§ A certificate granted by the local tribunal under Sub-section (3) of Section two of the principal Act as conditional or temporary may impose as a condition upon a person to whom it is granted an obligation 1006 to attend a minimum number of drills per month with a unit of the Volunteer Force of the United Kingdom, provided always reasonable facilities for such drills are available.
§ Failure to attend in any one month the minimum number of drills without the permission in writing of the commanding officer of the unit to which he is attached may be reported to the local recruiting officer and make the holder of the certificate liable to be called up for service with the Colours.
§ While the holder of such certificate is attached to a unit of the Volunteer Force of the United Kingdom he shall be liable to the conditions of service of the Force.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough)I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
On the Second Reading I put forward arguments in favour of this Clause, and I do not intend to elaborate them. It is in no sense a controversial Clause, and I hope it will meet with approval from both sides of the Committee. What is proposed is already being done by some tribunals all over the country, without legislative authority. Many local tribunals, not only in the provinces—I know of one also in the County of London—have already taken the course suggested in this Clause, but there are many local tribunals who hesitate to take the course recommended without the authority of Parliament. There is nothing like an Act of Parliament to encourage procedure of this character. What happens in the ordinary way is that local tribunals have to consider claims for a certain number of postponements and exemptions. They have to select a certain number of men from a trade, industry, or business for postponement and exemption. Postponements are given on certain conditions, and the men entirely escape for the time being from the military authorities. They are lost sight of and go back to the civil population. In these times the fact that a man is postponed does not for a moment mean that he escapes responsibility for defending his country. In case of invasion it would be necessary for industry to stop and for the whole nation to take part in the defence of their homes. But where a man is not enrolled in any force, all he can do is either to stand idly by or take part in civil work, and it would be impossible for him to shoulder a rifle 1007 and share the defence of these shores. These Volunteer corps do enable a man in case of invasion to defend his home, and by the local tribunals putting in as a condition of postponement that a man shall undertake to enrol in a Volunteer Corps, they are seeing not only that a man can have an opportunity to fight for his country but that he is genuinely doing his best in the meantime, and is not merely asking for a postponement in order to shirk having his fair share in the military defence of the country. Of course, there are many other arguments in favour of this proposal. Ultimately these men will have to be called up, and when they are called up they will enter the Army as raw recruits. It is a great thing to get these men ready for the time when they are required for the Regular Army, to get them accustomed to military discipline and get them physicaly fit, so that when they are called up they will be not raw recruits, but very soon ready to go to the front and be a fighting unit in the corps to which they are called up. I know there are some who rather depreciate the utility of this part-time service, but I think that criticism is best answered by the remarkable success of the Territorials at the outbreak of the War. By reason of the training—the part-time training—they received before the War, they were able to go to the front many months before Kitchener's Army, and everyone knows how successful the Territorial regiments proved and how useful it was that they were receiving before the War spare-time training.
It may be suggested that this is a Bill to immediately increase the number of fighting men the Army Council have at the front, and that this Clause does not help that particular object. That is very far from the case. I do not for a moment suggest that any more men should be postponed under this Clause. The men who claim will still have to prove that they are for the moment indispensable, but I am proposing, in addition to having to prove that, that in special cases the authorities would be entitled to insist on the exempted man undertaking to train with a Volunteer Corps. That will mean an increase in number and in strength of the Volunteers. An increase in the number of the Volunteers will make them more efficient for Home defence purposes, and in consequence the War Office will be able 1008 to spare more men from Home defence for service at the front. In other words, it will increase the potential fighting power of our military force. During the last few weeks the military authorities have been making more and more use of Volunteer Corps to do various duties previously undertaken by the Regular or Territorial Armies, such as patrolling lines of communication and guarding vulnerable points. At London railway stations there is a certain number of Regular soldiers doing comparatively routine work. These duties could be undertaken by Volunteer Corps. Owing to the large depletion of the ranks of the Volunteer Corps it is very difficult for them to find sufficient numbers to do the work on a rota system, because if they are spare-time corps they can only undertake these guard and patrol duties on a rota system. If postponed and exempted men were sent to these corps their numbers would be increased and they would be able to undertake more duties than they have previously been able to do. In other words, owing to the fact that Volunteer Corps would be increased by my proposal, the Regular Army will be, from a fighting point of view, increased in strength. I do not believe there will be any serious opposition to this proposal. I have had support for it from all parts of the country, and not only from the Volunteer Corps, who are very anxious to undertake the training of these men, but also from men who, though unable at present to join the Forces and are claiming exemption and would like to get postponement, are still anxious to do their bit in the defence of the country.
