I do not know whether I may have the information—I understand it is not relevant to the discussion to touch on the merits of these Acts—but I should like to know why the Bill which enables herbalists and practitioners of the herbalist kind to carry on has not been repealed, not amended and not brought up to date. I do not think this is an attack on the medical profession, but it is an interesting fact that a herbalist Bill going back a very long way is still on the statute book, whereas these other Bills have been repealed. It is true that the medical profession has now grown to adult status and does not depend on these Bills passed by Henry VIII, but it is interesting that a Bill passed then—

This is rather outside the scope of the Bill, I think.

I think the whole House will agree with the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General in the desire to remove dead wood—and there are many dead-wood Acts I should like to see removed. At the same time, I associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to Sir Cecil Carr for the work he put into this Bill, and the evidence he submitted to the Committee. I would like to quote if it is in Order from the document of that Committee.

It is in Order.

This is from the Committee on which Sir Cecil Carr sat, and it is in language which I cannot hope to emulate. He said:

"Statute law revision is a crematorium for dead bodies of law, but not a lethal chamber for tiresome invalids who are still alive."

Further, he said:

"It is, of course, a rule of English law that a statute is not abrogated by mere desuetude or non-enforcement."

The remarks I want to make on the Second Reading of this Bill arise from those comments; and I want to deal with the contents of some of the Schedules.

I would first ask—and the Solicitor-General, if he wishes, may regard this merely as rhetorical, although it is a serious and practical question: When is a law alive and when is it dead? What makes a law live, and what makes it dead? Surely, it depends on whether the State keeps it alive; if the State does not keep it alive it is dead. I now propose to refer to a law which is nearly boo years old, which is, presumably, still alive, but ought to be dead. It is mentioned in the First Schedule, page line 37. It is a law of Edward III, Chapter I, a law of the year 1361. Its title does not really describe its purpose. Its title is:

"Who shall be justices of the peace, their jurisdiction over offenders, rioters, and baroters?"

On Second Reading we discuss the general principle of the Bill, and an hon. Member cannot discuss every law which he thinks should be added or omitted. That is a Committee point. I do not think that on Second Reading those sorts of topics are in Order.

May I give one or two illustrations, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of thing which ought to be contained in the revision of the law, and which, in spite of the tremendous amount of work put into the preparation of this Bill now presented, is not contained in the Bill? May I not do that, so that other things may be added before the next stage?

Illustrations, perhaps.

This particular law of 1361 is actually a more serious matter than many of the other Acts mentioned in the Schedule, some of which date back 600 years.

I said the hon. Member might make illustrations. He may not discuss the merits of a particular law. That would be out of Order on the Second Reading of the Bill.

That was just a passing comment, Mr. Speaker. In 1932 there was a trial, and the trial took place on a charge based and formulated on this Act of 1361. As a result of the trial two men prominent in the working class, Tom Mann and Llewellyn, were sentenced to two months' imprisonment. That trial was based on this Act, and the particular law was—

The hon. Member may not criticise the existing law on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind. The existing law cannot be altered by a Bill of this kind; it cannot be discussed on a consolidation Bill.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, by this illustration, that no one would expect that this law would be operating today, and yet it is; I want to suggest that it is dead, and that we should call it dead.

It is criticism of the existing law, and as such is out of Order on a consolidation Bill.

I knew there would be some difficulty about this, so I have got some reserves. I want the whole of that Act repealed, anyway. The next Act to which I want to draw attention is a law of James I, 1625. It is mentioned in the First Schedule of this Bill, page 59, line 18. It is called the Sunday Observance Act, 1625. It is proposed to make some Amendments to it. The only proposed repeal, however, is the repeal of the sentence. What is the sentence? That if a person does not observe Sundays he may be placed in the stocks for three hours. If the Solicitor-General wanted to show a certain ingenuity he would have proposed to omit "three" and to insert "two." Let us have some fun in life, and let us see a few people in the stocks who do not keep Sundays. This is completely out of date. It is dead. In the words of Sir Cecil Carr himself, we should regard it as dead, and give it a decent burial. What are the terms of that Act? It says:

"That the holy keeping of the Lord's Day is a principal part of the true service to God which in very many places of this Realm has been and now is profaned and neglected by a disorderly sort of people in exercising and frequenting bear baiting—"

Out of date: no one bear baits these days—

"bull baiting—"

No one bull baits these days, to my knowledge. Perhaps people do it in the country, but it is not done in urban areas—

"interludes, common plays—"

Common plays, in 1625, meant the plays of Shakespeare, Marlowe and Ben Jonson—

"and other unlawful exercises and pastimes."

That is the Preamble to the law. It is not proposed to repeal it, but only to repeal the sentence. There can scarcely be one of us who does not on a Sunday profane the law by going to a cinema or show of some kind, so that we are likely to end up in the stocks. Am I unreasonable in asking for this Act to be withdrawn?

I will now give a third illustration. I have six, but in view of your patience, Mr. Speaker, I will content myself with giving three. This one relates much more to matters we discuss nowadays, and which we were discussing on Wednesday in the housing Debate. This is to be found mentioned in the First Schedule, page 89, line 29. It is The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730. Every Member of this House with experience of matters pertaining to landlords and tenants knows quite well that a series of anomalies has developed as the result of numerous Acts passed, particularly between the wars, and that they call for revision. Yet here we are dealing with an Act of 1730, the main purpose of which was as expressed in its title:

"An Act for the more effectual preventing of frauds committed by tenants and for the more easy recovery of rents and the renewal of leases."

We have an Act of Parliament of 1730 merely concerned with such frauds as are committed by tenants, whereas you, Mr. Speaker, and I know well—and I say this with due respect to everyone concerned in the House—that the main frauds are committed by landlords, not because they are necessarily bad, but because they have the power to commit them while a tenant is only too happy to get a couple of rooms for his family. It seems to me that the purpose of this Act is that a tenant, failing to quit premises when he has received an order under it, must pay double the rent until such time as he quits. That is an obsolete law. I am not going to challenge the Solicitor-General, who is versed in these matters, while I am not; but it seems to me, as a layman, that this is a completely obsolete law, that it is dead, that we should acknowledge that it is dead, and execute its burial.

I have not raised any points which are not in the Bill itself. I have made a slight scrutiny of the various Acts of Parliament going back to the last 600-odd years. I find it very interesting, and we should be grateful to the Government for keeping us up until three in the morning because that is the time when one can go into the Library, look up these things and get a little learning—not that one can compete with Sir Cecil Carr—but sufficient to say a few words on this Bill. I hope the Solicitor-General will take to heart what I am saying. If I can get past the Standing Orders, I hope to put down a few Amendments on the Committee stage of the Bill.

I rise with the intention not of "getting past Standing Orders" but to ask the Solicitor-General one question. As I understand it, the whole purpose of this Bill is simply to remove from the Statute Book obsolete legislation and Measures which are wholly inoperative. Among the Measures it is sought to repeal there are a number of Acts of Attainder, notably the Act, I Jac. 2, Chapter 2․

"An Act to Attaint James Duke of Monmouth of high treason."

The Solicitor-General will, no doubt, have seen the discussion which has taken place in "The Times" as to the possible effect of the repeal of this and other Acts of Attainder in reviving certain hereditary titles. I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would say a word on that matter in particular, because if the repeal of these Measures does have some effect of that sort, it would seem that these are not Measures properly within the purview of this Bill.

The object of the Bill is to have no legal effect on contemporary affairs, but simply to enable the Statute Book to be reprinted in a slimmer, form than would otherwise be possible. If there is any force in these contentions which have been put forward in well-instructed quarters, there may be practical consequences of this sort. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would tell us whether that has been considered, and whether, in fact, the passage of this Bill into law would produce any unexpected effects of this sort?

I am sure that the House was entertained by the speech of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), but, in reply, may I with respect say that I do not think that I can add to what you, Mr. Speaker, said in ruling on a point of Order.

The object of the Statute Law Revision Bill is, of course, only to repeal those statutes which are inoperative and, from all points of view, completely dead and obsolete. The Bill, as I intimated in moving the Second Reading, has been already scrutinised with a view to seeing how far the statutes in the Schedule comply with that test. The hon. Member for Mile End mentioned the Lord's Day Observance Act, the Act dealing with justices, and another Act. I am not saying that these Acts do or do not require amendment. If they do require amendment, the Statute Law Revision Bill is not the place in which they should be amended. They must be amended by appropriate Measures dealing with the particular aspect in which the hon. Member feels that they require amendment. With regard to the Lord's Day Observance Act, I am sure that no one in the House would say that that was an Act which complied with the test which I have enunciated—that is to say, that it is an Act which by common consent is entirely dead and inoperative.

In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), when this Bill was scrutinised by the joint Committee this point was discussed, and in order to prevent there being any such revival as the hon. Member apprehended might result from the terms of the Act, the words "state, degree, style, dignity" were introduced in the penultimate paragraph of Clause 1 and after "title" the word "honour," These words were introduced in order to prevent that result ensuing and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the discussion on that point he will see it on page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the joint Committee. So far as matters of principle have been raised in the Debate, I think that this was the only one.

Will the Solicitor-General say a word about the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730? As he is aware, many Acts have been passed since then relating to this question. Can he say why that Act, or the point in it dealing with the paying of double rent, etc., has not been repealed in the Acts of Parliament passed since then?

I do not think that that is a question which can be asked on Second Reading. I think that the Solicitor-General has explained the position quite clearly. We cannot amend Acts—and we cannot say why one particular Act has not been repealed—which have nothing to do with this Bill.

Can the Solicitor-General give an assurance that this Bill does in fact remove all the dead, obsolete and inoperative laws now on the Statute Book?

I should when I spoke previously have asked for the leave of the House to speak again, and may I retrospectively ask for that now. With regard to the question asked, I do not think that anyone can give that assurance; that is why there were 30 Statute Law Revision Acts in 38 years in the last century. One has to go through them and prune and reprune, and one cannot guarantee that one will not find something that has been overlooked.

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

This Bill consolidates the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, and Part III of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1947. It does not amend the law or alter the existing law at all. It is simply for the purpose of consolidation.

I think that hon. Members on this side of the House would like to say that we are grateful to the Government for this Bill. We like to have consolidated legislation, so far as possible, as it affects agriculture, and we should like to express our thanks to the Government for it.

The purpose of the Adjournment subject which I now bring to the attention of the House, and the purpose of the Questions which I previously addressed to the Minister of Health in regard to this question, is one that is traditional in our House of Commons procedure. I am, in fact, seeking to let the voice of humanity be heard amid the darkened counsels of officialdom. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, I asked the Minister to see that conditions of humanity prevail over what I called a signal illustration of Bumbledon in Barnet. Since then, I am glad to see that some progress has been made in this matter along the paths of common sense and common humanity. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy in at once informing me of the developments that have since taken place.

I think that it would be convenient if I gave to the House a brief outline of the facts in this matter. The matter concerns the Wellhouse Hospital at Barnet and certain old men who have been living there for some considerable period now. Before the war the Wellhouse Hospital was a Poor Law institution; but on the outbreak of war it became a hospital, and the majority of the people in the institution were moved further away from London. However, when this change was made a few elderly men were left behind, by common consent and agreement, to go on living in the Wellhouse Hospital. That is not to say they were thereby using hospital accommodation in the ordinary sense of that word; that is, by continuing to live there they were not using up accommodation which might have been used as a sick ward. My information is that these old men have quarters consisting of a dormitory and a living room, and that these two rooms are not suitable—at any rate, in their present state—for use as hospital wards.

When I originally raised this question in the House there were eight old men concerned, since when one of the younger of the eight old men has, I am happy to say, found employment as a gardener and has taken his discharge, amid the good wishes of all. But the problem of the seven remains. Now, of these seven old men, the eldest is 85 and the second eldest is 82; and, although I have not worked this out, I imagine that their average age is probably slightly nearer 80 than 70. Most of these old men have been at Wellhouse for a period of between To and 20 years—

I think the average age of the old gentlemen is, in fact, 68.

I cannot accept that. I think it is wrong in any event, on the figures I have; and, secondly, I doubt whether the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) has taken into account the fact that the one old man who has gone was one of the younger of the old men, so that thereby the average age—

rose—

Perhaps I might finish the sentence, for I am only in the middle—thereby, the average age would in any event have been reduced.

For the purpose of the record we had better have the ages. They are: 62, two of 66, 68, 82, 78, 73 and 85.

I understand that one of those in the sixties has gone. I am not labouring the point, but if the average age of those remaining is worked out it will be over 70. Whether it is nearer 80 than 70, as I say, I am not quite sure, and I do not intend to detain the House by canvassing elementary mental arithmetic with even so distinguished an expert as the hon. Member for Barnet, because there are other considerations in this, and I hope that the hon. Member for Barnet—who has played a somewhat peculiar part in these trans- actions—has, after all this time, at least begun to have some glimmer of realisation that this is not a mere arithmetical matter. It is, as I have said all along, a matter of common sense and of common humanity. If I may respectfully say so, a good deal of the difficulties involved in this matter could have been saved had the hon. Member for Barnet shown some appreciation of that fact rather earlier in the transactions with which we are today concerned.

I return to the question of these seven old men. There they live, whatever the precise mathematical ratio of their average ages, pursuing the quiet and sober pattern of their lives. To these seven old men Wellhouse was home; life had not given them the comforts and consolations of a home of their own, to which no doubt most of us here look forward in our later years. They had, and have, unfortunately, no home of their own; but at least they had that place which they had, through long custom, come to regard as home. They had at any rate the consolations of genial companionship and of familiar surroundings. Nor were they idle, for they did odd jobs for the hospital; they did gardening, and they made themselves useful in every way that they could. The hospital was glad to have them there, and they were glad and grateful to have the opportunity of being there. There, then, they lived, doing harm to none, and doing good within their own perhaps limited capabilities. It may be that in their own quiet way they thanked God that they had this opportunity, after the stresses and uncertainties of life, to complete the evening of their days in this quiet retreat.

Now, nothing in life is permanent, and it would have been a matter of regret, but perhaps not of surprise, if their living on at Wellhouse had been interrupted by one of those disasters to which life is, unfortunately, exposed, such as the calamity of war, or one of the natural calamities which we know as an "act of God." What, in my submission, is, or should have been, unthinkable is that the instrument whereby the quiet, harmless life of these old men was interrupted was the coming into force of an Act which has been so widely publicised as an Act which is the instrument of great good to the community as a whole. It should, in my submission, have been absolutely unthinkable that this thing could have happened, not as a result of a national disaster, or some more localised disaster, but simply because the cold and unfeeling hand of officialdom stretched out and laid its grasp upon these poor and unoffending old men.