§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHI think this an admirable provision, and I believe the men who underwent training as Volunteers would derive a very great advantage from it, and when enrolled in the Regular Army would find that their time had been most profitably spent. I have for some time had the honour of being associated with a Volunteer Corps which, I believe, would rank in point of efficiency with any Territorial Force before the outbreak of the War. It has given to the Regular and Territorial Army no fewer than 400 commissioned officers, so that these bodies are entitled to be regarded with very great respect by the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers find it possible to accept this new Clause the Army Council will have no reason to regret the step they have taken.
§ Mr. LONGI think that we are all in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend who moved this Clause has in view. He has identified himself with this Volunteer movement with great devotion and with remarkable success. I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth), that it does undoubtedly express what is a very general sentiment in the country, that the men and the lads of this country ought to take every opportunity that offers to join the Volunteers and to fit themselves, as far as they can, for the defence of their country. There is no doubt that the tribunals have power at the present time, If they choose, to attach a condition of this kind, so I am advised, to any certificate of exemption that may be prepared to grant. I confess that I do not quite like to put a power of this kind into the Bill. It seems to me, to some extent, to conflict with the principle of the Volunteer movement. The great merit of the Volunteer movement is that it is a voluntary decision on the part of the individual to submit himself to the training and discipline which is part of the Volunteer system. If this Clause were adopted, and the tribunal made it a condition that a man should undertake these duties, you would, to a certain extent, I do not press it too far be injuring the Volunteer movement. I hope the fact that this Clause has been received with sympathy in the House will secure the end which my hon. Friend has in view, and that he will be content with that and will not ask us to add it to the Bill. I do not think, on the whole, that it would be desirable. It might raise a false impression in the country as to the way in which the Volunteer movement is supported. I believe that the tribunals can, if they like, indicate that the applicant ought to join a voluntary course, and, I think, after this short debate, the object which my hon. Friend has in view will be attained without making the Clause part of the Bill.
§ Mr. PERCY HARRISI beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Clause be withdrawn?
§ Mr. SNOWDENNo. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with amazement, for many reasons. I was utterly bewildered when he sat down as to whether he has recommended the Committee to accept the Clause or to reject 1010 it. I do not see why he cannot accept the Clause, or why he should strain at the gnat after swallowing the camel of compulsion. I rose mainly on account of the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the tribunals have, under the existing Act, the right to impose, as a condition of giving exemption on the ground of indispensability, that the man should join some Volunteer corps as a conscript, or in other words that he should become a conscript Volunteer. I am not a lawyer, but you, Mr. Maclean, are the chairman of an appeal tribunal, and we all know with what fairness, impartiality, ability and sound judgment you have discharged your duties on that appeal tribunal, and I am quite sure it must have come to you as a great surprise to hear that when you have made it a condition of exemption that there should be grounds of business or indispensability, the individual in question could also be compelled to become a Volunteer. It has come with consternation to the Committee to learn that such a construction as that has been placed upon the existing Act by the official spokesman of the Government, and I think no time ought to be lost in getting the confirmation of the law officers of the Crown for such an extraordinary statement as that. I would like to know whether a tribunal when deciding an application based on the ground of business circumstances or the indispensability of a workman, can make it a condition that he shall join some Volunteer corps. If I were supporting this Clause I should press this argument. We were told last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery)—who proved a very true prophet three months ago when he said there mould be a measure for the extension of the Military Service Bill within three months—that the proposal to raise the military age to forty-five will come very soon. If that he so I think that from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of military necessity it is very desirable that you should be giving some training now to the men who are going to be made conscripts within the next two or three months. I need hardly say that if the proposal were made now, seriously, I should oppose it. I simply mention this because I do not see from the point of view of those who are defending this Bill why the Government should not accept this Clause. I gather from the Mover of the Clause that he does not intend to 1011 press it. If he did I should vote against it. I should like before we pass away from the Clause to have some confirmation of the extraordinary interpretation of the Act which has been given by the President of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. NIELDI do not think that I quite follow the last speaker. I cannot imagine that any tribunal would contemplate such a condition in relation to a claim for exemption on the ground of indispensability, but I can understand this condition having some weight with a tribunal when dealing with the question of domestic hardship. You may have facts of such a character as to bring the matter on to the border line, and then the advantage of possessing such a condition as this might be sufficient to determine the tribunal in favour of an order of exemption. I think such an order would have very great value in getting the man in condition for any fur-further service if it be necessary, either by an alteration of circumstances or the passing away of the special hardship which would enable and justify the military authorities in asking for a revision of the certificate. Up to the present time, I have not for a moment supposed that the Act gave us any such power, and I do not understand how it is that the President of the Local Government Board should imagine that we have the power already to enact such a condition as that. I do not agree with him that the effect would be to destroy the Volunteer movement. I suppose it would be put as a question, "Are you willing"? and therefore this condition would not so interfere with the voluntary nature of the corps' existence as to be a substantial objection to these orders being made in suitable cases. I do not suppose they would be very numerous, but I do think such orders would give an opportunity for determining an application when the point of decision has got into the condition of see-saw, because these orders would enable the tribunals very often to grant an exemption in suitable cases.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe hon. Member is a lawyer, and he has had experience of tribunals under the existing Act. Of course it is quite evident that if this Amendment is passed the tribunals would have the legal right to impose as a condition that the man should join some training corps where the certificate was given mainly on the ground of domestic hardship. That is a point about which I would like to ques- 1012 tion the hon. and learned Member. Is it his opinion that under the existing Act such a condition can be imposed by a tribunal in granting a certificate on the grounds of domestic hardship?
§ Mr. NIELDI have already said that I do not think it possible to do so. Looking at the principal Act, Clause 2, Subsection (3). I have never regarded the words
provided that a certificate granted on the ground of the continuance of education or training,and so on, as sufficient authority, and certainly the words of the preceding paragraphs do not seem to cover the point. I should never have dreamed of making such an order.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThen the opinion of the hon. and learned Member conflicts directly with that expressed by the President of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESI should have thought that there could have been very little doubt about this. Persons who come before the tribunal, whether hon. Members think that is desirable or not, are persons who are legally liable to military service. The tribunal can impose upon them no liability to service which Parliament has not placed upon them. They are there asking for exemption. As I understand the Act the tribunal can give an exemption which will be conditional, and they could say, "You are liable under the Act to devote your whole time as a soldier in the Army, but in the conditions which you place before us we will exempt you from your legal liability if you will undertake something which is less than the full legal liability to serve which Parliament has placed upon you." I do not know whether the fact that the tribunals have this power would be regarded by my hon. Friends as desirable, but it seems to me clear that that is a power which Parliament has given.
§ Captain CASSELThe words of the original Act, Sub-section (3) of Section 2, might well be regarded as giving a power of imposing such a condition. The words are
"Any certificate of exemption may be absolute, conditional or temporary as the authority by whom it was granted think best suited to the case."
The only limitation placed upon that condition is "No certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to 1013 whom it is granted continuing in or entering into employment under any specified employer, or in any specified place or establishment." That seems to give a general power to the tribunal of imposing conditions. The tribunal might very well consider in some cases that it would be a hardship to compel a man to enlist as a soldier where his whole time would be taken up. Still, it might fairly impose a condition upon him that he should be submitted to some kind of training, which would still be consistent with his carrying on his business. I have so long left the law that I feel rather rusty in it, but it seems to me that that would be not an altogether unreasonable interpretation of the Act.
§ Mr. NIELDI would ask the Solicitor-General can he point to any circular of the Local Government Board—and they are legion—in which this ground is taken?