What happened at this stage was this. At the beginning of June the Barnet Guardians Committee were informed of an agreement between the Regional Hospital Board and the Hertfordshire County Council, who, of course, remain responsible in law for the old men, who are technically able-bodied, though having regard to the advanced age of some of them, there are no doubt things which can be and are done for them by the hospital out of the generosity of their spirit. As a result of this agreement between the Hertfordshire County Council and the Regional Hospital Board, who were due to take over the hospital on 5th July, and have now presumably done so, these eight old men, as the number then was, were to be moved from the Wellhouse Hospital at Barnet to the nearest county council institute which was at Ware, a distance of some 20 miles away.

Now, the Barnet Guardians—who have acted throughout in this matter in a way which would commend itself to the common sense and the common humanity, both of this House and of the wider community whom we represent—were strongly opposed to this compulsory transfer of these unfortunate old men, and they made their protest, as it was seemly and right that they should, both to the Hospital Board and to their Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Barnet.

Did they also make a protest to the county council who were legally responsible for looking after the old men?

The hon. Member asks whether they made a protest to the Hertfordshire County Council who, he says, are "legally responsible" for looking after the eight old men. I am not quite sure at this stage whether they made a protest to the Hertfordshire County Council or not, but I draw the attention of the House to the very significant words the hon. Member used in his interruption. He said that the Hertfordshire County Council were "legally responsible" for the maintenance of these eight old men. I see that I am to have many interruptions from the hon. Member before I am through with this speech, but the phraseology of that interruption exactly typifies the whole mental attitude with which the hon. Member approaches this great human problem. His only concern is where the legal responsibility in this matter lies, and as a member of the hospital board he takes refuge behind that technicality and like the Levite of old passes by on the other side.

It is important to clear up the question of the authorities about which we are talking. The hon. Member is talking about the Barnet Guardians as though they were a body which had no connection with the Hertfordshire County Council. The responsible body is the Hertfordshire County Council, and the distinction which the hon. Member is trying to make is completely misleading. I hope he appreciates that he is making a distinction which is not a real distinction in law at all.

I hoped that I was bringing a measure of clarity to this matter, but if I have not succeeded so well with the Parliamentary Secretary as with other Members of the House, the House will no doubt draw its own conclusions as to the reasons for that. The position is that nobody disputes that the legal responsibility for these men, as they are technically able-bodied, rests with the Hertfordshire County Council as the appropriate authority. It was on this point that the Minister of Health tried to make the point at Question Time on 1st July, when he said that what in fact I was doing was to impugn the authority and the discretion of the democratically elected local representatives of the people. But that is not the point at issue here. The point is that the Hertfordshire County Council stated on 8th June that they were quite prepared for these old men to remain at Wellhouse Hospital; that they were writing to the Hospital Board, and that in their opinion the Hospital Board would have no objection to that.

And so it is misleading to try to pin the responsibility for this upon the Hertfordshire County Council, when the decision of the Board that these men could not stay at Wellhouse, was the operative decision that led to the necessary and incidental decision that, because they could not live there, the Hertfordshire County Council would therefore have to transfer them to the institution at Ware. Had the Board done what the county council wished them to do and suggested it was likely they would do, and had they allowed them in the first instance to remain where they were, then it follows that there could have been no reason for the compulsory transfer of these men to the county council institution at Ware. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has brought this up, because it will be clear that his right hon. Friend distorted the issue—unfortunately not an unknown thing for him—at Question Time on 1st July. I had not intended to labour that point, because it is the Parliamentary Secretary who is here and not, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman.

That was the position on 8th June. A week later the guardians were informed that the hospital board were quite prepared to agree, and the hon. Member for Barnet said that he had consulted the chairman of the board, who I think I am right in saying is another Member of this House who sits on the Benches opposite, the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), and that in fact the decision of the board was that these men should be removed before the appointed day, that is, before 5th July. I draw attention to that, and I again regret that the hon. Member for South Tottenham, like the Minister for Health, is not in his place today.

Did the hon. Member give notice to my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) that he was going to attack him?

The Parliamentary Secretary really should not try to appear to be more ingenuous than the House will give him credit for.

Will the hon. Member say frankly if he gave notice to my hon. Friend or not?

I did not give notice to the hon. Member. It was not necessary for me to do so. I am not attacking the hon. Member.

The hon. Member has said he regrets that the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) is not here because of what he is going to say about him and then admits that he has not given the hon. Member notice to be here. Surely his experience of the House is sufficient for him to know how utterly improper that is according to the conventions of this House?

The hon. and learned Member knows as little about this matter as about some other matters on which he favours the House with his observations. I was proceeding to point out to him, in particular, and to the House, in general, that it was not necessary for me to inform the hon. Member for South Tottenham because I am not attacking him, but on the contrary—and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) would have found this out if he had postponed, his ill-judged intervention for a moment or two—it was the hon. Member for South Tottenham who attacked me on 1st July when this matter was last before the House.

Was not the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) present when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) stated to Mr. Speaker that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment, and, therefore, has not the hon. Member for South Tottenham been informed as to the nature of the Adjournment?

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is quite true; the hon. Member was in the House. He attacked me on that occasion, and he knew that the matter was coming up today, and he ought to be here. As far as attacking the hon. Member for South Tottenham is concerned, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is no doubt learned enough to recall the old French proverb:

"I am only the wicked animal who defends himself when he is attacked."

The hon. Member for South Tottenham on that occasion tried to impugn the accuracy of the statement in my Question on this matter on the grounds that the regional board had no power whatever in this matter until 5th July. In the light of the circumstances as I have already explained them to the House, I would call that a highly disingenuous statement on the part of the hon. Member. When he was saying that, he must have known that in his official position he expressed the view of the board that these men should be removed before 5th July.

Is that or is that not attacking my hon. Friend?

How then can he properly come to this House and say—

On a point of Order. Here we have a flagrant attack upon the hon. Member for South Tottenham and a charge of having misrepresented facts of which he was aware. He has not been given any notice to be present. Is it in Order to make these attacks upon an hon. Member to whom no notice has been given?

That is not a point of Order. It may be a matter of courtesy.

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Beaumont, for your Ruling. So far as courtesy goes, the point has been clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). It should not be necessary in those circumstances to point out to the hon. Member for South Tottenham that I would refer to his part in this transaction, since he had already taken part on the previous occasion when this matter was brought before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton who knows nothing about this matter at all, would serve the interests of the House in general and himself and his hon. Friend in particular if he refrained from misguided efforts to defend him in his absence.

Let us be quite clear about this. It is said that the hon. Member for South Tottenham was here when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) gave notice to raise this on the Adjournment. Did the hon. Member for Hertford tell the hon. Member for South Tottenham that when he raised this on the Adjournment he was going to challenge the statement made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham and to say that he had deceived the House? That is the point and that is the attack which it is most improper to make without notice.

The hon. and learned Member plunges deeper into the mire. The criticism made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham on 1st July was that I was misleading the House and if the hon. Member for South Tottenham and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton think it is likely that I should let such a challenge pass unresisted then they have a very different idea of the conduct that is expected from a Member of Parliament from that which I have. On that I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton will allow us to proceed with this matter, of which he knows nothing and in which his interruptions become ever more irrelevant and more unhelpful to the general business and procedure of the House. That was the position in June as between these bodies, the Hertfordshire County Council and the Hospital Board, and the poor, unfortunate eight men at Barnet.

Earlier the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) spoke about seven old men and later the number was eight. If the number is not now eight I would be obliged if the hon. Member would tell us whether one has now disappeared.

Would the hon. Member also indicate clearly and simply to me what date he has now reached in this somewhat involved and complicated story?

I do not think the story is involved or complicated. The hon. Member would no doubt have had no difficulty in following it had it not been for the distractions supplied by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. We are now at the end of June. In answer to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp) he came into the House after I started my speech. I had explained all that. At the time of which I am speaking the number was eight, but the number is now seven, because one of the old men has gone away and voluntarily taken his discharge to do a job of gardening. I explained that earlier, but I repeat it now for the benefit of the hon. Member.

In the last week of June the county council wrote to the Hospital Board suggesting that the old men should remain at Wellhouse for the time being, as the county council were not providing accommodation in the Barnet district. I want for a moment or two to come to the question of principle in this matter. So far as I can understand it, the opposition to these old men remaining in this place, which I say again was the obvious course, to anybody animated by the ordinary laws of common sense and common humanity, was based apparently on the principle that assistance and hospital functions should not be mixed together. In principle no doubt that is right and nobody challenges that as a matter of general principle. What I say to the House is, how can it be right in principle or in theory to evict and transport these seven old men against their will to an institution some 20 miles distant? That is to my mind the question of principle that arises in this case.

I said earlier that since I raised this matter originally in the House certain progress had been made along the lines of common sense and common humanity. The men have, in fact, not been moved from the Wellhouse Institution. The Hospital Board and the Hertfordshire County Council have, in fact, now agreed that the seven men should remain at Wellhouse pending the finding of other suitable accommodation, and the Hertfordshire County Council hope in due course to accommodate these men in a home for old people in Barnet, which is now being considered. What we do not know is how long it will take to provide this alternative accommodation. My information is that no very speedy results can be expected in this matter, and the hon. Member for Barnet will probably agree with me that it is likely to be a long time before this home for old people is established in Barnet. Therefore, it is my duty, in view of all the circumstances in, this case, to ask the Minister for a specific guarantee that however long this waiting period may be these men will not compulsorily be transferred against their will from Wellhouse to Ware.

On a point of Order. I would seek your guidance, Mr. Beaumont, because I can foresee difficulties later on. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is now asking me to give an assurance which I could not give, unless there were a change of law. I do not want later on to find myself in great difficulty on the point. I am not exaggerating when I say that I could not give the assurance for which I am now asked unless the law were changed.

If the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) could indicate how it can be achieved without any legislation he will be in order. If not, it is not permissible on the Adjournment.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for raising the point which clarifies the position. The House and the country are by now pretty well aware of the limitations on Ministerial control and, therefore, Parliamentary control, over the various services and industries which have been set up or taken over by this Government during the progress of this Parliament.

The hon. Member must not misinterpret my words. I am talking about the County Council, and in no sense was my point of Order directed to the regional hospitals board. For the Regional Hospital Board I can speak in this House, but I cannot give an assurance for the County Council on matters which are within their statutory concern.

I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do not think we need anticipate from the Hertfordshire County Council any desire or intention to act in a way inimical to common sense and common humanity in this matter. I make no criticism of them. It is the Hospital Board whose attitude I call in question and it is their part in this matter which gives rise to concern. All I want from the Minister is his assurance that, in so far as it may be necessary, he will use his influence and persuasion to see that this thing does not happen. I will supplement that by saying that, if on any occasion it does happen or is likely to happen, I also shall use such powers of influence and persuasion—although, no doubt, in a lesser degree—as I may personally possess to see that it does not happen.

I must say a few words on the general principle arising out of the unhappy affair. In my view it should never have been necessary for me to have to come to the House to raise this matter. The hon. and learned Member, who knows very little about this matter, may say it was not necessary for me to do so; but it is more likely to be recognised as another sign of the enduring efficacy of our traditional method of Parliamentary ventilation of the grievances of the citizen, If this matter had not been brought up on this level, who is to say what would have been the future of these helpless and humble old men at Barnet? I hope that cases like this will not be typical of this brave new world into which we are alleged to have been introduced by the coming into operation of this Act on 5th July.

Here was a case clearly, by its nature, exceptional, temporary and non-recurrent; surely, in such a case it is not asking too much that regulations should be interpreted in the light of common sense and of common humanity. A fortnight ago the Minister of Health made that speech at Manchester to which so many references have been made. For myself I was not greatly concerned about his famous reference to "Vermin," which I took to be made in the ebullience of schoolboy abuse. It was the reference to the "deep burning hatred" in his heart that shocked and disappointed me. How much better it would have been if the Minister of Health was animated by a deep love of humanity and a deep desire to serve the community and those individual citizens who compose it, however humble and helpless they may be. For my part, I am indeed proud if, in however small a way, I have been able to assist the cause of these unfortunate old men.

The House will have listened with considerable surprise to the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). Hon. Members will have wondered what on earth he was talking about and why he should consider it necessary to address himself with such vigour to a problem which apparently had been completely solved. It is a usual courtesy of this House, before asking a Parliamentary Question about another hon. Member's constituency, to inform that other Member of such an intention—and a very pleasant courtesy it is. It is also a usual courtesy that, having asked a Question about another Member's constituency, one gives that other Member a chance to ask a supplementary question before putting an end to any further questioning by giving notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Hertford, when he raised this matter in the House, did neither of these things—he neither notified me that he intended to raise a matter about my constituency nor, having asked the Question, did he give me a chance to ask a supplementary; he rose and announced that he asked permission to raise it on the Adjournment.

In view of those remarks may I ask two questions of the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor)? First, is it, or is it not, his custom to read the Order Paper, and does he suggest that he suffered any disadvantage by not receiving notification of the original Question? Secondly, is it not a fact that the hon. Member did not rise in his place to put a supplementary till after I had given notice about the Adjournment, and does he not appreciate that I should not have given notice at that stage had he risen in his place after the original Ministerial answer?

I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member would not have given notice at that stage, when he announced at the time that he had already started ballotting for the Adjournment before he had heard the Minister's answer.

rose—

Before I give way again—which I will certainly do as often as the hon. Member wishes—I must say that if ever I have had occasion—and it has not been very frequently—to raise matters in other Members' constituencies, particularly those of hon. Members opposite, I have invariably taken the trouble, in common courtesy, to notify the hon. Member concerned. We must begin to expect this kind of conduct from the hon. Member for Hertford, when he did not apparently bother to notify the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) that he was going to attack him on this very Adjournment. He certainly did not bother to notify me that he had won the Adjournment, even although it concerned a matter in my constituency.

That is not true. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I did so notify him in the Lobby some time ago.

On the contrary, as usual, the hon. Member for Hertford is wrong. I asked him, in fact, whether he was intending to pursue this matter in view of the fact that the whole thing had been satisfactorily settled. I admit that thereby I showed that I would know about it, but he had made no effort whatever to notify me beforehand.

The hon. Member for Barnet was present when I notified my intention and, surely, he is able to read as well as anybody else the coming Business of the House. Surely he does not suggest that it is the duty of hon. Members to spend their time writing notes to each other upon matters of which they should be aware in the normal course of their Parliamentary duty.

That is precisely what I am suggesting. That is a common courtesy which obtains amongst hon. Members, at any rate of this side of the House.

The background to the story of these eight old men of Barnet is very interesting. Long ago, from 1834 until 1930, the Wellhouse Hospital, about which we have heard today, was administered as a Poor Law institution by the Barnet Board of Guardians. Then, in 1930, the Hertfordshire County Council, under the local Government Act of the previous year, took over the institution. It was then that the Hertfordshire County Council had the great opportunity of converting this institution into a proper hospital. I am sorry to say, particularly as at that time it was dominated by friends of the hon. Member for Hertford—although I am not surprised to say it—that they did not take the opportunity which this change in administration offered, and continued to administer it as a public assistance institution. They placed it under a Barnet Guardians Committee, which has continued in operation in charge of this hospital until 5th July.

The hon. Member has suggested a lack of humanity by the regional hospital board which, in fact, took over the administration of Wellhouse about only eight or nine days ago. I should like to show the hon. Member, in case he does not know, precisely the amount of humanity to the sick poor in Barnet which his party betrayed in the years leading up to the war.

I do not understand the references to my part in this connection. Would the hon. Member be a little more explicit as to what those references mean? Is he suggesting that the Hertfordshire County Council is composed of Conservative members?

I was suggesting that the majority of them are most certainly Conservatives.

Does not the hon. Member know his county well enough to know that that is not true? Does not he know that the Conservative Party representation on the Hertfordshire County Council is infinitesimal?

I know precisely the size of the Labour Group on the Hertfordshire County Council, and it has to fight very hard indeed against the crypto Tories.

Is there a majority of the Conservative Party on the Hertfordshire County Council? I should like to get this clear. Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman that there is a majority of the Conservative Party on that county council?

Oh, yes. There is certainly a majority of Conservatives. There is no doubt about that at all. I must ask the House to allow me to continue. I have been fairly good in giving way, and I should like to develop my argument.

I was saying, just before the hon. Member's last interruption but one, that he had accused the regional hospital board of lacking humanity in the matter of these eight old men—the board whose administration of this hospital started just eight days ago. I therefore turn to the record of this hospital under its previous administration, under the Hertfordshire County Council, composed, let us say, of "Independents." I think there will be no doubt in this House, and in the country as a whole, who these people were who carried out the administration of hospital services, and more particularly the Well-house Hospital, of Hertford and of Barnet up to the war. For that quotation I turn to the Hospital Survey, prepared, as the hon. Member for Hertford, I hope, knows, by the Ministry of Health and the Nuffield Foundation during the war as a kind of "Domesday Book" of the hospital services in this country. This is what the surveyors say:

"County of Herts. During the pre-war years the population of the County was increasing particularly in the south-western area which was being drawn into the London suburban fringe. Hospital services did not keep pace with this development. The county council was content to rely on giving limited assistance to the voluntary hospitals and to refrain from developing any municipal service apart from the single Public Assistance hospital at Wellhouse, Barnet. The result has been to create a general deficiency of beds which is peculiarly acute in the Watford area, and a general shortage of specialist assistance, pathological services and other essential facilities. The chronic sick and fever accommodation are generally poor, maternity beds are inadequate. A vigorous drive for the development of a proper hospital service is urgently needed."

On a point of Order. What has this to do with the old men of Barnet?

They were in the hospital. I really think that the hon. Member for Hertford, when he starts talking about humanity, and lack of humanity, should make more inquiries. I am not blaming the Barnet Board of Guardians for this situation. I am blaming the Hertfordshire County Council.

They are blaming the hon. Member. Is the hon. Member aware that on 23rd June the secretary of the Barnet and District Old People's Welfare Committee wrote to the Minister to say that these eight old gentlemen had spent many years in their present surroundings, that they were usefully employed, and that to move them at this stage would be tantamount to pronouncing death sentence upon them? Would the hon. Member come to the point as to whether or not he associated himself with the movement of these old men, which would be tantamount to a death sentence?

The hon. secretary of the Barnet and District Old People's Welfare Association, as far as I know and I have tried to ascertain, has never until now taken any interest in these eight old men. He has never visited them, so far as I am able to ascertain, and he is in fact relying on hearsay. I will willingly withdraw this, if I am wrong. The reason why there is this agitation will become apparent in a minute. I am not blaming the Barnet Guardians, who have acted with increasing humanity over the years. In fact the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) has been a member of the Barnet Guardians, and so has the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol). When my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich became a member of the Barnet Guardians he set out to try to exercise a liberal and reforming influence, and he found, I am pleased to say, that the Barnet Guardians were acting conscientiously in as liberal and generous a manner as the regulations permitted. It is also fair to say that the Barnet Guardians have had a continuous struggle to try and get any improvements done at the Well-house Hospital. The Hertfordshire County Council has, I am afraid, shown very great reluctance to spend any money at all on what is a disgraceful hospital building. I will willingly give way if I am wrong but I do not think the hon. Member for Hertford has visited the Wellhouse.

indicated dissent.

I thought he was speaking entirely from hearsay. If he had he would find that it is a very tragic and very terrible old building which should have been rebuilt long ago, by any standards at all.

But the old men were quite happy there.

I am coming to that. I wish to turn for a moment to how they got there at all. As the hon. Member for Hertford says, in 1939 the inmates of the Wellhouse Home, which was the euphemism for the public institution, were evacuated to Ware. Most of them went to Ware and some went to Middlesex. It depended on where they came from. This was done to clear the beds in the Wellhouse Hospital for possible air-raid casualties. The Guardians allowed these old fellows to stay on. This was done for several reasons. The first was that they had some slight value in doing odd jobs about the place. Let me say at once that they are not great ones for odd jobs. Who would be at 82? It is not fair to expect much from these old fellows, and that was not the prime purpose in allowing them to remain. No doubt there was an element of humanity in permitting them to remain because they had been there a long time. But equally there were old ladies and other people of whom that could be said. But the old men were allowed to remain, and the main reason, I think, was because the day room in which they lived could not possibly be used for hospital purposes. Indeed, anybody who has seen the dayroom in which the old gentlemen live would know it is a perfect relic of Dickensian times.

They liked it.

There is a local tradition at the Wellhouse that it was at the Wellhouse that Oliver asked for more—

And got less.

—and it may have been this that was in the mind of the hon. Member when he talked about Bumbledom and Barnet. I do not think it was a Labour Board of Guardians which was responsible for that particular bit of Bumbledom, if it occurred at the Well-house. At any event, the day room occupied by these old gentlemen is part of the old workhouse. It is a very attractive old room but its attraction arises from its age rather than anything else. It is not the last word in comfort but it is all right. In addition they occupied a very large dormitory intended for a great many more patients than in fact are in it now. Indeed the evidence of that is that there are now seven wash basins for seven old men. I have yet to see the public assistance institution where they provide a wash basin for each of the inmates.

The hon. Member thinks that one wash basin for seven would be better?

No, I was delighted to find it, but I was just giving that fact as evidence that there was greater space than they needed. The final and most interesting reason of all is that there lived in the Wellhouse the old labour master of the public assistance institution, and it was felt that if these old men were moved, there would be nothing for him to do. I am not suggesting that it was the most substantial reason, but it was one of the reasons why they remained, to provide a job, for the old labour master, and it suited everybody that they should remain.

Jobs for the old men.

As the hon. Member for Hertford has said, one of these old men has discharged himself, and a very good thing for himself and everybody else. The responsibility for them lies quite definitely with the county council, who admit it, but are only too glad not to exercise it.

When the matter was first raised in May—the hon. Member was misinformed when he said it started in June—the guardians approached the county council and asked what could be done about these old people because it was obvious that they were healthy, and it was not the function of the regional hospital board to provide care for healthy people. The county council said they would have to take them into Ware institution, as they could not house them locally. When the guardians protested the county council replied, "You can treat them as technically sick and they can stay on in the hospital. It will be a regional board responsibility, and that will be that." It was a possible solution, but a highly unsatisfactory one, because the question of allowances, and so on, would then arise and might present all kinds of problems.

The guardians then approached the Regional Board and asked if the Board would stretch a point and retain them. The Regional Board were confronted with the difficulty that, when they looked at the Act, it appeared that if any national assistance cases were remaining in a hospital, those beds which they occupied appeared to be handed over to the county council for national assistance work indefinitely. Because of this situation, the regional board were most reluctant to say, "Yes, go ahead." If the regional board were to continue to exercise national assistance functions in the Wellhouse Hospital, then the outstanding job of trying to improve the Wellhouse Hospital would be seriously interfered with. I understand that as a result of further negotiations, the county council and the regional board have reached agreement. We are keeping on the old men for the time being but without prejudice to the future.

I must say a word about the future. The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of the difficulty in which he finds himself as a result of not being able to give a 100 per cent. assurance about the county council responsibility without alteration in legislation. From the hospital point of view there are two points to be borne in mind. These old men occupy a large night ward. Their day room is quite useless for any practical purpose except that for which it is now used, otherwise it would speedily degenerate into a tool shed, or something of that kind. The dormitory they occupy is unusable as a hospital ward because a narrow staircase leads up to it. On the other hand, adjacent to it is a large dormitory which has been converted into flats or rooms for male nurses, and one of the successes of the Wellhouse has been the male nursing organisation which they have developed to try to cope with their nursing shortage. It is possible that it might be necessary to expand the quarters of the male nurses, and then it would be necessary in the public interest, if nothing else, that the night quarters occupied by the old men should be vacated.

Whether that happens or not, these old men are certainly full of beans. They are healthy, vigorous old chaps. One has lived to 85, and there is no reason why he should not go on for very much longer than that. One is 62, and there is no reason why he should not live until he is 85. Long before these old men have passed away, the Wellhouse Hospital will have to be rebuilt and the quarters where they are living must come down. It would be fantastic, as the hon. Member appears to seek to establish, that the regional hospital board should give some kind of pledge to provide accommodation in perpetuity, and to retain these old buildings simply because the county council has failed in its duty to provide other accommodation for the old men.

The House will have wondered how it was that the hon. Member for Hertford came into this picture. It has been revealed in the local paper. In fact the "Barnet Press" points out that the hon. Member for Hertford has been briefed by the new Conservative candidate in Barnet who is in a peculiar position inasmuch as his wife is a member of the Barnet guardians. That, presumably, explains the interest which the hon. Member for Hertford suddenly starts taking in my constituency.

Does the hon. Member really find it a matter of surprise that, where he is in this peculiar dual position of being both the Member of Parliament and an interested party as an officer of the regional board—

indicated dissent.

Yes—and as, therefore, his constituents cannot get satisfaction from him, does he think it peculiar that they should come to one of the two Members for the county who are not associated with his political way of thinking?

I must say I find it peculiar, particularly as there happen to be two Members of Parliament, albeit on this side of the House, who are ex-members of this Board of Guardians—I am not sure that one is not still a member. It is, I am afraid, a straight Conservative racket, an attempt to make propaganda out of the unfortunate situation in which these old men find themselves and which, I am pleased to say, by a little common sense has now been satisfactorily solved without the assistance of the hon. Member for Hertford.

Does the hon. Member think it improper that the wife of a person who happens to be a Conservative candidate, who herself is interested in public work, should take some interest in the old men of Barnet, especially when their Member apparently takes very little?

On the contrary, I am very pleased indeed that she should be a member of the Board of Guardians.

The hon. Member said it was a Conservative racket.

The part of it which was a racket was the misuse of the plight in which these old gentlemen found themselves by an attempt—forgive my saying it—to cast certain aspersions on the hon. Member for Barnet, who is having a very tough fight with his local Conservatives, and who are out to attack him in every possible way.

Could I ask my hon. Friend this question? He was described only a moment or two ago as an officer of this board. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are trying to follow this dispute as intelligently as possible, would he please say whether it is correct to describe him as an officer of the board?

It would indeed be improper for me to be an officer. I am a member of the board. It is only right that I should point out that we are not members of that board upon a geographical basis. Each of us is a member of the board as a whole, and it is our duty to serve the region as a whole, and not to represent either geographical interests or individual areas.

On a point of Order. I should like to point out—

Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to raise a point of Order? I would remind hon. Gentlemen that we are not now in Committee, and that the hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

It is really a point of explanation. By a slip of the tongue I said "officer." I meant, of course, "member of the board." I do appreciate that it is merely by a happy coincidence that the Minister appointed two Socialist Members of Parliament to the board.

Before this Debate took place I could not understand why the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was going on with the Adjournment at all. In fact, the matter was quite satisfactorily settled some days ago, and several days ago I told the hon. Member how it had been settled. Since I have listened to the Debate, the purposes of the hon. Gentleman have become plain. So far as I can see, we get nothing out of this discussion except a certain amount of publicity, in which the hon. Gentleman so vulgarly delights.

On a point of Order. Are not imputations of that sort out of Order in this House? Is not that a disgraceful observation, and has not the Minister abused his position at that Box?

I cannot rule them definitely out of Order, but imputations are certainly undesirable.

The hon. Gentleman is always so self-righteous. He is always inclined to lecture us on how we should behave. I hope it is not outside Order today to refer to his own conduct in view 04 the way we usually behave in this House. First of all, he has attacked my right hon. Friend in circumstances in which I am sure, had my right hon. Friend been here himself, the hon. Gentleman would have lacked a certain courage.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I asked the Parliamentary Private Secretary to ask his Minister if possible to come himself today?

That does not alter the fact that the hon. Gentleman's courage seems to vary in accordance with the circumstances.

Again, on a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not know the record of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not going to have my courage impugned in this House or elsewhere. I have given sufficient proof of courage I hope, at a time when I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary was employed.

The hon. Gentleman is always trying—

On a point of Order. If the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is stating that I have never served, I would point out that in fact I was a Lieut.-Commander in R.N.V.R.

These personal remarks are most undesirable.

I was saying that the hon. Member has raised these points in a form which can only be calculated to convey an impression of shortcoming on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor). When the matter was originally raised by way of question and answer, the hon. Gentleman referred to a

"signal illustration of bumbledom in Barnet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1948; Vol. 452, c.2370.]

The hon. Gentleman is always more interested in the sound of words than in what they mean, and he was no doubt pleased at the way in which they rolled off his tongue; but by using the words "bumbledom in Barnet" he was referring not to Hertfordshire and to its county council, although they were the responsible authority at the time, but to some body in Barnet, for he introduced the word "Barnet." I know that the hon. Gentleman is supposed to be an expert on matters of local government but I would tell him, and ask him to believe, that all the time, over the whole of the period that we have been discussing, the Hertfordshire County Council have been responsible for these matters. That fact should be taken into account.

Let me also tell the hon. Gentleman, since he does not seem to be aware of it, that the Wellhouse Hospital is a mixed institution. Under the National Assistance Act, while the premises are transferred to and vest in the Minister of Health, the regional hospital board have an obligation laid upon them to provide accommodation in those premises, to the satisfaction of the Minister, for such of the persons there as are not in the category of sick persons. The county council, however, are responsible for these aged gentlemen. Any dispute about the accommodation at Wellhouse falls to be settled by the Minister of Health.

I am sorry if I am talking in elementary terms, but it is important to appreciate this position. If the hon. Gentleman had appreciated it I doubt whether he would have put some of the things he said in the way that he did. It will, therefore, be seen, if the hon. Gentleman has followed me, that it is not open to the regional hospital board to take any action to remove the seven old gentlemen—

Would it be open to them to take action to keep them, in agreement with the county council?

No, it would not. It would be legally possible for the Minister of Health formally to determine any arrangement of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the National Assistance Act, in each case, and the county council, being the authority responsible for the care of the men would have to make alternative arrangements. I can say that the Minister would not, in fact, formally bring to an end any such arrangements unless he were satisfied that suitable alternative arrangements had been made. I am talking now about accommodation. I am not talking about the responsibility for the men in question, as I indicated when I rose to a point of Order. The county, council is at any time free to move the men to other accommodation. That discretion on their part is not subject to any direction on the part of the Minister.

Therefore, I could not begin to give assurances upon that point, because the Minister is not the responsible authority. The county council is perfectly free and has complete discretion and is not open to any direction from the Minister. Therefore—if I am carrying the hon. Gentleman with me—so far as assurances go, if they are to be given they will, of course, have to be given by the county council. All I can say is to repeat what I put in the letter to the hon. Gentleman which is that I have been informed that the Board and the county council have agreed that the seven men may remain at Wellhouse, pending the finding of other suitable accommodation, and that the county council have in mind—although I would not rule out a move to other suitable accommodation—the provision of an old persons' home in Barnet.

In the same way, when the hon. Gentleman wants to take this matter on to a wider field and suggests that we must be careful to avoid difficulties of this kind in the country as a whole, again I am in no position to give an assurance. I would however say to the hon. Gentleman that I have a greater trust in our major local authorities than he has. I made it plain on the Committee stage of the National Assistance Bill that I have every confidence that the councils of the counties and county boroughs will carry out their responsibilities with care, and with careful consideration of the personal interests of everybody with whom they have to deal. I hold that view. I see no reason to suppose that the welfare authorities throughout the country will do other than discharge their new National Assistance functions in accordance with everything that I understand to be covered by "the voice of humanity," which was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman in opening his speech.

Having said that, I would insist that whatever may have been the difficulties—and I do not deny that there were difficulties—the hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that at any point of time the legal responsibility resided with anybody other than the County Council of Hertfordshire. Therefore, while he may criticise the regional hospital board for wanting to acquire the premises without any able-bodied persons in them, he must not imply that the regional hospital board had any right to override the county council. He should also recollect that the county council were, after all, the parent body of the Barnet Guardians' Committee, which was really only a sub-committee.

I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary does agree that the Hertfordshire County Council could not let the men stay at the Wellhouse Hospital other than with the consent of the board?

No, I do not agree. I insist that the regional hospital board could not have moved the men without the consent of the county council. The county council have been responsible all the time. I am not criticising the county council in any way, for I think they wanted to help the regional hospital board in what I hope will be regarded as a commendable objective, namely that of getting rid of mixed institutions and having places that are wholly for the sick or wholly for the able-bodied. The hon. Gentleman must take it from me that, in fact, the county council could have had the last word at every point if they wanted to use it. We have already, I hope, settled the matter some days ago to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, and I have no reason to suppose that any more difficulties will be found in this case.

I am sorry that the matter should have been raised in the way it has been raised, and I deprecate the use of language about cases of this kind which can only inflame tempers and make matters extremely difficult for all the authorities concerned who, I believe, are trying to do their job as well as they can in somewhat difficult circumstances.

I am very sorry that hospital board business prevented me from hearing what has already been said in this Debate. I rise only to make one or two observations on the general approach to what is a very difficult problem. I occupy a peculiar position in that I am Chairman of the North-West Regional Hospital Board, and I am also Chairman of the National Old People's Welfare Committee. That sometimes places me in a very difficult position, because with all the desire that I have to improve the hospital service, I think it would be wrong if any steps were taken to improve that service at the expense of any unfortunate section of the community.

I have endeavoured, therefore, in the negotiations which have taken place, to carry with me the local authorities concerned in the contention that to suggest that the Board at any time had authority to deal with these old people is wrong. It is wrong because before 5th July it had no power whatever over those hospitals where there were also non-sick and, what is more, under the National Assistance Act the county council had the right of preserving those places in hospitals which were occupied by the non-sick. In any negotiations which have taken place between the Hertfordshire County Council and the Board, efforts were made to reach a decision which would be the least inconvenient to all concerned. Anybody who knows anything at all about hospital administration knows quite well that it is impossible to have the same standard of work in any hospital which is a mixed institution. Therefore, the whole aim is to have a hospital dealing with the sick, and suitable homes dealing with the non-sick.

When the Hertfordshire County Council discussed with the board what should be done in this case they assumed the responsibility for transferring these old people to a place which was some distance away, at Ware. It was evident that that was by no means the best solution to the difficulty, and later, therefore, the County Council considered it what way they could improve on their original intention. Then they agreed with the board that they would not claim their rights under the National Assistance Act of preserving these places, and the board, in their turn, gave an undertaking that they would permit these people to remain in Wellhouse Hospital until such time as the county council had been able to make arrangements which would have been more suitable than the original arrangements intended.

I hope that this new service will not be hampered by questions being raised on the Floor of the House which would create difficulties for those who have the task of dealing with this new institution. If the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) had cared to approach my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor), or myself, not only would he have received all the information that he was seeking, but he would also have received an assurance that nothing would have been done, as far as the board is concerned, to make matters worse for these old people. I hope that in future other methods of approach will be adopted. If we are to achieve success in this service it will be in consequence of a measure of toleration and willingness to co-operate on the part of all concerned. It is not an easy job, and I hope most fervently that the job will not be made harder by the action of any hon. Member raising questions on the Floor of the House which might easily have been settled satisfactorily and harmoniously by private approach.

The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) have attempted, successfully, to pour some oil on troubled waters. I follow the hon. Member for South Tottenham when he pleads for toleration and co-operation. It is interesting to hear pleas for toleration and co-operation from those who are now acting as the bravos of bureaucracy and the henchmen defending the Minister of Health. There were times in former history when toleration and co-operation might have been forthcoming, possibly to the greater advantage of mankind, of our own country and, indeed, of the hospital system itself.

Some observations have been made about the right of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) to raise this matter. I for one think that he has done a public service in raising it. That it is inconvenient to the henchmen of the Minister of Health I quite agree, because high expectations have been very properly placed by the public on this new health service, which was not entirely the creation of the Minister of Health but the creation of the commonsense of all political parties in the country. I can understand the irritation of those who claim this as their own doing, at the well-directed criticisms which my hon. Friend has made against them.

A number of other matters have been introduced, but they have not been introduced by my hon. Friend, who kept, I think, to the simple story. This is the simple story that the Parliamentary Secretary, with all his sweet reasonableness and knowledge of local government, has tended rather to overlook: seven of eight old men have been bandied about by bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy in all its crudities, cruelties and ineptitude is being defended by the Parliamentary Secretary, by the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for South Tottenham.

Will the hon. Member kindly say where they have been bandied to, and from where?

Here are seven or eight old men—let us also speak of the happy eighth, who has gone beyond the clutches of bureaucracy—who have existed in comparative peace and comfort over many years. It is true that we have had diverse accounts of their comforts. The hon. Member for Barnet perhaps thinks, like the Minister of Fuel and Power, that one bath every fortnight is sufficient. The hon. Member for Hertford says these men liked their accommodation. To use a phrase not often quoted in these days of housing reforms "Be it ever so humble there's no place like home"; to these old men this was home.

First one local authority suggested that they should go to Ware, and insisted that they should go there until they finally commanded the ear of an apparently disreputable person of verminous character—the wife of a respectable Conservative candidate. Another public authority had some other purpose for them, and the ultimate result—and this is a triumph not of bureaucracy, but of common decency and humanity for which the Parliamentary Secretary can take no credit—was that these old men, because the case was taken up so doughtily, are now still enjoying the seven basins and all the comforts and privileges of their home.

Is the hon. Member aware that it was the "vermin" who wanted to send them to Ware, so far as I am able to ascertain?

The hon. Member has told so many and confusing stories, with so much interruption, that I cannot be sure where he stands. What I shall always remember is his declaration that the seven old men should not have seven basins—coming from him as an important member of the regional board and one of the henchmen of the Minister of Health.

This has been a valuable discussion because, as the hon. Member for Hertford said, this House was not afraid to take up the case of the unfortunate, unhappy and abused old men—and whether they were abused by the Socialist Government, with its talk of the brotherhood of men or not, these men have been abused. The common sense of this country is sympathetic to old men, even old men like the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson); it is profoundly shocked to learn that these harmless old men, who were really doing no harm, even if they were doing very little good, have not even the comfort and care of the Socialist Government, this Government which, for a quarter of a century, proclaimed all these humanitarian principles.

It is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary, with late common sense, recognises the fact that in this difficult period of change-over the problem of the responsibility of one Department and another—the responsibility as between the two—has meant for these old men much unsettlement. They have been greatly disturbed, and I justify my words when I say that these old men have been bandied about. They have been through a period of great uncertainty, and now they are where they are I hope they will long live in the comfort they find quite congenial—in the house of seven basins so much derided by the hon. Member for Barnet, who seemed so inadequately to represent their views.

Is the hon. Member aware that they are where they are out of the generosity of the regional board, who have been so wholly misrepresented in this case?

It is quite true that the regional board have made arrangements with the Hertfordshire County Council, but they have not done so as a matter of legalistic and bureaucratic interference. It has surely been done as a matter of humanity. I was sorry to learn from the hon. Member for South Tottenham, who is so interested in the management of hospitals, that this lack of con- sideration, this bureaucratic approach, is to be found throughout the whole of the newly-founded hospital system in this country. I know what he said is correct; these old men are there by the grace of the regional board, and the old men of this country will be delighted to learn that, Wherever they are, they are there by the grace of the hospital regional board. I do not like that, and I am sure the hon. Member for South Tottenham does not like it. I hope he will soon change it.

I should like to ask if I may now change the subject of the Adjournment?

The hon. and gallant Member has risen, but I am not aware of what he is going to say.

I am not certain whether I may change the subject.

I called upon the hon. and gallant Member to speak.

This Adjournment Debate has been arranged at the last moment and I raise the subject only in view of the fact that debates have gone quickly so far. Nevertheless, I think the subject is one which ought to have attention drawn to it whenever the occasion arises, and I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the War Office for coming down this afternoon to reply to the Debate.

The question to which I wish to draw attention is that of publicity for Army recruiting, with particular reference to the Regular Army. I had hoped that we might have had the promised statement from the Minister on the subject of the Territorial Army, which I gather is to be made in a few days' time. I quite understand why that may not be possible if consultations are still going on. Nevertheless, we have seen, over the last few months, a considerable amount of Army publicity, both on the poster hoardings and in the columns of the daily Press, and it seems to me that there is something wrong with it, especially when one compares it with that of the other Services.

I would draw the attention of the House to a few isolated instances which I think are largely typical of a great many of the publications in the form of posters and advertisements on the Army. There is one from the Royal Air Force in which an aircraftsman—I take it to be an aircraftsman—is holding up his hand in a greeting, with the caption "Ginger's Back." "Ginger" looks pleased to be back, and that is a very excellent thing. On the other side there is another poster. Strangely enough, in my constituency these two posters appear on the same house; one at one end of the house and one at the other end. We see the R.A.F. poster as we come into the constituency and the Army poster as we go out. The Army poster has been described by a neighbour of mine as a "moon-faced youth gazing in rapture at 43 trades." I think hon. Members will know to which poster I am referring. It seems to me there is very great danger of getting the 43 mixed up with a certain brand of 57 different varieties.

More important than that, it seems to me that in that poster a psychological blunder is being made, if we want the Regular Army really to be a success. Although in the past we may not have given men joining the Army very much encouragement, nevertheless in the old days it was "Join the Army and see the World," which at least gave an indication that the Army was doing something purposeful in other places besides Great Britain.

The present publicity seems to tend to make a man think of what he is going to do when he comes out, even before he joins up. I think that is rather borne out, perhaps, by what the C.I.G.S. said yesterday to the Mothers' Union—that there has long been a sense of uncertainty as to what is going to happen to the Regular soldier leaving the Army. An old acquaintance of mine, a Regular soldier of many years' standing, who has achieved considerable notoriety in the last few days.—R.S.M. Brand, of the Royal Military Academy—was asked if he had any other trade. It has long been, I fully admit, a worry of the Regular soldier, this question of what he will do when he leaves the Army. I am glad to hear that 43 trade unions have agreed to allow Army trades to count for membership of the unions. That is an excellent thing. I am delighted about it, and I hope that the 43 will soon become 57.

However, I do think it is wrong psychologically, both from the national and the individual's point of view, to overlook the fact that the Army has a job to do, and that it expects a good deal of service from its members. Throughout the publicity of the Army there runs the idea that the only purpose of joining the Army is to train for civilian life afterwards. That is wrong. The Army is of very great importance at the present time. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will try to use this defence, but, in any case, it is a bad one—that that idea will be modified, that difficulty got over, when the man joins his regiment, and that if the regiment's discipline is good the man will soon have his mind centred on the right things. That is probably perfectly true. It is, however, a little unfair on the individual. There are some men at present who would join the Regular Army far more willingly if they felt that the job they were to do was one they could carry out, and was one based on the fine traditions of the Army of old.

It has been my business in the past to go a good deal into regimental history. Earlier today we were discussing Bumbledom and Barnet. I do not propose to direct this Debate to Blimpery and barracks—though I have much respect for that much maligned gentleman, Colonel Blimp, who did a great deal of good in the first world war. We should be wrong in these modern times to disregard the great heritage that practically every regiment of the British Army has. If attention is paid to that in Army publicity there can be only beneficial results. I was responsible, in part of my Army career, for introducing many soldiers to regimental history and tradition, and I found that the soldiers took a great interest in that subject and a great pride in knowing more of it than their comrades.

Yet there is a complete absence of any of that sort of thing in the Army's publicity—except, perhaps, in that for the Household regiments. I have noticed that the Regular recruiting for them has been extremely high, and I hope that it will long remain so. Is there not a lesson to be learned from that? They also have the advantage of the hope of having full dress uniform again. Such things as that matter. That sort of thing is a great encouragement to recruiting. There is a certain type of young man who will be attracted to the Army, or to a particular regiment, by its uniform. Not all, of course, for there are some who curse the moment that they have to start cleaning. However, there are some good potential soldiers who would join if given the chance of turning out a little more smartly than it is possible to do in battledress, berets, and the ordinary Army dress of today.

It would be only fair to consider for a moment the figures for recruiting for the Regular Army over the last few months. I do not propose to go into details, and to give figures of normal Regular engagements, short service engagements, of those who rejoined from the Reserve, and of those who re-enlisted. I do not propose to consider those different sources of recruitment separately for each month. The total figures which I propose to give are in themselves interesting. In January there were 4,580 recruits; in Febraury, 4,457; in March, 2,459; in April, 3,275; in May, 2,644. I have not the figures for any period later than May. That is the latest figure published. This is a disturbing set of figures because it shows that between February and March the numbers declined by about half and have not grown again to the February figures since. The figures may have improved since May, but they have not according to those I have at the moment.

There are some other figures I want to give. In February the number who came from the Reserve to rejoin was 1,871; in March, it was 197; and since then it has been running in the hundreds, and in May was 222, whereas previously it had been running in the thousands. These figures ought to be borne in mind. They are not the only thing by which to judge Army publicity, but they ought to be borne in mind when we are deciding whether the publicity the Army has produced is effective.

I am inclined to think that to encourage Stinks Smith Minor to join the Army it is just as well to try to see if he could do something for the benefit of the Army. So far as I can make out every advertisement about Stinks Minor tells him that the only advantage he gets if he joins up is, that he will be able to go into a laboratory when he leaves the Army. The last thing he ought to do in the Army is to make a stink in it, but we hope that he will become a Regular soldier and give the best service he can. We want him to be and he ought to be a square peg in a square hole; but, nevertheless, he ought not to look upon the Army only as a means of getting into a laboratory when he leaves the Service.

I hope I have made it clear that I do not in any way wish to discourage the great work which the trade unions have done in agreeing to allow Army trades to count for membership of the unions. That is an excellent thing, and no one on this side of the House will dispute that for a moment. However, I would recall again what the C.I.G.S. said yesterday, that we are suffering from a national disease of uncertainty. There is no better way of curing that than of making people confident that the Army can protect them. Whatever atomic experts may say, and whatever the articles written by retired generals may say, the fact is there will always be a very important role for the Regular Army to play, a role vital to defence, and not one which is created only when war is declared. It is a vital role. I am rather disturbed that there is such an abysmal gap in the Army's publicity, that there is no mention of this role in it.

I believe the Army has tremendous scope for publicity, not only in recruiting men, but in educating the country in what the Army is doing. There is no surer detractor from Army recruiting than the man who goes about saying always that the Army is doing nothing. There are such men, and I think they do a grave disservice to the Army. The armchair critics who write on the subject of what the Army's role is to be in the future are also doing a great disservice to the Army, and, indeed, to the country, if they give the impression that the Army has not a role to play in peace, and in war, if war should come. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say something on these lines.

I would say in conclusion, that it has been remarked by various people from time to time, including the Minister of Labour, that the Army used to be a home for the unemployed. He has said that in this Parliament. I hope that he will not say it again. Although it is perfectly true that a great many unemployed men did find a useful job to do in the Army, the fact remains that the old type of Regular soldier is essential to the well-being of this country, because he is essential to the efficiency of the Army. I believe that much too little has been said about him.

I am in the position of being on extended release, and if my constituents dislike me at the next General Election, I can go back to the Army. I am not in the least sorry about that, because I believe that there are few finer professions in the world; but I do not wish to play the trumpet of jingoism today. I implore the House and the country to realise that the Regular Army is the nucleus on which the great expansion which took place during the last war was based. If we let that go, whether we have National Service in peace time or not, we can lay a wager that the likelihood of war will be far greater if we do not pay attention to this matter; and the difficulties which we experienced at the beginning of the last war will be repeated on a far greater scale than in the past. I hope that the House will believe me when I say that we want to get this matter away from party politics altogether. There should be no party dispute about it. We believe that recruiting is not very encouraging to judge from the figures, and we believe that Army publicity has probably an influence on that; we do not believe that Army publicity is good enough and we hope that something will be done to put it right.

I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who raised this important topic, that it was not possible for me to hear the whole of his speech. I was a little disturbed by one comment which he made about the publicity that is being used in connection with Army recruiting. He seemed to minimise or decry the value of that form of publicity which indicates that after a man has completed his Army service, he can go into a laboratory or engage upon some other useful form of industrial activity.

In defence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), may I say that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was not present at the beginning of his speech. He did not put his argument in that way; he modified what the hon. and gallant Member has said.

I am glad to hear that, but I think that I made it clear that I was not present during the whole of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, and I may have placed a wrong construction upon the comments which he made towards the end of his remarks.

I have always felt that a very considerable contribution towards the success of Army recruiting would develop out of some guarantee that a man on completing his Army service would find a job in civilian life. I have on previous occasions advocated that the authorities should say to any would-be recruit, "Look here, if you will join one or other of the Services, we will guarantee on your release that you will have a job." A number of people who might otherwise hesitate would have the scales sufficiently tipped in favour of their joining one of the Services. We have to remember that a man, even on the completion of a full-time regular engagement, leaves the Service in the prime of life or, at least, with many years of useful work still ahead of him which would be to the advantage of the community as a whole.

The policy of full employment which the Government are trying to implement should make it easier for them to guarantee suitable employment to a man on the completion of his service in the Forces. That is a fundamental consideration, because when a man leaves the Services at the age of 40 or 45, after completing full-time regular service, he wants to know what his future is likely to be. By that time, he is often married and has young children. He finds it quite impossible to live, especially if he has served in the ranks throughout the whole of his Army service, upon the small pension to which he is entitled. I would like my hon. Friend in his reply to indicate that this particular aspect of the matter has not been lost sight of. I know that useful arrangements have been made in association with the trade unions for recognition of the technical training provided while a man is in the Service. I hope that this will become a universal practice. Recruiting will be considerably assisted if a man knows that at the end of his service he will be guaranteed a useful job, out of which he can make a reasonable living, and on the basis of which he can maintain his family and continue to render valuable service to the community in a civilian capacity.

I am sorry that I, like the previous speaker, was not present during the earlier stages of the Debate. I wish to put the point of view that, far from there being too little recruiting, there is too much recruiting; that the Army at the present time is far too strong, and that a very large proportion of the manpower of this country is going into the Armed Forces. Hon. Members who have read the latest statement from the Minister of Defence will realise that at the present time 1,126,000 people are either engaged in the Armed Forces or in producing for the Armed Forces.

I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will appreciate that most of the publicity which we have been talking about is concerned with recruiting for the Regular Army. While I follow his point, I do not think that it is relevant to this Debate.

I understand the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member, but I maintain that my point of view is very relevant to this Debate, and that no attempt should be made to recruit men into the Regular Army at the present time. A military expert, whom I regard as the best informed military correspondent in this country, Captain Liddell Hart, has just written a book to show that the Army is swollen out of all proportion to its usefulness, and that at the present time to get sufficient military forces from the military point of view the first essential is to get rid of conscription.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever size of Army may be considered right and appropriate in present circumstances, it is far better to have it based upon voluntary recruitment than have to rely, as we have to at the moment, upon compulsory military service.

I have not been impressed by some of the speeches made on the voluntary recruiting platforms. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes me to go into that, I might develop the point a little later.

At the present time, when the economic condition of this country is so serious that we need to organise the whole of our available manpower for productive and useful purposes, the Armed Forces are swollen out of all proportion, compared with their usefulness in overcoming the economic crisis which confronts this country. I have in mind the number of men from the building trade who are at present in the Army. I am interested first and foremost in improving the social, housing and living conditions of the people of this country, and I approach every problem raised in this House from that point of view.

Would the hon. Member not agree that the shortage of houses is due more to the shortage of materials than to the shortage of manpower? That was admitted in a recent Debate.

If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to continue, I will put my point of view. In Scotland, where there is an acute housing shortage, we need on the building front all the trained building apprentices who are now being called up into the Armed Forces. We are short of plasterers, of building trade workers, and of every kind of skilled labour which should be used in building the houses our people need. In addition, we are there faced with the fact that the present tuberculosis figures are the worst for the last 20 years. The greatest enemy of the people, in Scotland at any rate, is not any foreign army but tuberculosis. I object strongly to any recruiting campaign being conducted to take away building workers and others who are needed on the home front, merely in order that their energies may be diverted to doing God knows what in barracks, and training for something which might never come off, and which if it does come off may not be like the rehearsal.

I can understand the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and others who come from the military caste, who have the Sandhurst tradition, and who think in terms of military expenditure. But I come from the working class, and I will use every opportunity I have in this House to point out that what we need is manpower mobilised for raising the standard of living of the working class, and I will not advocate anybody going on to the recruiting platform at the present time.

What is the Government attitude towards recruiting? For what purpose are they recruiting men? What was said the other day by an air-marshal who took part in a recruiting campaign in the City of Edinburgh? He made what I consider to be a most mischievous speech, and said that we wanted all the men we could get in the Royal Air Force in order that we may get "cracking" for the war with Soviet Russia. I put Questions to the Minister of Defence and to the Secretary of State for Air, asking if that represented the point of view of His Majesty's Government, and they replied that it did not represent the point of view of His Majesty's Government. I understand the air-marshal was politely and discreetly rebuked behind the scenes.

If the Government do not want a gigantic Army for the purpose of defending ourselves against Soviet Russia, why do they want all these men mobilised in uniform, when nobody quite knows what to do with them? Of course, we differ fundamentally. If it is intended to carry out any kind of recruiting campaign, the people who are to be asked to go on to the recruiting platforms should be issued with weekly notes to speakers, such as one gets from party headquarters, telling them what to say. If that were done there would be a very fundamental difference in the briefs issued from the two sides of the House.

Some people want the Army as an established institution, while others do not know what they want it for. What we do know is that after every war there is a small collection of vested interests in the war Ministries—for the Army, the Air Force and the Navy—who have to perpetuate their existence; they have to find some excuse for carrying on; they have to justify this enormous publicity; they have to try to imagine that we are back in the last century instead of in a new century, when we have the atom bomb and bacteriological warfare, and all the other devilish devices which will destroy civilisation if we carry on in the old military way.

What about recruiting for the women's Armed Forces? I have already said a great deal about that in this House. At present, we need 5,000 trained nurses in Scotland, but we cannot get them. Yet at every post office and every Ministry of Labour office there are glamorous pictures showing what an attractive career is afforded to the women of this country if they go into the Armed Forces. But there is no glamorous appeal for nurses to fight T.B. Women are being attracted into the Armed Forces when every one of them is needed on the home front. I was distressed to see in a report published by the Minister of Defence this week that there were still 40,000 women in uniform, and that the Service chiefs are calling for more. The Service chiefs will always call for more. There can be no justifiable reason for it, and I wish this Labour Government would exert itself over the Chiefs of Staff and tell them that our business is to mobilise the manpower of this country for the essential needs in bettering the social conditions of our people.

How many Labour Members of this House spend their time at the week-ends recruiting for the Armed Forces? Not many. And why? Because the whole conception of mobilising manpower for the Armed Forces is, in the Labour and Socialist Movement, associated with war. Socialist propaganda and activity are for the organisation of manpower to build up peace and a decent system of international relations. I am trying to impress upon the people of this country the absolute need to change the policy of this Government to turn away from a continuation of the policy which gets a blessing from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill): to have a real Socialist policy which will dispense with the idea that in time of peace we must have a huge Army. At a time of economic crisis and of supreme need, when we should have better houses and more goods for the people, when we need more labour employed on the land, we should not dissipate our energies in mobilising our men and women for the purely destructive purposes of what is called "the art of war."

I should like to follow, very briefly, the two last speeches, and to say I agree entirely with everything said by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who was unfortunately not present at the beginning of this Debate. Had he been here at the beginning he would have realised that the initiator of the Debate had said almost word for word what he said. I should also like to add my thanks to the great trades union movement for the step it has taken in recognising Army trades in the way it has. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was trying to stress, in relation to advertising and the activities of a soldier when he leaves the Army, that that aspect should not be over-emphasised to the exclusion of everything else, which is rather what is happening at the moment.

The speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was the sort of speech we expected him to make the moment we saw him come into the Chamber. I suggest, quite seriously, that we might find a speech of that nature a little more convincing had we not been aware of the real political affiliations of the hon. Gentleman. To the hon. Member I will say just this—although I could talk to him on the subject for hours—I happen to be one of the many people who, in the early stages of the last war, saw and could show him graves which were the result of the sort of tripe that he has been talking on the Floor of this House today. That is all I have to say to the hon. Member.

I believe that advertisement for the British Forces is not only contained in the matter of posters. There are three things which can contribute to a voluntary Army in this country, which is a state of affairs I would welcome more than anybody else, because I am opposed to conscription. I am not opposed to conscription if it is necessary in order to achieve the requisite numbers, but I am opposed to it in principle, and I am also convinced, as I have frequently said before, that a voluntary Army of the size that is requisite could be obtained if the right methods were adopted. As I have said, there are three methods, all of which come under the heading of advertisement in one way or another, which would help to produce an Army on the voluntary basis of the size considered necessary by the Cabinet and by the Chiefs of Staff.

The first thing is the question of pay. I am able to show by facts and figures—and no one will convince me to the con- trary—that the pay of members of the Forces, taking into account all perquisites, is not equivalent to the pay for the same rank in industry. Until it is, there will always be a shortage of voluntary recruiting.

Then there is the question of the treatment of the soldier when he arrives at his unit. In this connection there are matters which I should not like to raise at the juncture, but I would ask the Financial Secretary to take note of what I say and look into these things very carefully indeed. However big or small the unit may be, it is essential, even if it be only on a cadre basis, to have it thoroughly and efficiently equipped, not only with weapons for war but also with the equipment for amusements and sports. Even more important than anything else, it should have modern training equipment. I cannot believe, having regard to the vast quantities of stores and equipment which existed at the end of the war, that it should be necessary for any unit to be in a situation such as I have recently heard about, in regard to training equipment, vehicles and spare parts. It seems to me to be a fantastic state of affairs.

I am convinced that the biggest advertisement for the Army is the Army itself. It is like dropping a pebble into a pond, the circles going wider and wider. Those who join up who feel happy, contented and not frustrated will advertise the Army, but there is still I am afraid a lot of frustration. The average young man with spirit likes a good show. He likes to feel that he is taking part in an efficient organisation, and that every minute of his time is profitably occupied. He likes to feel that he has first-class instructors and training equipment. In that way he need not be kept at his job too long and can have plenty of leisure. But that is not the situation at the present time, and why that is the case is beyond my comprehension. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look into this matter.

As far as publicity is concerned, there is a hangover of the old feeling that to join the Forces is an admission of failure in civilian life. That is no longer true, and we all know it. Those of us who have for many years been fighting for the conditions of soldiers in the Army know that these old conditions are going, and that there is no need for any mother to feel it is a disgrace for her son to join the Forces. But that feeling does still exist to some extent. I agree that the poster advertisements should not be confined to what is going to happen to a man when he leaves the Army. Let the posters give the men an idea what they are to do in the Forces and what the Forces are there for, which would be a good thing from the point of view of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire who does not seem to have any idea why the Forces are there.

I admit that I am an ignorant layman and not a military man. The hon. and gallant Member is arguing that we need a large Army, but can he tell us precisely what this Army is needed for? Can he also give some indication of why Captain Liddell Hart, who I believe is a great expert on these matters, is wrong? Can he tell us whether the purpose of having a large Army is to fight Soviet Russia?

I am very happy to answer that question. First of all I should like to describe, and I am sure he will not be offended by my banter, Captain Liddell Hart as a "fireside fusilier." I think that some of the senior officers in the Army have regarded him as such for many years. On the other hand, there is no shadow of doubt that we have got very large commitments in various parts of the world, and that if any foreign Power, and I am not necessarily referring to Russia, feels that a country is weak, it is a temptation which ought not to be put in her way. Furthermore, there is no man in the world with sound sense who believes that this Empire, this country, or the United States would fight in an aggressive war. All I want to see is that our women and children can sleep in their beds without the fear that we may be invaded by a foreign Power, Unless we have a strong Army, Navy and Air Force there is always that danger; until a world organisation is set up which is strong enough to maintain peace, it is absolutely vital that we maintain adequate forces in the country.

The Army has got quality goods to sell, and these goods can be sold by advertisement. Therefore, I hope that the advertisements in relation to recruitment will be on a very much higher plane than they are on at present. I hope that when men join the Army they will no longer be hampered by shortsighted, footling restrictions, which are sometimes initiated by regimental sergeant majors when they are off duty. There should be the strictest possible discipline on parade, but there should be the greatest freedom off parade so that a man can feel that his soul is his own. A man, until he abuses the trust placed in him, should be treated as a reasonable human being, and should have decent living conditions, sympathetic treatment and proper training facilities so that every minute of his time is occupied profitably, which need not necessarily mean long and strenuous duties.

I intervene briefly in this most interesting Debate to take up a point which represents more the view of hon. Members on this side of the House than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I speak with all the respect that I have for him and also for the view which he holds. I am of working-class origin too. I am not a militarist and if I support a voluntary army I do not think I can be labelled "a jingo" or "a militarist." Like my hon. Friend I am passionately devoted to raising the standard of life of all people in this country, and I hope he will accept that in all sincerity, in view of what I have to say.

None of us on this side of the House—and here I think I can speak for hon. Members opposite—wants the Army to have more than its proper share of the resources of this country. We may differ from hon. Members opposite about the size of that Army, but all of us want to have an adequately equipped, well trained, modern Army. On its size I am not competent to speak, but I accept the advice given to my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence by their experts. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire talks about bloated figures in the Army doing nothing. I would say to him that if we have what in my view is a moderate, well trained army, it would mean that we should need fewer people to be called up in the conscript classes year by year. That, I am sure, will meet with his approval.

On the question of publicity, we should do more both in newspaper articles and in posters. We are so close to the last war with all its horrors that none of us is wildly enthusiastic about rushing into the Army. It is only common sense that people will want to get over the shock of the last war, before dashing into the new Army to be rushed into another one. Also, there is this great difference between the period before the last war and now, that we are now in a period of full employment, which makes it far easier for people to get their living outside the Army. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) mentioned that people who went into the Army were not only the unemployed. I realise that there were people who liked the glamour and adventure that was entailed in joining the Army, but many people before the war had to join up through force of circumstances. That happily has been removed.

There is this significant note about the publicity for the Army today, that it must have a positive content. It is not enough to say, "Come into the Army. You will be well fed and clothed and you will see the world." Because it has to have this positive content, I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) solely on that poster about 43 trades. In my view, many people who join the Forces are worried from the day they join about what they will do afterwards. Five or 12 years pass very quickly, and unless they have got some trade to go back to, they are bewildered and are unwilling to give up their lives to the Armed Forces even for a period of five years.

I welcome the fact that we are specialising at this stage on the basis of giving a trade in the Army. The mere fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stressed it so much in his speech is a sign that this particular poster is a good poster. It was good publicity, because it made an effect upon him even if it were an adverse affect. There is the danger of having too many posters of the kind, "Join the Army, join the Air Force, join the Navy, join the Police or join this or that." They are all on the same hoarding or on the same page of one newspaper. I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with whom I was associated as Parlia- mentary Private Secretary until recently, if he could co-operate with the other Departments to try to get a more specialised kind of publicity and avoid this overlapping.

Let me come to what I think we ought to do. Here again the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing hit the nail on the head when he said that the most important thing is the pay side of it. I am convinced that it is no good talking about bedside lamps and all the rest of it. It is only an aggravation to the men when they find that they have not got them. We have said that we want to make Army pay commensurate with the pay in civilian life. If we want the men for the Army, we have to do much better than that, because the civilian is not aggravated by petty annoyances or restrictions to which the soldier is subject. If anything, it should be a little better. I do not know if my hon. Friend can say anything on that point today, but the whole pay structure needs re-examining. We considered the post-war code of pay in a cursory manner, and if we had to consider it now it would not get through so easily.

There is one point which so far has not been made. Year by year we get hundreds of thousands of young men coming into the Forces for a year's training. If we are intelligent in our use of that one year it seems to me that it can be the most fruitful recruiting system for the permanent, Regular Army. If we can make those boys enjoy their lives so much, they will consider that it is worth while joining the Army, and as a result we may be able to get some of them to volunteer on a permanent basis. We should explore that far more.

There is one other small point. My hon. Friend has been very interested in the problem of recruiting, and he has been touring the country looking at recruiting centres to see what improvements can be made. I should like to ask him if he will this afternoon give us some of his impressions of those recruiting centres. My own view is that they are not attractive enough. They are tucked away in side streets and one has to look all over the place before finding them. By the time one has found them, one comes away without doing anything about it. Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to tell us which parts of the country are recruit- ing most people to the Armed Forces at the moment, because from that we may be able to derive certain lessons as to which kind of section of population is being most attracted at the moment? Can he tell us what publicity other than poster and newspaper articles is being used to recruit people for the permanent Army?

I should like now to return to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. He said there was no appeal to nurses to join the fighting services. That is completely wrong because the Ministry of Health has been devoting infinite pains to try to get people to go into nursing. Posters are to be seen everywhere in England, though I cannot speak for Scotland. The object of these posters is to attract girls into nursing and they have met with a considerable measure of success.

The point I was making—I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Ministry of Health—is that in the part of the world I come from—Scotland—there is a glamorous appeal for the Forces in practically every Ministry of Labour office, and every country post office, but there is no similar urgent appeal for women to join the nursing staff needed to battle with tuberculosis. The appeal and publicity is directed towards attracting men into the Army and is certainly infinitely greater than that devoted to attracting girls to nursing.

I cannot comment in detail on that, but the nursing side might get more of it at this stage. Let me put the matter to my hon. Friend in this way. Surely, the women who go into the Forces replace men; they are doing jobs which otherwise would have to be done by men. I would say from experience that the women who went into the Forces did the sort of thing which we would expect women to do—such as cooking—far worse than the things—driving and so on—which we would expect men to do. I think women are much better at that kind of job, and are replacing men who are able then to play their full part in this country's productive enterprise outside the Forces. This has been a useful Debate. Later on we may need a similar Debate on the Territorial Army, which obviously does not fit into this one today. I ask my hon. Friend to put as much positive appeal into his recruiting publicity as he can.

I had not intended to intervene in this discussion but perhaps it is not a bad thing for someone to do so from these benches who has never been a Regular soldier and has lacked all the advantages so exemplified by my two hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) but who, nevertheless, has a very great regard for the Regular soldier and the Regular Army. Although it was the last thing I ever expected to do, I served 11 years in the Army—coming, perhaps, from a rather unlucky generation.

I listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), whose speech produced several most useful points. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), a model of consistency, never gets up without wishing to bomb-blast the battleship, prang the Air Force and reduce the Army to one drummer boy, but he has led the Debate into channels which were not quite those which it should have followed. If I may say so without offence, I shall look on his speech as perhaps a rather agreeable piece of comic relief. I do not propose to answer his arguments because they do not seem very closely related to the question of recruiting for, not the Army as a whole, but the Regular Army.

The Regular Army, as I see it, is the core of the Army and is probably of greater importance to us in this country than the Regular Armies of any other country because it is the stable element—the professional element—and, therefore, it is of vital importance that every effort should be made to ensure that it is a satisfactory life and one which men of good character and normal ambition can take up with the reasonable certainty, that, if they do their best, they will have a reasonably prosperous and happy life.

At present there is no doubt at all—I am not attacking the Government on a party line but merely looking at the question from a national point of view—that we are not getting the recruits we need for the Regular Army. I do not think the Financial Secretary will be complacent about that or will be satisfied with the position—I can hardly imagine that he is. Therefore, if he is not satisfied, steps should be taken to improve the position. It may be that we can do more by posters and smartening up the dress of soldiers, which certainly is not particularly glamorous at present. I regret very much that the old traditional red coat of the British Army, which has covered itself with glory on so many stricken fields throughout the centuries, has been abandoned. That, I suppose, is a decision which is irrevocable for the present and cannot be gone back upon. The self-respect of a man is always improved by what he wears. If it is a uniform it should be one which is capable of looking well.

Welfare is important. I have had a considerable acquaintance with that admirable branch of the present military idea and I would like to give one warning. Welfare has been greatly publicised, but the establishment of a welfare service does not relieve an officer one iota of his responsibility to his men. In some units there was perhaps a tendency to think, "Oh, this is a job for the welfare service," just as towards the end of the war before last, when musketry had rather sunk, if anybody happened to be shot at by a rifle, there was a call for the snipers. It was parallel to that in its misapplication. Every officer is responsible for his men as much as he ever was. It is only to assist in those things for which he has not the resources that the welfare service exists and it should enable him to do much more than he has done in the past. It should never be taken as a cloak for slackness in taking care of men. It is important to remember that every regimental officer should look on his men from two aspects—as soldiers and as persons. There is nothing so unfortunate as when the latter relationship between an officer and his men is forgotten.

Pay is probably the most important single factor, but that has been already discussed and I do not propose to add to it. Another factor, which has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is the certainty of employment when the period of service with the Regular Army is over. At present the Regular soldier does not get the certainty of employment which I should like him to have. There was no doubt that in some Continental armies the non-commissioned officer—the regular element in these big conscript armies—had an absolute no per cent. certainty of good employment in Government service. Nobody else got it. Our Regular soldiers' prospects are far less good.

The particular type of man who is in a great difficulty is the senior N.C.O., the man who has served in the Regular Army for a long time, to whom I, as an amateur, used to look as a sheet anchor. He is one of the most valuable elements that an Army could have. He has served for a long time in the Army and goes out at a higher age than the average. If he has a good record, if he has an exemplary character—as many of them have—he should have the absolute certainly of a good job to go to; because when a man gets old he looks, above all else, for security for himself and, even more, for his wife and family. At present the senior N.C.O.—the man who has served in the Regular Army for a long time and has given good service to it—is not getting the prospects which I would wish him to have. These would aid his ambition in doing such service for the Army and the country as to qualify him to become a senior N.C.O. He should get what he deserves—the prospect of a good job and reasonable security for himself and his family.

I think that the regimental tradition should be emphasised more. Above all, I would be interested to hear what the Minister will say in reply, because looking at the whole question it does seem to me that the recruiting campaign for the Regular Army is not being sufficiently successful. Therefore, what do the Government propose to do about it? The Regular soldier is the core of the Army and the Regular N.C.O. is, and has been, one of the most valuable assets that this country has had, not only in war, but also in peace. The British soldier, unlike the soldiers of some countries, has always borne the highest character, and that is true of the Regular soldier in peace-time as it is of any soldier in war-time.

It seems to me that what the initiators of this very interesting Adjournment Debate wish to do is to seek more clarification from the Government spokesman of the position we see ourselves in at the moment, namely, that the Government are failing to produce, for whatever reason, the core of volunteers for the Regular contingent of our Army which is so essential if we are to maintain a military force at all. One remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) at the end of his speech did point the theme today. He said that what we are after is to have a big, efficient volunteer element inside His Majesty's Forces. The remark of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) also gave a clue. What he is saying is that we cannot have a good and efficient military force unless it is based upon a good sense of discipline, proper officer-man relationship and proper welfare facilities, but essentially a good sense of discipline. It seems to me that we cannot have good discipline in any Service unit unless we have a proper standard of morale amongst the troops.

What is wrong with His Majesty's Army at the moment, and I am on record as having said this in a longer Debate in this House a year or so ago, is that we have chosen to have as the basis of recruitment for the Army a conscript force and, as was said by an hon. Member opposite, it is from there that we expect to recruit our volunteer force. I do not believe that we shall get volunteers to continue their service after their year of conscript service unless we can first establish inside the conscript force the standard of morale and discipline which alone makes men satisfied with their service and seek to continue serving their country by continuing in the Army.

There are various aspects which disturb me. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) said something about the lack of emphasis on the county regimental tradition. This is particularly noticeable when we take men, most of them unwilling, who register from school, or interrupt the beginning of their industrial life, and pitchfork them into six months of training in a conscript unit. They do not stay long enough to have any sense of morale or esprit de corps such as they would have got if they had been led into the tradition of the old regimental unit. Then they go out again, perhaps being required to join the Territorial Force of a different county and a different regiment.

Although perhaps this is not the right Debate for it, I would throw out for consideration the suggestion of men doing at least six months of their Territorial service with their Territorial units before they go into the Regular Service in order that, in less strange environment they might get some sense of comradeship, moral and esprit de corps, and get some of that sense without which we cannot get good morale and discipline. Then they could go to the Regular Service unit which is associated with the county Territorial Force to which they can reasonably expect subsequently to go, if they complete their year's conscript service, and then go back and finish their time with the Reserve.

Unless we can get into the men in their first year of military service a sense of loyalty and of belonging to something, a sense of making a contribution to something of which they are proud, and to the prowess and progress of which they want to make a contribution, we cannot hope to build up a disciplined force, and have the volunteer element in the Regular Army which I believe is essential, if we are to have a reasonable instrument on which we can depend if, which God forbid, this country should have again to call upon its military strength.

Having got these men in their conscript units, most of them in my submission unwillingly, we must examine what happens to them during the first year. I do not know whether it was the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) or another hon. Member who said that the best advertising for the Army lies in the Army itself. After having got the conscripts into the military service we can then treat them in an intelligent and disciplined fashion so that they feel they know what they are doing and have a sense of making a contribution to the welfare of the community, a sense of real service. Then I think we should not have the difficulty we are having at the moment in getting them to continue in the Service by signing on for a Regular engagement.

In fact, one sees them loafing in the streets. Their appearance is below the standard of the troops during the recent war. They drift about, and the incidence of petty crime and petty absence without leave, and so on, is no better than it was even at the worst period when their homes were being bombed in London and the big towns. They do not feel that what they are doing has any significance or importance inside the scheme of the life of this country. My view of course is that it has not, because there is no reason at all for us to have a conscript force which puts at the disposal of senior officers, who cannot possibly be expected to hazard a guess about the nature, structure and technique of the Army in a couple of years' time, more men than they properly know how to cope with. I believe that the ruination of the Regular Army is the fact that we have a larger body of conscript troops than we can properly train.

I beg the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend to look again at the whole question of social education, education into citizenship and education into the purpose of having to do service of any kind whether military or otherwise for our community. I believe we should get an infinitely better military force and a greater degree of voluntary recruitment from that, than from any bedside lamps or other expedients. In my opinion that is the proper basis for a real Army.

I hope that the Financial Secretary listened well to what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) said about the regimental spirit. Unfortunately, over the last few years a number of attacks have been made on the regimental spirit from the Treasury Bench. I am quite certain that nothing but harm has come as a result of undermining that regimental spirit. I hope, too, that the Parliamentary Secretary, unlike the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), will also bear in mind that the Regular Army and the Territorial Army are bound very closely together and will not consider them as two things apart.

As a serving Territorial officer I would be a little apprehensive if I thought we were to have large drafts of young conscripts and then lose them after six months. We have enough difficulties with which to contend without the extra burden of men whose hearts could not be in a unit if they knew they would only stay there for a short time.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite got my point. The difficulty is that they are not getting recruits at the moment, and I would seek to stimulate voluntary recruitment by assuring them that during their whole period of service, having started with their local county Territorial unit, they would then go to a Regular conscript unit knowing that they would have continuity of association throughout the whole of their service.

I see the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman but I think it would be making too many changes in a rather short period of service. I do not wish to go into any particular Territorial Army problems, except to make the point that the Territorial Army should be considered, to put it crudely, as part of the publicity agency, of the Regular Army, and that through the Territorial Army the Regular Army should look for a proportion of its long-service volunteers as it has done in the past.

That brings me to a comment on another poster. We have heard criticisms of the 43 trades poster, but there is a most extraordinary poster which has been sharing the hoardings with pleas to join the Palestine Police, for about the last two years. It is a picture of a man. Whether he is taking his clothes off or putting his clothes on it is difficult to tell. Underneath there is some caption about the Territorial Army. I can promise the Financial Secretary that it has done the Territorial Army no good. I do not think it has done anybody any good at all, with the possible exception of the printer. It has no clear appeal. Surely, if there is to be a poster campaign, those responsible should make up their minds how long that campaign is to last, there should be some definite story running through the campaign, and a climax at the end. That poster has become a feeble joke, so I hope the Financial Secretary will destroy it and, at a later date, initiate a proper campaign in favour of recruiting for the Territorial Army. It is true there was a Mansion House lunch, at which one of his predecessors made a speech, but that does not constitute a national campaign. With regard to recruiting, in some units it is not wholly unsatisfactory, in others it is entirely unsatisfactory, and there is every reason now why the hon. Gentleman should attend to this, not only for the sake of the Territorial Army, but for that of the Army as a whole.

I do not think recruiting for the Territorial Army is mainly affected by pay questions; in the past all ranks used to pay for the privilege of serving, and that not so many years ago. At the same time we are extremely annoyed when we find that our scale of allowances is not the same as that of the Regular Service. Will he look into that? A great deal of irritation is felt when it is discovered that some messing allowance of 2½d. or 5½d. is disallowed. Those are the small things which in course of time can have a large effect.

Again, transport can contribute to showmanship. Ten days ago I attended a weekend camp, and the 60 or so men who attended the camp, drawn from two companies—not wholly unsatisfactory today—were not taken in R.A.S.C. troop carrying vehicles but in civilian hired lorries, red, white, blue, and all the colours of the rainbow. The only excuse given was that there was little R.A.S.C. transport in Northern Command, and what lorries there were were aiding the meat supplies in the London Docks. That is a pitiful situation. It would be the highest possible advertisement for the Army if, when a unit runs a weekend camp, it could be done in a spick and span fashion from drill hall door at the start to drill hall door at the finish. We should not be expected to move through the towns and villages looking like a village fair.

My last point is about the No. 1 uniform. There is a great deal of apprehension that when this new uniform appears, probably at no distant date, we shall get it only in limited issues so that it may take a number of years before any unit is completely equipped. I leave it to the Minister's imagination to tell him what the situation will be. For the first year it may mean that 20 per cent. of the men in a unit will be wearing the uniform and the other 80 per cent. will be waiting for it. Perhaps for five years the unit will be going about looking like black and tans—

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that recruiting will take place in a black and tan uniform?

The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I said, any more than he has understood a great deal else during this Debate. I used the words "black and tan" not in any sense in which it appears to have struck the hon. Gentleman but in the sense of having a particular unit in mixed dress perhaps to the extent of one fifth in blue and the remainder in battle dress. I would beg the Minister to consider whether a unit would not become an object of ridicule if that situation arose, and I would ask him that when this uniform is issued it will be done in such a way as to be acceptable to commanding officers. He might like to put examples of the uniform in the tea room, as was done about two years ago. But I do beg him to ensure that whole units are equipped at the same time. The matters which I have raised are important when taken by themselves, as well as cumulatively. If the Minister does not pay attention to them the interests of our national Army which is our national defence are bound to suffer, whatever anyone may think.

The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) deserves our congratulation and gratitude for the wide and interesting Debate to which his speech on the Adjournment has given rise. He mentioned that should he be so unfortunate as to displease his constituents at the next Election he would then serve the nation in another sphere. I should warn him that by saying that he is possibly tempting my right hon. Friend and myself to take special action in his constituency at the next Election, not merely with a view to partisan advantage but with a view to the national advantage which may accrue if the hon. and gallant Member's services were directly available to us on the topics which he has so ably raised this afternoon.

I would refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He has to a considerable extent, been answered by some of my other hon. Friends. I do not think that he suggests that this country should, in all circumstances, be completely deprived of military defence. Whatever the size of our Armed Forces may be—that is a point of dispute with some hon. Members—it will certainly be necessary for them to contain a solid voluntary element. It is therefore quite proper that, whatever device or machinery there is for recruiting that voluntary element should be efficiently and competently managed. That is the point we are discussing. The wider issues raised by my hon. Friend could not profitably be discussed under the heading of Army recruiting. The need for efficient recruiting abides, whatever view may be taken on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.

Another topic which I should like to set aside from the main stream of the Debate, not because it is not important but rather for the contrary reason, is that of Territorial Army recruiting. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) spoke just now of the desirability of a national campaign which, he pointed out rightly, is rather more than a lunch at the Mansion House. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that it is intended to carry out a campaign for recruitment into the Territorial Army on the most ambitious scale. In order that that campaign may be well launched, may have behind it the full support of all those people who do voluntary work for the Territorial Army—there are very many, and we owe a great debt to them all over the country—in order that the campaign may be launched with their full support and in the most auspicious manner, it is necessary to settle a number of points of principle and of administration, some of which were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Westmorland.

There are, for example, questions with regard to allowances, the position of men in certain occupations who may wish to volunteer for the Territorial Army, and so on. It is on those and other points that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement before long, and I am sure the House will agree that on an occasion like this, when the whole question of Army recruiting and Army life has been raised at comparatively short notice, it would not be at all appropriate for me to attempt, even if it were possible, in any way to anticipate that statement.

If I do not say any more than that on the question of the Territorial Army, it is, as I have indicated, not because it is an unimportant subject but because it is far too large and important, and at this moment too critical a topic to be taken up in the imperfect way with which I should have to deal with it if I attempted to say much at this time. We are, therefore, mainly concerned with the question of voluntary recruitment into the Regular Army, or perhaps one ought to say the full-time part of our national Army, because that is really what we have at the present time—a national Army in which there is a full-time voluntary element, a full-time conscript element and a territorial volunteer element, and also in the comparatively near future there will be a National Service element in the Territorial Army, but they must all be thought of as parts of a national Army.

On this question of voluntary recruitment to the Regular Army or, if it is preferred, the full-time part of the Army, that subject divides itself under two heads. Let us consider the actual machinery of recruiting. Are we putting before the public in the most compelling and attractive manner possible the thing which, if I may use commercial language, we have to sell? That is one part of it. The other part with which I would first like to deal is: What is the nature of the article that we have to sell? Is it an article which, if the public have once acquainted themselves with it, they will like and approve of and which will make its own market as time goes on? That is to say, what is the nature of Army life today, and of a career in the Army?

We make a very large section of the public aware of what the Army is like through the process of conscription. It would take far too long to go over all the arguments that were advanced and which, if I may remind the House, convinced hon. Members not so very long ago that peace-time conscription was necessary. For myself I hold most firmly—and every day in which I have the honour to continue in my present office convinces me more firmly—that it would not be possible for this country to discharge its commitments and to maintain its own defences adequately without the maintenance of peace-time National Service.

Is that an official statement on behalf of the Government, that we are committed to permanent conscription, or is it a personal view?

When the hon. Member says "permanent," I must make it plain that I was not suggesting that that will be the position, for all I know, in a quarter of a century or half a century's time. I am speaking with reference to the position as it is today. It has been suggested in some quarters of the House today that we ought now to do without conscription. What I am saying quite definitely, and what certainly is the view of the Government, is that in the position with which we are faced today it is necessary to maintain the measure of peacetime National Service which is now on the statute book.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think he slightly misrepresented the views which were put forward. I do not think it was ever suggested that we could do away with National Service now, but what I think was expressed was the hope that we should be able to increase voluntary recruitment so that it might become unnecessary.

I am sorry if I misrepresented any hon. Member, but I should like to make it clear that in face of the present circumstances I do not believe it to be possible to dispense with compulsory National Service.

When a man comes into the Army and serves a period, which before long will be a period simply of 12 months, does his experience during that time make it likely that he will want to become a volunteer member of the Regular Army? Hon. Members have drawn attention to the number of aspects of Army life. On the question of pay, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, I would say this: the question of Service pay—and this is a matter, of course, which would have to be examined not merely by the Army but jointly with the other Services—was considered comparatively recently. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) suggested, it was not considered carefully enough by the House.

An attempt was made, and it was thought at the time that a successful attempt was made, to preserve a fair proportion between pay in the Services and the rates of wages prevailing in civilian life. It is true that since then there have been some alterations in some civilian occupations but, as was pointed out in the House recently, we cannot make this comparison between Service pay and civilian pay too rigid because of the extent to which a Service man is paid by some things which he receives not in cash but in kind, I would add that I have listened most carefully to the arguments advanced on that question by hon. Members and to the concern which so many hon. Members obviously have for it.

Turning to points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), after he had mentioned the question of pay he discussed the question of the treatment of the recruit on entry. What sort of impression does the Army make on him when he first comes to it from civilian life? Is it an impression which is likely to make him either join the Army himself or suggest to other people in later life that that would be a sensible thing to do? I do not accept the view on that point, expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington), that these men come in, for the most part, unwillingly. I would not accept that view. It is true that these men come forward under a legal obligation and not entirely of their own volition, but my own conviction is that the great majority come in quite cheerfully, quite anxious to see what Army life will be like, quite eager to make the best of it, and not only because of the novelty of it.

That is the frame of mind in which most men enter the Army. The House will be aware that in the spring of this year an alteration was made whereby a new recruit entering the Army does not go to what was known as the P.T.C.—Primary Training Centre—but goes to the A.B.T.U.—Arms Basic Training, Unit. That is to say, from the moment he enters the Army he belongs to a definite arm: he is not in what one might call a nondescript corps. We were not quite certain how that would work out and it has been interesting to discover by experience that one definite advantage it has is that of making the recruit feel, from the moment he enters the Army, that he belongs to something which has a real existence, a real purpose of its own.

When the hon. Gentleman says "real existence" does he mean a county regiment or just a corps?

I was thinking primarily of a corps of the arm of the Army to which the man belongs. In the case of the infantry, of course, he would belong not only to the infantry but to a particular Group. At any rate, it is more useful than his going straight away into what was, in effect, a nondescript unit where he knew he would not be any length of time. I believe that his going straight to an A.B.T.U. secures the result in which hon. and gallant Members have expressed themselves interested—that the man does feel from an early stage that he belongs to something which has a purpose, that his time is not being wasted, that he belongs to an institution of which he can be proud. That view was expressed to me by officers and men in more than one kind of A.B.T.U. I had the good fortune to visit recently.

The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing asked, Did we treat these men well? I was interested to observe, when looking at an old fashioned recruiting poster recently, that one of the inducements offered to men to join a particular regiment was, that the regiment was commanded by a gallant and well known hero whose name was there given—this was some time in the last century or even earlier—and that this was the regiment in which the men were most kindly treated of all the regiments in the Army.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing; but I do not think we should use quite that wording today in a recruiting poster. I was not quite sure on that occasion when I was looking at the old fashioned poster that we should not consider what are the underlying ideas they had in mind when they issued it, and how they could be put into terminology which would be appropriate to the 20th century. My own impression, having visited A.B.T.U.s to give to the best of my ability my attention to this question, is that we do treat the young recruit, when he goes into the A.B.T.U. in the early months of his Army service, in a way which would give satisfaction to his parents, to his friends, and which helps him to feel that the Army has a real and personal interest in him.

In the "glasshouse"?

My hon. Friend is presumably referring to military corrective establishments, one of which was visited by the Secretary of State, in his capacity of Secretary of State, not so very long ago. I would tell my hon. Friend that when he makes a casual reference of that nature—

I have seen them on the inside.

So have I. When my hon. Friend makes casual references of that kind, he is, I am afraid, showing not only his lack of sympathy with the policy of the Government, to which we are very well accustomed, but that he has not troubled to keep himself up to date on what are the conditions of Army life at the present time. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and other hon. Members stressed the importance of the position of commanding officers, saying that commanding officers should not get into the habit of saying that this, that or the other of the personal problems of the men under their command was a matter for Welfare. My feeling is that commanding officers are very well aware of that. It was true during the war—it was inevitable—that welfare services should grow. The great number of men who had to be dealt with, the range of problems to be dealt with, and, in some cases, the length of time men were with one commanding officer, were such that we had to make welfare a quite specialist business. The movement now is decidedly in the other direction. I do not mean that Army welfare services can disappear, but that there is a proper resumption by commanding officers of a field of work which, through sheer necessity, they had sometimes to set aside during the war.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard the full effect of my observations on that point. It is not only the Commanding Officer, although he is predominantly responsible, but every officer who is responsible.

I accept that, and the degree to which that is appreciated throughout the unit, but the whole key note is set by the attitude of the Commanding Officer.

Reference was made to what view mothers may take of the life which we are providing for their sons during their first few months in the Army. One ought not to lay too much stress on casual encounters, but it was my good fortune to visit an A.B.T.U. recently, and to talk to young recruits who had been only a few weeks in the Army. I asked one of them, which, of all the things which he was required to do while he had been in the Army, was the one which he disliked most. He replied, after about ten seconds hesitation, "Having to make my own bed when I get up in the morning." I could not help feeling that his experience in early life had been one of perhaps undeserved good fortune in the matter of making his own bed, and that his mother might feel on his return from Army service that, far from suffering anything, he had acquired a new and useful skill, apart from any military knowledge which we might have been able to give him.

Is not my hon. Friend's argument based on the assumption that the sole sum of a man's benefit from military service will be his dexterity in making beds, and is it not a fact that we do teach him other things in the Army besides making beds?

That is true. While I would not give too much weight to an isolated example of that kind, I suggest that this particular incident of bed-making illustrates one thing—there are certain things which a young man living away from home for the first time does learn, and which he will be glad of in later life.

It was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing that a clear distinction should be drawn between the strict discipline which is necessary for military purposes and the widest possible measure of freedom which can be given to a soldier, consistent with the performance of his military duties; or, as so many of us have heard it more simply and eloquently expressed, "On parade is on parade; off parade is off parade." That has been a subject of repeated advice to commanding officers throughout the country. The interest which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff takes in what is sometimes described as "The soldier's way of life" is, I think, well-known—the reconciling of the strict discipline necessary for the performance of military duty with his obvious rights and needs as a human being.

I do not suggest, of course, that when we look at Army life and the treatment of young recruits that that is a field in which no improvements can be made. It is a common device in this House to ask the Minister if he is satisfied with such and such a thing. That presents the Minister with a simple dilemma. If he says, "No," then it will be thought why does he not do something about it in order to make himself satisfied; if he says, "Yes," that is regarded as clear proof of self-complacency. The Minister of Health has recently provided us with a way out of that dilemma. In a recent Debate in reply to a question in that form; his answer was that he was not satisfied, but that he was proud of what had been done. I believe that it is possible for us to say, when we look at the task which we have taken up since the end of the war of making compulsory national service work, in circumstances often of great difficulty, that we are in process of finding an answer which will make a young man feel that he has rendered useful service to his country; and he may well be influenced to cause others to join the Army.

It would not be reasonable to expect that every man will so enjoy his period of National Service that he will be determined to become a Regular soldier when his period of National Service comes to an end. We must recognise in these times that there will be very many men who wish to render lives of service, not only to themselves but to the State, but who do not feel they can best do so in the Armed Forces.

I have been speaking of the nature of the article which the Army has to sell. Now as to the question originally raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely; with what degree of competence is that put over by the machinery of Army recruiting? In particular, he criticised the approach, which I admit is so obvious at first sight in Army recruiting propaganda at the present time—the suggestion to the man, "If you join the Army you will be well-trained. You will be able to look forward to a future, after you leave the Army, as a skilled workman with a recognised position in the world of organised labour." The view of the hon. and gallant Member was, as I understood it, not that we ought not to say that, but that we were saying it too loudly and to the exclusion of other matters which we ought to stress.

No one, I think, mentioned one of the most important reasons for that: that if we look at the total figures for recruiting we may regard ourselves as not unsatisfied with the result; but that there is a serious danger of our not being able to recruit in sufficient numbers to the technical arms. The bias in Army recruiting propaganda at present is mainly due to the fact that the shortage is most serious in the technical arms. Therefore, we have for the time being, until that situation is righted, to direct a special appeal to men whose attitude towards life is that of the technician, to the man who is interested in using his hand and brain on the kind of job requiring the skilled co-ordination of hand, eye and wits. It is to him that those advertisements are particularly directed.

I am bound to say, I do not accept the criticisms of some of the particular posters which have been mentioned. It is, after all, entirely a matter of opinion and taste whether the face of the soldier in the "43 trades" advertisement is or is not to be regarded as moon-faced; others would say that it radiated youth, cheerfulness and an eager looking forward into the future. It is even possible that one's view of that poster might be affected by whether one wished to score a point for or against His Majesty's Government, so I do not think we can pursue that too far.

We pursue this line of propaganda, partly for the reason I have mentioned—shortage in the technical arms—and partly because we are, I think, making up for the past neglect of this problem. Moreover, as this matter was discussed by hon. Members—for example, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)—there seemed to be a general agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, that we ought not to try to get people into the Army by talking only about their position when they leave the Army; but that, on the other hand, it would be a very serious dereliction of duty to neglect their position when they leave.

The question of resettlement has been under constant discussion between ourselves and the Ministry of Labour, and we have already succeeded in bringing into operation a number of measures—and we shall go further—which will make it far more certain than it has been in the past that there is a suitable and dignified occupation for the regular soldier when his term of service is finished. It is true that in the past insufficient attention has been paid to that, and to some extent in this matter of recruiting young men are influenced by what members of the older generation tell them. Some of these members of the older generation tell a story of neglect of all these factors of resettlement in the past. We can honestly say that we are not neglecting it to-day, and we therefore have to bring it forth and give it particular emphasis in our propaganda at this time.

Another reason for laying stress on this, and I hope Members will not shy away in horror of the word, is the psychological argument. We have to consider what kind of men we are appealing to. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely has mentioned the older type of soldier whom we still require in order to give the Regular Army its strength. He had in mind, no doubt, those iron qualities of obedience, loyalty and discipline which almost alone have made the immense reputation of the Army in the history of the world. We are appealing to the sons and grandsons of those men who joined the Army at the beginning of the century and earlier, and although these grandsons and sons will have inherited the military virtues of their fathers and grandfathers, it is the fact that with the general change in social and living conditions they will be probably better educated—I imagine that all grandfathers and fathers hope that their children and grandsons will be better educated than they were. Therefore, the young man in deciding what career he will follow will look further ahead. A man has to think not only of himself but of his family. It is notorious that so far as the men themselves are concerned they would cheerfully face, at the call of national duty, any kind of danger and risk, but they hesitate about exposing their families to risk.

The young man today looks ahead more than the previous generation and says to himself that if he wants to marry and have a family he has to make allowance for providing the sort of opportunities he wishes to afford to his children after he has finished his service. We have to allow for that change in social habits. That is why we have laid so much stress on this. I think Members are mistaken in supposing that we have allowed this particular aspect of our recruiting to elbow out completely the remainder. For reasons I have mentioned we have been bound to give it considerable prominence. It is arguable whether we have overdone it, but we have not yet rubbed out completely the other forms of appeal.

If Members will look at the successive posters which are appearing they will find that a proportion of them refer to the fact that the Army is a noble career, and that while in the Army the men will have an interesting and varied life. They will see too that these advertisements occupy a rather higher proportion than they have supposed. If they look at the booklet on "The Modern Army," which they can pick up at any Post Office, they will see that considerable stress is laid on this in its letterpress, and in another booklet, which I have been recently reading, stress is laid upon the comradeship of the Army, upon the service rendered by the Army to the nation, and that by being in the Army a man is doing something useful in his life and something of which he can be proud.

I have recently visited a number of recruiting offices, and I am bound to say that some of the criticism I have heard in this House as to the bad location of these offices has got out of proportion. I do not deny that there are some which are badly located, but it is a great deal easier to say that they are badly located than to discover in the present conditions of accommodation how we are immediately going to remedy that problem.

Recruiting officers are not without ingenuity in this matter. In places they have taken their own remedy such as approaching the manager of the cinema and in one case a recruiting officer approached a commercial firm and secured a window in which he could have a recruiting display. In that display he gave the exact location of the recruiting office, so that it would be made known to all who passed by. I must say, however, that a number of the offices I saw were very well sited indeed. They were in places where the great mass of the population pass them day by day. Not only did they pass them, but they stopped and looked in the window, because the recruiting offices rely not only on posters but on photographs showing the modern Army doing something useful. I formed the opinion that we could with advantage have a greater variety of these posters, and we could pursue with greater vigour and imagination the advertising of the constructive purpose of the Army. The Army is to serve not only this country but all mankind, and it is well that our Army does exist and is one of the factors in world politics at the present time.

In the course of this Debate we have had a number of suggestions for altering tactics in this direction in the interests of our recruiting. We have had our attention drawn to particular features in Army life, which may well merit special attention, but I do not think that any case has been made out—indeed, I do not think there was any intention to make one out—against the Government for being unaware or for neglecting this problem. What we have to bear in mind is that we have got to tie together several strings if our appeal for Army recruiting is to be really successful, the old and new reasons for joining the Army. We have got to remember that some people approach the matter with what one may call, without any derogatory meaning, the old fashioned approach saying, "My family have served for many generations in this particular regiment, and I want to do the same thing." Another man approaches it from a different angle and says, "I want to join the Army because I like that kind of life, and I believe the Army has scope for the particular kind of skill of hand and brain that I possess." The second man is not influenced so much by the older ties of loyalty, but his devotion to the work and to the country is not less on that account.

Somehow, we have got to tie these two together, and it is not always easy to do so, because for one thing the advance of mechanisation in the Army makes it a bit more difficult to tie men and units closely to a particular area on the map. It is the nature of modern warfare which has imposed the necessity for the grouping system in the organisation of the infantry. If we are prepared, as the War Office is prepared, to study past experience and to keep in touch with the judgment of the present generation and use the newest and most expert ideas about advertising and propaganda; and if we can tie up all the reasons why men should want to render this form of service to the State as well as all the publicity methods, both old and new, to the present requirements I think that there will be that improvement in Army recruiting which we all want to see.

With the permission of the House may I ask the Under-Secretary one question before he sits down? I hope that he will not overlook one of the points in my speech regarding the availability during training of equipment. I was referring, as it appeared from what the hon. Gentleman said, to the training equipment available in A.B.T.U.s, the new horror of abbreviation with which we have been infected, but I am thinking much more of the availability of equipment when men join units subsequently to their training. After all, the training required in A.B.T.U.s is simple and elementary. It is the further training which is vital, but is nonexistent.

I am sorry that I did not take up the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member. It is one which I appreciate. The use of the word "nonexistent" is a serious exaggeration, but I think the hon. and gallant Member has put his finger on a matter to which we shall have to give attention.

I apologise for not having been present when the Debate began. Since I came into the Chamber I have heard certain statements from the hon. Gentleman which demand comment, if nothing more. I should like, first, to say that, from what I heard of his speech, the intentions of the hon. Gentleman seem to be very much better than the result of any action he has so far been able to take.

The particular remark in his speech which worried me was about pay. I realise that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) referred in particular to posters for recruiting, and I understand that he gave the hon. Gentleman some figures which he has not fully referred to or explained. The hon. Gentleman will agree—and in the course of his speech admitted—that pay has an important bearing on this matter. He said that the House had recently given careful consideration to the pay question. That really will not do. The House gave very careful consideration to it when civilian wages were at least 15 per cent., if not 20 per cent. below what they are today. The case for the Government when introducing these rates was that at that time they bore a reasonable relation to civilian wages and earnings, but, if these have since risen by 20 per cent., it is time that the House gave careful consideration to the problem again.

Some of us on this side have been trying during the last few months to get a statement from the Minister of Defence or the Secretary of State for War of the up-to-date relationship of present rates of pay in the Armed Forces with civilian earnings. Instead of facing the situation Ministers on the Front Bench have absolutely refused to do so. Many of us who are looking into this matter realise, as obviously the hon. Gentleman himself realises, how important it is, and we propose, having studied it carefully, to give the comparison which the Government will not give. It takes time to work out but when we have worked it out, we propose to give it to the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman if they will not give it themselves. It is a great dereliction of duty that they will not face the facts of today.

In his speech the hon. Gentleman mentioned the great difficulty which he has in recruiting for the technical arms of the Service. One of the reasons why he is not able to get men to join the technical arms is the present pay scheme. On the last occasion when we discussed this matter he thought he would get over the problem by compulsory posting from one corps to another. Today he says that one of the things he has to do is to give greater emphasis to the post-Army life of the men who recruit into the Army. All these things may help him—

The hon. Member makes a mistake when he says that today I say so and so, and that this sort of thing is one way of putting the problem off. We drew up the nature of this recruiting appeal and the reason for it a considerable time ago. Nor was it at any time suggested that compulsory transfer was meant to be a way in which we could solve, or were likely to solve, this particular problem.

The hon. Gentleman has mistaken me. I do not expect that it is the only solution he has, but it is the justification for all these steps and one of the main justifications he himself put to this House for the introduction of compulsory transfer from corps to corps in the Army, Now today I have heard him say that the chief justification for this form of publicity in army posters is that he has to appeal to the men to join the technical arms. It is quite clear therefore that he is faced with this problem and he chooses his courses. I am putting to him that the real problem is the present relationship of Service pay and civilian wages.

I was pleased to hear the general outline of the War Office outlook on the problem of recruiting today. I only wish that the actions of the Government were much better. I realise it is not the fault of the hon. Gentleman or even of the Secretary of State. He has to persuade the whole of the Government. Another point is with regard to this word "A.B.T.U." one of the many new abbreviations that seem to be foisted upon this House from time to time. We really are getting into the most terrible state of inventing new words for the English language. When one was in the Army if one went to the Staff College one had an examination in abbreviations. It was difficult enough during the war to keep up with all these abbreviations, even though one went to the Staff College and spent some time trying to learn them. How the hon. Gentleman thinks that hon. Members of this House are going to keep up with all these most frightful abbreviations I do not know.

The hon. Gentleman will remember that when I used the word "A.B.T.U." I immediately translated it as Arms Basic Training Unit.

It does not make it any better, even if one or two hon. Members did happen to hear the hon. Gentleman and know what it meant.

The second thing he said with which I must join issue was that the speeches of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) often contained casual references. I have heard the hon. Member make many speeches, but I have never heard him being casual. He is most emphatic and serious in everything which he has to say. I do hope also that the next time the hon. Gentleman addresses the House he will try to shorten some of his phrases. I heard him say, much to my regret, "Great masses of the population pass by recruiting offices." By that I understood him to mean that many people walk by these recruiting offices.

rose—

I do not know if the hon. Member is hoping to speak? If so, I must remind him that he has already exhausted his right to speak.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have not spoken in this Debate.

The hon. Member spoke on the Question, "That the House do now adjourn"; that was the question proposed.

Then you will permit me, Sir, to ask a question with the leave of the House? Has the hon. Gentleman given consideration to the importance of developing personal leadership? He referred to the glamour and colour of days gone by; has he any views on reviving that glamour and leadership among the many hon. and gallant Gentlemen available?