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI do not propose to give any opinion on the legal aspect of the matter, as it would not be worth anything, but the possibility of attaching such a condition as this opens out a very wide vista, because if you can attach this condition I do not know what condition you cannot attach. You might make it a condition that a man should go to church on Sunday, or join a football club or a dancing club. Therefore I regret very much that the Government are not prepared to put ft into this Bill, because I think that it would be a most excellent condition to attach in many cases. I do not attach any importance to merely verbal criticism about a man being a compelled volunteer. The position would be perfectly clear. He would be serving his country and helping to get ready for the Army. Whatever joke we might make to him about it would be a matter of absolutely no importance. My reason for wishing to see this put into this Bill is chiefly that there will necessarily be a great deal of dislocation, industrial and social and in the family, in taking away for the Army the married men and to a great extent the unmarried men who have ties, and it seems to me that that dislocation might be eased in a great many cases without any disadvantage to the country if the man was allowed to stay at home a little longer than otherwise could be done, on condition that he put in a considerable number of drills in his spare time with the Volunteer Training Corps, and thereby prepared himself to serve his 1014 country. It seems to me that this new Clause would really assist us very much in the good work which we have in hand. Therefore I hope that the Government will still accept it and remove all doubt as to whether there is power for the tribunals to act in this way or not.
§ Mr. ESSLEMONTI would like to understand the position in regard to this Amendment. I heard the President of the Local Government Board very indistinctly when he was discussing this Amendment, but I understand that he intimated to the Committee that under the principal Act tribunals had the power to impose this form of service on any appellant. We have it from one Member of the House who is, I understand, the chairman of a tribunal, that neither he nor any of the members of the tribunal ever understood that they were at liberty to impose any condition of this kind. And we have heard from another legal Member of this House that the condition laid down in a certain Subsection of the principal Act would empower the tribunals to impose a condition of this kind. But the material thing to consider is that the military authorities have made no provision for a condition of this kind. What military organisation is there in operation which would be in a position to take over a man who had imposed upon him a condition of this kind? I am not aware that it exists. For that reason I would urge the Government to let us know definitely that this is within the powers of the tribunal under the principal Act, and that if the members of the tribunal think it right and proper to impose such a condition I think that we ought to have the assurance that the necessary form of partial training which is facilitated under this Amendment will be arranged for by the military authorities.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI desire to refer to the question whether there is already power to impose a condition of this sort. If there is such power, then there is power on the part of the tribunal to impose any conditions they like. That is a reading of the Act which is quite new to this House, because we had a quite clear idea, both in the legislation and in the subsequent Regulations, all of which I have read, as to what was meant by the word "condition"—such things as a man remaining in a certain industry that was essential for the carrying on of the War, and so on. That was made quite clear in the Regulations. If it is now to be argued that that word 1015 "conditional" is so wide that a condition can be imposed, then the very gravest danger opens up. You can compel a, man in these circumstances to do anything you like as an alternative to his going into the Army. I agree with the hon. and learned Member opposite that there is no such power at present. I have never heard that, and I would ask the Government to state if, any such condition has ever been imposed by any tribunal since this Act came into operation. I do not believe that it has. We ought to be quite clear on that point, because it is vital in this sense, that if you can impose such a condition under the present legislation, as the President of the Local Government Board argued that you could, then I know no condition which you could not impose in a similar case.
§ Sir G. CAVEI did not wish to make any statement until the proper time came. I think my right hon. Friend's explanation with regard to the Amendment is quite clear. He expressed great sympathy with it, but said that it would require more consideration and probably more preparation. But whatever the legal view of the principal Act may be, he is not prepared to accept the Amendment to-night. With regard to the point of law which has been raised, I hesitate to express any view in presence of the conflicting opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen, for whose opinions I have the greatest possible respect. My feeling is that if one looks at the Act there is really no limitation in the Act itself. The Act says quite plainly that a certificate of exemption may be absolute, conditional, or temporary. These are the only words which apply generally to these certificates of exemption. It is true that in Sub-section (3) there is a provision that no certificate shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted entering into employment under a specified employer or in a specified place. That provision seems to me to show how wide the general words are. But for that particular restriction the tribunal might require the man to enter into a particular employment or to be employed in a particular place. So that these general words—I am only speaking off-hand, of course—would have to be very carefully considered. I do not deal with the Regulations, because I have. not got them before me, but there may be something in them as they stand to cut down the general words which are in the 1016 Act. I am not aware, and I do not know whether my hon. Friends are aware, of any such conditions being imposed at the present time. I have not heard that it is being done. Though the point is one of interest, I do not see how it is relevant at the present moment, unless the House goes behind the decision of my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived.