Commons Sitting of 27 February 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
London Corn Exchange Company Bill. Sheffield United Gaslight Company Bill.
Ordered, that the Bills be committed.
Port of London Authority (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

COCAINE IN DENTISTRY (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State far the Home Department to consider the authorisations granted for the use of Cocaine in Dentistry, and to advise whether or not they should be continued or modified, and, if continued, in what cases and with what conditions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 23rd February; Sir Albert Stanley}; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 31.]

COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
Copy presented of Petition from Lady Strathcona and Mount Royal and others, praying for the grant of a, Charter to the Royal Victoria College of Montreal, to-
1822
gether with a Copy of the Draft Charter applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to 5th January, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 32.]
DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
Return ordered, "of Deaths in England and Wales in the year 1916 upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation or Death accelerated by Privation, together with observations furnished to the Local Government Board by boards of guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 10, of Session 1917)."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE RESERVE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers are now on the Territorial Force Reserve; and how many officers on, that list are capable and willing to serve but are at present unemployed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): 1,268 officers are so shown in all arms up to 22nd February. The greater part of these are considerably over military age; many are medically unfit, and some have been released for special purposes. All those-capable of further military service are employed as opportunity arises.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    HAREOW TRIBUNAL (EXEMPTED CARMEN).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his

    1823
    attention has been called to the statements made by the military representative on the Harrow Tribunal; whether he is aware that this representative stated that many cases of incivility by exempted carmen had come to his notice and that he had notified coalowners to tell him of cases where this occurred; and that he also promised to lose no time in reviewing such exemptions and doing all in his power to get the men sent to the front; whether such a policy has the support of the War Office; and what action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that the statements of the military representative on the Harrow Tribunal were made in consequence of his having ascertained that some of the coal carters in his area were keeping bad time, and were otherwise irregular in their work, being apparently under the impression that as they were in a certified occupation they could not be made liable for military service. It was not a question of incivility, but of failure adequately to perform the work in respect of which they held exemption. Application may rightly be made for withdrawal of a certificate of exemption granted on the ground of certified occupation if the holder has a bad record in his employment. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 12th instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Devonport.

    CONDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Attention has been called to the protest made by the Runcorn Tribunal against the calling up by the military authorities of men granted conditional exemption; whether he has read the statement of the chairman that the certificates of tribunals were of no account, and that the military authorities simply used the tribunals as a fog to obscure the issue; and what steps it is proposed to take to prevent the military authorities overriding the decisions of the tribunals?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry has been made into this matter. It appears that there was some misundersanding as to certificates of exemption held by men whose employment ceased to be certified in consequence of alteration in the Certified Occupation List, but that the question
    1824
    has now been satisfactorily settled. It is not always understood that an exemption granted solely on the ground of certified occupation is automatically cancelled when the occupation is removed from the list. Recruiting officers are fully aware that a valid certificate or exemption issued by a tribunal precludes the calling up of the holder for military service. No instances of wilful ignoring of tribunal certificates have been reported.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in spite of the Order of 13th July, to the effect that attested men who are, upon re-examination, rejected as medically unfit should be given a certificate of discharge, it has been consistently disobeyed by the military authorities; whether he is aware that the Secretary of the War Office, in reply to a rejected attested man who asked for his discharge, has stated that discharge certificates are not now being given; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to take any steps to enforce the observance of the Army Order by his officials?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am not aware that the War Office instructions are consistently disobeyed by the military authorities. As I have stated before, the whole question is under consideration, and if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the letter to which he refers, the whole matter will be investigated.
    Mr. SCOTT: Whore an attested man, who, under this Order, is entitled to his discharge, but which has been withheld by the Army authorities, can he now get his discharge on application?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only state that the whole matter is under consideration. According to the answer which I gave about a fortnight ago to my hon. Friend, I think he is entitled to his discharge.
    Mr. SCOTT: If he is entitled to his discharge under the Order, and if that discharge is wrongfully withheld from him, will he—in spite of the consideration which is going on just now—get his discharge on application?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will give me specific cases, I will certainly make inquiry.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these men have been refused employment by employers because they cannot produce their certificate of discharge, and that consequently the services of those men are lost to the country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of that. I am very sorry if that has been so.

    MILITARY DISTINCTIONS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why non-commissioned officers and men are not allowed the suffix of D.C.M., M.S.M., after their names when they have won that distinction; and whether a change in this practice will be considered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This question raises some difficult points which the Secretary of State is having considered. A decision will be announced in due course.

    HOME LEAVE.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the same rules as to home leave prevail for those who are serving in the trenches and for those who are employed in transport, railway, and other non-combatant service at a distance from the fighting line; and whether more favourable conditions could be granted to those upon whom the toil, hardship, and risk chiefly fall, even if it implied less liberal leave for those employed on lighter and less dangerous duties?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I know that the Field-Marshal. Commanding-in-Chief, in whose discretion the grant of all leave lies, has taken a great personal interest in this matter, and he is endeavouring to give leave as equitably and as often as the military exigencies allow.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the superior claim of those who are in a position of danger compared with those in the rear be considered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I dare say that will be considered.

    HOME SERVICE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who has been placed by a special travelling medical board in
    1826
    category C 2 can be called before a single doctor and placed by him in another category?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the affirmative.

    RESERVE (CLASSES W AND P).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what provision is made for men who, instead of being discharged from the Army on account of disabilities, have been transferred to Class W of the Reserve and who are unable to obtain suitable work or are prevented from earning by reason of illness not due to military service; (2) will the right hon. Gentleman state if suitable work has always been promptly found for men transferred to Class W by reason of disability due to or aggravated by service; if not, what provision has been made for their maintenance and that of their dependants pending their employment as substitutes; (3) if men who by reason of disability due to or aggravated by service have been transferred to Class W of the Reserve have been given any document to show the cause of their being so transferred, or if any records of the cause of such disability have been kept and can be referred to; and (4) if any men have been transferred to Class W in error; and, if so, what steps have been taken to trace such cases, to rectify the error, and to compensate the men for any hardships they and their dependants have suffered in consequence of such error?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am afraid that some men suffering from disabilities due to or aggravated by service have been passed in error to Class W Reserve. As I stated yesterday, in answer to the hon. Member for Durham (N.W.), the whole subject is receiving immediate attention, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the constitution of W Reserve and of P Reserve, respectively?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The information is to be found in two Army Orders, of which I will send my hon. Friend copies.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it not the case that no man ought to be put in the W Reserve if he is disabled?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a conscientious objector named Emanuel Ribers, now of 7b, East Ward, Lord Derby's War Hospital, Win-wick, Warrington, was arrested five weeks ago and handed over to the military; that he went on hunger strike and was seven days without food or drink at Bury Barracks; whether he has been forcibly fed at Warrington; and whether, in view of the danger involved in his treatment, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This case is being investigated, and I should be glad if my hon. Friend would put down his question again next week, when I hope to be in a position to give him an answer.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question of giving separation allowances to the wives of junior officers during the War is still under consideration; and, if so, will he say when a decision is likely to be reached?
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board that an announcement on this subject will be made very shortly.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. Friend say to what rank that applies?
  Mr. FORSTER'Sanswer was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

  MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
  Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what objection the Army Medical Department advances to allowing Mr. Barker and other experts in manipulative treatment to assist and cooperate with the Army surgeons and Army doctors in alleviating the sufferings of the wounded; whether he is aware of the extent of Mr. Barker's practice in the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of the amount of support extended to him by members of the medical profession itself, he will dissociate the Army Medical
  1828
  Department from the attitude of the Council of the British Medical Association?
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the objection of the Army Medical Department to utilising the help of Mr. Barker in manipulative treatment of wounded soldiers is that he does not hold professional degrees; and, if so, whether he can state what is the objection to utilising the help of doctors of osteopathy who hold professional degrees?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information as to the extent of Mr. Barker's practice. Independently of the attitude of the Council of the British Medical Association, the Army Council is, by the terms of the Medical Act, precluded, apart from other reasons, from utilising the services of this gentleman. The British Medical Council has no official connection with the War Office.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Could not the Government override that Act by using the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act as they have done in regard to so-many other matters?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: What particular Clause of the Medical Act is it which prevents use being made of the services of these men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe Clause 36.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department is yet in a position to say whether the British Medical Committee (Balneological Section) has reported on the use of manipulative treatment in France; and whether the Army Medical Department in this country proposes also to make use of every possible aid for wounded soldiers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; they have reported on certain methods of treatment, all of which are in use in this country.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Am I to understand that the Army Medical Department have sufficient medical assistants at present?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: They have.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why appeals are being made all over the country for medical assistance-and further recruits for the Medical Service?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not understand that is so.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: It is; there is no doubt about it.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received any representations from General Count Gleichen on the subject of manipulative treatment; and, if so, what was the tenor of his Report?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There has been no Report, but I believe an informal letter on the subject was written by Count Gleichen, of which there is now no trace.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask my hon. Friend whether letters to generals at the War Office are classified as formal letters and informal letters? If so, on what basis, if there is no trace of a letter that has been sent, can that letter be classified as informal?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend knows that we get a great many letters which are informal, and he will realise that any formal letter sent to the War Office is duly registered, and a letter which is informal is not registered.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department is aware that the Medical Act of 1858 applies only to persons falsely styling themselves physicians, doctors of medicine or surgery, or surgeons; whether the Department is also aware that experts in manipulative treatment do not come within any of those descriptions, do not so style themselves, and have never asked to be so employed; and whether he can state what Section of the Act can, under those circumstances, be construed as preventing the Department from using the services of these experts?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am not aware that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Medical Act is correct. I think if he refers to the Act he will find that it prohibits the appointment of any person as a medical officer unless he is registered. Every branch of medicine and surgery pursued by lawfully qualified medical men is represented among those employed by us.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that these gentlemen have not asked to be employed as registered practitioners, but have asked to be allowed to serve their country in the hospitals?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the letter from Mr. Barker which appears to-day in the "Westminster-Gazette."

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TEA AND SUGAR.
    Mr. GEORGE FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether at certain military hospitals in this country our nurses' morning and afternoon teas have lately been stopped; and whether those or such like indulgencies are still permitted to be enjoyed at Donington Hall and other officer-prisoners' camps in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that this is so. Nurses have their own messes and make their own arrangements. Officer prisoners of war are at liberty to have afternoon tea, provided that the limitations placed on their purchases of certain articles of food are not exceeded.
    Mr. FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the allegation in the first part of my question? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me, without notice, whether in certain military hospitals in this country, the nursing staff is getting no sugar at all?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will make inquiry.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry at the Hospital for Officers in Carlton House Terrace?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements, have been made to supply bee-keepers in Scotland with sufficient sugar to keep their bee-stocks alive over the spring; whether arrangements have been made with Messrs. Pascall to supply medicated candy for the purpose; whether he is, aware that most bee-keepers object to medicated candy; what price is charged by Messrs. Pascall for this medicated candy; and by how much does it exceed the price of sugar?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): Arrangements were made by the Sugar Commission with Messrs. James Pascall, Limited, to supply

    1831
    medicated candy for this purpose. I have no reason to think that bee-keepers object to its use. Messrs. Pascall are charging at the rate of 4s. 7d. for 5 lbs. of medicated candy, exclusive of postage, or about twice the price of sugar.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why bee-keepers should have to pay twice the price for sugar to keep their bees alive?
    Captain BATHURST: It would appear to be a good investment to have a large amount of sugar and material thus rendered available for public consumption without any large expenditure of human effort.
    Mr. SCOTT: May I ask who receives the 100 per cent, on the price of sugar; does it go to the Sugar Commission?
    Captain BATHURST: This has to be specially prepared.
    Mr. FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that numbers of poor people in this country are unable to purchase the prescribed weekly allowance of 12 ozs. of sugar unless they are prepared to purchase other articles of diet at the same time, and, considering that enemy prisoners of war and 30,000 interned enemy aliens in this country are to be provided weekly with 12 ozs. of sugar per head, he can find it possible to provide similar facilities for our own people?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller since the issue of voluntary rations has been in communication with the War Office, and an Army Council Instruction was issued last week limiting the sugar ration for civilian and combatant prisoners of war to 7 ozs. per week.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the shortage of potatoes is more pronounced in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the present restrictions therefore operate inequitably towards Scotland, he will approach the respective Departments in order to secure either the exportation of a limited amount of potatoes from Ireland or a reduction in railway freight charges on potatoes imported from distant parts of England?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am making careful investigation into the Scottish shortage, in consultation with the Food Controller and with my advisers at the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in any action that may be taken the suggestions of my hon. Friend will be taken into account.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that consumers in Scotland will not be charged more for potatoes than consumers in England?
    Captain DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that too many potatoes are being already exported from Ireland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I was not aware of that, but all the circumstances will be kept in view in reaching an early solution.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of the poorer districts in Ireland eating potatoes are not obtainable for food of the poor people?
    Mr. MUNRO: In that case the condition of Ireland is not dissimilar from that of the adjoining countries.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman try and influence the Government to appoint a Food Controller who understands food questions in Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have been in constant communication with the Food Controller.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering a proposal to charge higher prices in Scotland than in England?
    Mr. MUNRO: That question has been considered in view of many other suggestions. It is not lost sight of.
    Mr. SCOTT: Has it been rejected?
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Agricultural Council of Ireland passed a resolution against the exportation of potatoes, and why should they be overruled?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am not aware of that. I am glad to receive any information from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. FIELD: It is so.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether applications for substitutes for agricultural labourers who have been called to the Colours are refused to Lancashire

    1833
    farmers unless a Class A man is released for the Army in return for every substitute provided; whether he is aware that some of the farms are entirely denuded of labour and others are working with the barest minimum, so that this condition is incapable of fulfilment; whether the agricultural survey has shown that there is a large area of land in Lancashire capable of fuller cultivation if labour is released for the purpose; and if so, whether, in order to facilitate food production, he will take steps to ensure that substitutes will be provided for men who have been already called up as well as for any who may be called up in the future?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The substitution scheme referred to in the first part of the question is no longer in operation. The report of the agricultural survey in Lancashire has not yet been received, but there is no doubt that the shortage of labour in the country is a serious obstacle to food production. As far as our present information goes, about one-half of the farms in Lancashire are staffed up to the level of the Bath Agreement and about one-half fall below it. On the general question of the shortage of labour, the War Office propose to set aside some 15,000 men for agricultural work, who will be formed into agricultural companies and distributed throughout the country. In addition, 15,000 men will be temporarily released from the Home Defence Army for the spring cultivations.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I take it that the half of the farmers in Lancashire who are understaffed will have men placed at their disposals?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether the War Office are going to call up any more of the 30,000 men they had decided to call up?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid I cannot reply to that without notice.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these men will be men who have been skilled in agriculture—the men to be released by the War Office?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Some of those 15,000 men who are to be temporarily released are men who are skilled in agriculture.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Some of them.
    Sir R. WINFREY: Some of them.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the minimum wage of 25s. for agricultural labour will in all cases be given in cash and subject to no deduction for rent of cottage or on any other account?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The guaranteed minimum of 25s. is not necessarily a cash payment, as it is inclusive of allowances.
    Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what date this minimum wage will come into force, and whether it covers the whole country?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Legislation will be introduced very shortly.
    Major HUNT: May I ask what is included in allowances?
    Sir R. WINFREY: A mode of adjusting those allowances is now under the consideration of the Board.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is it permissible under this proposal for farmers to increase a nominal rent of 1s., say, to 6s., thus making the real minimum wage 20s., instead of 25s.?
    Sir R. WINFREY: That would not be allowed.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to confer powers upon the President of the Board of Agriculture similar to those granted to the Minister of Munitions to say that certain men are indispensable; and, if not, whether it is proposed to take any action to enable skilled men to be retained upon farms where they are absolutely indispensable if the work of the farm is to be carried on?
    Sir R. WINFREY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is not proposed to confer such powers on the President of the Board, and it will remain the duty of the tribunals to decide whether, in any particular cases, further skilled men should be released for the Army. In exercising that duty, the tribunals will undoubtedly bear in mind that all essential agricultural labour should be retained in order to maintain or achieve the highest possible production of home-grown food.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture has himself stated that it

    1835
    is extremely desirable that this power should be granted to him?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Oh, yes; I know that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will he see that the Board of Agriculture is represented before these tribunals as well as the War Office?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board of Agriculture is represented.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Not always.

    HOPS.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been asked by any War Agricultural Committee, or by any body of farmers, to state if it is in the national interest that the growing of hops in this country should continue; and whether he has already expressed, or will now express, any opinion on that subject?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board have received some inquiries on this subject, and the President has to-day addressed a letter to the Hop Growers' Association and to the War Agricultural Committees in the hop-growing counties calling attention to the further restrictions on the output of beer and the need for reducing the acreage of hops in proportion. He has, in that letter, also suggested that the land thus diverted from the growing of hops should at once be utilised to increase the essential food supplies of the nation.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Do we not want something more than suggestion? Do I understand the suggestion is that the hop land should be reduced to one-third of its present acreage? Has the hon. Gentleman any power to take further steps than suggesting?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I do not think it will be reduced to one-third, because we are stopping the import of hops, but it will be very considerably reduced, and we think this suggestion will be sufficient. If it is not, we shall take other steps.
    Mr. G. FABER: How long will it take to bring the land into cultivation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not clear that you will get more by utilising this hop land for wheat and potatoes this year?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, but it is not very easy to turn hop land into corn land at a moment's notice.

    CARARET SYSTEM.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that Ciro's are now proposing to spend a sum estimated at £3,000 in introducing the cabaret system to London; whether, having regard to the cry for economy and to the fact that at a time when every penny is required for the prosecution of the War and that the public are being admonished to ration themselves, any permit has been granted by the Priority Committee to rebuild or adapt any premises for the purpose; and, if so, will stops be taken to at once cancel such permit to prevent this expenditure of money?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I think the hon. Member has been misinformed. No application for a permit has been made and no licence has been issued for the rebuilding or adaptation of the premises to which he refers.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is a permit necessary for the introduction of this obnoxious system called the cabaret system?
    Sir W. EVANS: I think it would be necessary if the expenditure on the building exceeds £500.

    STARCH.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can say what quantity of rice or other food is consumed annually in the manufacture of starch in this country; what quantity of starch is imported annually; and what quantity is exported?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information as regards the first part of the question. The imports of starch of all kinds (including dextrine and farine or potato flour) amounted to 2,136,000 cwts. in 1913 and 2,378,000 cwts. in 1916. Exports and re-exports amounted to 100,000 cwts. in the former year and 269,000 cwts. in the latter.

    HOTEL AND RESTAURANT REGULATIONS.
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that the Regulations limiting the number of courses to be provided at hotels, restaurants, and clubs have quite failed in

    1837
    limiting the consumption, at and expenditure on meals, he can see his way to limit the amount of money to be expended by each person at each meal, as is done in the case of officers?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Regulation of Meals Order, 1916, has not affected the expenditure on meals taken at hotels, restaurants, and clubs. Apart from its useful moral effect, such meals have been rendered thereby shorter and in most cases less extravagant. I agree, however, that the Order has not had the desired effect in reducing the consumption of certain staple foods, and the Food Controller has under consideration the adoption of more efficient means to secure this object.
    Major HUNT: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to one of these big restaurants?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, Sir, I have taken the opportunity of going to a good many of them, and I have gained thereby some extremely useful information.

    LOUGHIIEA (PETITION).
    Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial, signed by over 130 householders living in the town of Loughrea, was recently presented to the Irish Government praying them to place a share of land at their disposal for food production; whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board are farming 60 acres of land in the parish; and whether the Government has any intention of cooperating with the memorialists in assisting them to carry out the wishes of the Government in raising more food this year?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The memorial referred to has been received. The Congested Districts Board have only limited power to assign lands, but they are willing to let portions of the land in question in conacre, and I understand that some temporary arrangements have been made in the course of the last few days.

    ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DORISasked whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, on taking possession of arable lands of occupiers who have not complied with the Tillage Regulations, will be prepared to let such lands
    1838
    or portions of them to rural district councils for allotment to small landholders and labourers who are prepared to till them in accordance with the Regulations; and whether, in similar circumstances, they will let lands to urban councils to be allotted under urban schemes, so that seeds, manures, etc., may be obtained by the persons who undertake the tillage on the same terms as if such lands were taken by agreement between the councils and occupiers under council schemes?
    Mr. DUKE: Where the occupier of land in a rural district fails to comply with the Defence of the Realm Regulations as to compulsory tllage, the Departmeint of Agriculture are empowered to enter upon the land and arrange for its cultivation by any person, or they may select the land and authorise a rural district council to exercise the powers as to cultivation. In such cases the arrangements for cultivation will be in the form of conacre lettings. In order to provide necessary food for residents in an urban district, the Department are empowered to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of allotments, when in their opinion land for this purpose is being unreasonably withheld, and if the cultivation of the land in such cases is entrusted to an urban district council that council can arrange for the supply of the requisite seeds and manures.
    Mr. DORIS: Does that mean that the Department is prepared in such cases to assign the lands temporarily to rural and urban district councils for the purposes of their schemes?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member will refer to the Regulations dealing with the matter he will see that the Department have power to enter where the conditions exist which are mentioned in the answer I read, and that they may, for the purpose of giving the necessary facilities for allotments, put in action these local district councils, who will take charge of the distribution and control of the land which is obtained by the compulsory powers.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the Agricultural Department from to-morrow, or after tomorrow, when the date expires, take immediate action in the urban areas where the local landowners have refused to give any facilities for increased tillage? Will they give compulsory powers to the local authorities so that the land may be tilled and cultivated in time for the spring season?
    Mr. DUKE: The object of all these Regulations is to obtain prompt tillage, and it is the business of the Department of Agriculture to omit no powers which will conduce to that end.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I bring the situation of the county of Kerry before the right hon. Gentleman's notice? There are three urban authorities, and in no instance will the local landlord give any facilities.
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture will take care to attend to those cases and any other to which my attention is called.

  WOOL.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a quantity of prize wool most suitable for manufacture into cloth for Army purposes, taken from Swedish steamers, has been for months past lying in London docks; and whether, in view of the present scarcity of this kind of wool, steps will be taken immediately to utilise it for national purposes?
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the Prize Court have not yet adjudicated on the wool to which the hon. Member refers. As soon as the Prize Court condemns any cargo of wool, steps are taken to render it available for national purposes.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to quicken the procedure of the Prize Court, because this article is very much needed at present?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will see if anything can be done.
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has given instructions or, if he has not already done so, whether he will give instructions that auctioneers who sell Government wool may publish the prices of the wool that they sell by auction as is the case with other wools?
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member's suggestions are being submitted to the Advisory Committee concerned, and the Department will be prepared to consider their recommendations on the subject. Prices are already published with regard to much of the wool sold on Government account.
  Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is willing to be guided by the practical men on the Advisory Committees?
  Mr. FORSTER: "Yes, certainly I have no feeling one way or the other.
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is intended to convert into a committee the list of names published as a panel, from which to select names of sub-committees, to advise as to the sale and distribution of Australian and New Zealand wool?
  Mr. FORSTER: Four standing committees have already been set up and all have held general meetings. Each of these committees deals with a particular branch of the subject, and this division of labour has been found more conducive to efficiency and prompt dispatch of business than concentration in the hands of a large general committee. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the present procedure, but as often as may be necessary two or more of the committees will sit together on matters which concern: both of them.

  MENTALLY AFFECTED SOLDIERS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received any Report from the Lancashire Asylums Board stating that soldiers and sailors who in consequence of their service abroad have become mentally deranged, temporarily or permanently, and been discharged, are sent to the asylums and treated in every way as pauper lunatics, their maintenance being chargeable to the guardians, and their dependants in some cases being left without enough to live on; whether he has read the protest made against such treatment by the General Purposes Committee of the Board; and what action it is proposed to take?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Salford North.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the wives and dependants of these lunatic soldiers who are in asylums are not left without any allowance at all?
  Mr. FORSTER: We are in communication with my right hon. Friend on the subject.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Council will consider the question of altering paragraph 483 of the Regulations for the Army Medical Service, so as to admit of the wives and families of officers resident at a station within the prescribed radius receiving medical attendance and medicines during the temporary absence of their husbands on duty elsewhere?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that medical attendance on families is a privilege and not a right. If the absence of an officer from his station is temporary, and for a short period, attendance on his family is continued.
  Colonel YATE: What is the limit of time which is allowed?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is any definite rule. If the absence may be properly described as temporary absence medical attendance will continue, but if an officer were to go away for a long period I think it would not.

  EX-SOLDIERS (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the Colonial Office Committee on Settlement after the War comprises only one representative of the Dominion of Canada against five for Australia, one for Tasmania, and two for New Zealand; and will he say why Canada is so much under-represented?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why only one representative from the Dominion of Canada is serving on the Soldiers' Settlement Committee; can he state if the jurisdiction of Mr. Bruce Walker, on whom the choice has fallen, extends east of Fort William and beyond the Rockies on the west; and, if that be not so, will he consider the advisability of strengthening the Committee so as to give direct representation to those Provinces owning their own land?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): The Committee as originally constituted gave one representative to each Dominion and State Government. I have since learned that the Canadian Government would prefer a
  1842
  fuller representation of Canada, and I am taking steps to give, effect to their wishes. This answers the question No. 34 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to see that there are representatives of Provinces which own their own land on this Committee?
  Mr. LONG: I have already stated that I have been, and am, in communication with the Dominion Government of Canada, with whom it rests to make the representation.
  Mr. MACMASTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the nomination of one representative for Canada and seven for Australia was made upon the initiative of the Government here, or whether it originated in suggestions from elsewhere; and may I ask how it could not have occurred to the Colonial Office that that inequality would be, as it has been, severely resented by the Canadian Press?
  Mr. LONG: I think my hon. Friend knows quite well the origin of the misunderstanding. It consists in the simple fact that the Australian States, as he knows, are sovereign States, whereas the Provinces of Canada are not. There was a misunderstanding, but I do not think anybody was to blame for the original suggestions as to the Committee. It has now been put right, and I think that all the feeling to which the hon. Member refers has been removed.
  Mr. MACMASTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative in this country of the Dominions, to take note of the fact that although the Provinces in Canada are not sovereign States, yet they are extensive tracts of country inhabited by numerous populations, and that they are just as much entitled to-representation as the Australian States?

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 1916.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the necessity to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, so as to have the power to wind-up or vest the shares in the custodian for the purpose

  1843
  of sale those firms in the United Kingdom whose branches in the Colonies have been wound-up or placed on the black list?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I will consider whether any extension of the powers contained in the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, is desirable.

  FUEL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the newly-appointed Fuel Research Committee proposes to investigate the utilisation of the peat resources of Ireland, and in particular that method of producing suction gas and obtaining valuable by-products which has been used in a factory at Portadown?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION {Mr. Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The terms of reference to the Board of Fuel Research cover all forms of fuel, but it is obvious that with the present shortage of man-power they will be compelled to devote their attention, in the first instance, to the problems of coal utilisation.

  REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the fact that under the new Act for the registration of business names, no provision has been made for dealing with limited liability companies whose share holders, directors, and managers may be Germans or naturalised Germans, he can see his way to bring in a supplementary Bill to compel the names of directors and managers of all companies to be published in a similar manner to those of private firms as provided in the Act and to include companies who have already escaped through the loophole in the Act?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given -to the question by the hon. Member for Brentford on the 21st February, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will include those who have already tried to escape?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I said in reply to a supplementary question the other day that the draft of the Bill is under consideration, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should leave it there.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (NATIONALITY OF TENDERING FIRMS).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any condition in respect to Government contracts that differentiate between firms of British nationality and firms constituted of naturalised British subjects who are alien friends; and, if there is no such differentiation will steps; be taken to make the matter clear in any forms issued to firms tendering, or asked to tender, for such contracts?
  Mr. ROBERTS: This is a matter for the consideration of the various Departments which place contracts, and I think my hon. Friend would do well to communicate with them.

  COAL DELIVERIES.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the course he took a fortnight ago with regard to the Coal Porters Union has had no effect whatever upon getting the carmen and loaders at the coal wharves to work; whether he proposes to compel these men to do their duty or to supply other labour for loading and taking coals to private houses; and (2) whether he is aware that on one day last week no carmen or loaders at important wharves of the Midland, London and North-Western, and Metropolitan Railways were at work, the excuse being that the weather was too wet; that the output of these wharves is about 200 tons daily; and will he say how he proposes to meet the inconvenience caused to private individuals by the refusal of carmen and loaders to work?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The whole subject of distribution in London is now receiving the attention of the Controller of Coal Mines, who is in consultation with the merchants and with the men's organisations. The importance of the question is fully realised, and every effort will be made to reduce absenteeism as far as possible.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of that reply, did not the hon. Gentleman tell me three weeks ago that he had placed the matter in the hands of the Coal Porters' Union? My question to-day is whether he is aware that the action he took then has had no effect whatever in obtaining the men to get the coal?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My information does not exactly accord with that of the hon. Gentleman. I understand that a vast improvement has taken place, and the attention of the Controller is specially directed to the matter.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will he make inquiries into the cases mentioned in my question?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am quite willing to make all inquiries.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS INTERNED.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British subjects are now interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 14 (b); how many of these persons are British-born; and how many of these cases have been considered by the Advisory Committee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The number is seventy-four, of whom thirty-one are British-born. All these cases have been submitted to the Advisory Committee, including two cases still under their consideration.

    LOSSES COMMISSION.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have decided that the loss inflicted on any body of traders by direct legislation or order gives such traders a primâ facie right to present a claim for compensation to the Duke Commission; and, if otherwise, will he say why certain traders and persons receive compensation for Government interference with their business whilst others do not?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As stated in paragraph 4 of the first Report of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, it
    1846
    is impossible to make a determination for payment out of public funds in respect of loss arising through the enforcement of any order or regulation of general application. Such payment can only be made in cases where the property or business of the applicant has been the subject of a direct and particular interference such as between subjects would have given cause of action for damages.
    Mr. RENDALL: Take the case of the licensed trade. May I ask whether the raw materials required come under special and not general regulations? Will that trade, for example, have the right of compensation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that can possibly be said to be a right. It is really a general order reducing imports of all kinds, and this trade suffers like many others.

  BUCKFAST ABBEY.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the announcement made by the chairman at the Totnes County Sessions that, in the opinion of the magistrates present, Buckfast Abbey and grounds are of so large an extent that they are not suitable for an internment camp, nor are they properly fenced, and that a large number of men would be required to watch the premises; that it was undesirable that the abbey and grounds should be guarded locally, as they are within a few miles of the coast and close to a town doing Government work; that the Germans and Austrians resident at the abbey should be sent to an internment camp; and that the duty of watching alien enemies was not a local but a national one; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been called to a resolution passed by the justices of the Stanborough and Coleridge Petty Sessional Division sitting at Totnes, which is to the effect stated in the question. Those of the Buckfast Abbey monks who are alien enemies were exempted from internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, but their movements are restricted to the abbey grounds and farm. At my predecessor's request a special inquiry into this matter was made last autumn by Sir Louis Dane and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford,

  1847
  who suggested that the abbey might be watched by some special constables. The chief constable of Devon accordingly applied to the magistrates for their assistance in procuring a few persons to act as special constables for this purpose, and I regret that the magistrates have declined to take the steps which they were asked to take in the public interest. I am asking the War Office whether they can provide a guard.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have any steps been taken in regard to the censorship of letters?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; they are censored from time to time.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: By whom?
  Sir G. CAVE: I think it is by someone representing the military authorities; the results have been quite satisfactory.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
  Mr. DICKINSONasked the Home Secretary how many oases have been reported during the last ten years of blackmailing charges brought by girls under sixteen years of age against men for offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885?
  Sir G. CAVE: There are no trustworthy figures on the subject available. During the last ten years in the Metropolitan Police district twenty-two cases have been reported to the Commissioner in which false charges of the nature indicated in the question are alleged to have been brought by girls under sixteen. I have no figures for other parts of the country, and obviously not all the attempts at blackmail are brought to the knowledge of the police. If the attempt is successful the police are not likely to hear of it.

  GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE SCHEME.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether premiums have been reduced 50 per cent, on all new aircraft policies taken out under the Government scheme on and after 17th February and on all renewals falling due after that date; whether a number of renewal pre-
  1848
  miums have been paid on the old terms on recent dates but prior to 17th February; and, if so, whether, to obviate the sense of injustice which would otherwise be felt, some rebate will be allowed in all such cases?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this quetsion. For the present a rebate of 50 per cent. is being given on all new insurances or renewals effected under the Government Aircraft Insurance Scheme on and after the 17th February. This is in effect a reduction in rate, and as such must take effect as from one particular date. From the nature of the case, it is not possible to extend this reduction to insurances or renewals effected before that date.

  TUBERCULOSIS (WALES).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, how many men and boys, insured and uninsured, respectively, and how many women and girls, insured and uninsured, respectively, in Wales and Monmouthshire were examined during 1916 by the tuberculosis experts of the Welsh National Memorial Association, in conjunction with and on behalf of Welsh county and county borough councils and insurance committees; how many of these, respectively, were found or suspected to be suffering from tuberculosis; what was the total number of persons, both insured and uninsured, suffering from tuberculosis in Wales and Monmouthshire who received institutional treatment during 1916 by the Welsh National Memorial Association, in conjunction with and on behalf of Welsh county and county borough councils and insurance committees; and how many insured persons, suffering from tuberculosis in Wales and Monmouthshire, entitled to sanatorium benefit and recommended by insurance committees for institutional treatment in sanatoria, are now on the waiting lists awaiting admission?
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): The total number of persons examined by the tuberculosis physicians in Wales and Monmouthshire in 1916 was 10,329; the number found to be suffering from tuberculosis was 4,679; the number suspected and kept under observation was 1,635; tile number who received

  1849
  institutional treatment was 3,827. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that no persons in Wales and Monmouthshire suffering from tuberculosis entitled to sanatorium benefit and recommended by insurance committees for institutional treatment in sanatoria are now on the waiting list awaiting admission. I propose to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the more detailed figures asked for by my hon. Friend. [See Written Answers.]

  PRISONERS OF WAR (BRITISH AND GERMAN).
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the negotiations for the exchange of prisoners, military as well as civil, have broken down owing to the failure to arrange for a man-for-man exchange; if so, whether he will consider the possibility of arranging for a general exchange without counting numbers, in view of the consequences to be feared in the case of many prisoners who have long been confined and in the interests of humanity, and in order to relieve the strain upon our food supply by the retention of so many prisoners in this country?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Proposals for a general release of our civilian prisoners of war in Germany have hitherto been found impracticable, owing to the fact that a wholesale exchange (which alone the Germans would agree to) would give them many times the number of prisoners that we should receive from them. The War Office fee unable to agree to an arrangement so disadvantageous to this country. A limited exchange of civilian prisoners of war over forty-five years of age was, as my hon. Friend is aware, agreed to some time since, and has been carried out to some small extent. It has now become impracticable owing to the German policy of the wholesale destruction of ships. For the same reason the repatriation of incapacitated combatant prisoners of war has also become impracticable. The arrangements for the transfer to Switzerland of British and German combatant prisoners of war remain unaffected as far as this country is concerned, but the Swiss authorities are for the time being averse to receiving more prisoners for internment either from England or Germany, on account of their own internal difficulties.
  1850
  I regret to add that a very serious error occurred in the Written Answers supplied by me yesterday to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Sir H. Elverston). The number of enemy civilian prisoners interned in this country is 30,282, of whom nearly 26,000 are German. I have to express my sincere regret to the hon. Member for Gateshead and to the House that this very material error should have occurred in the answer.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Arising out of the reply, inasmuch as the negotiations at present appear to have broken down, and the arrangements with Switzerland are no longer apparently to be carried out, would it not be possible to begin upon a new basis by joining together both military and civilian prisoners and in that way make it possible to have a more equitable exchange?
  Mr. HOPE: There are many very serious difficulties, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will define his suggestion a little more closely, to bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned.
  Sir H. CRAIK: My suggestion is sufficiently defined in the question, that civilians and military prisoners should be taken together. As these number about 40,000 on the one hand against about 50,000 on the other, would it not be possible in the case of numbers so fairly balanced to carry out some arrangement in the interests of the men and humanity generally?
  Mr. HOPE: I am afraid it is not in my power at the present moment to give any assurance on a matter so complicated as that.

  DONINGTON HALL.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether officer prisoners of war at Donington Hall and other officer-prisoners' camps in this country are still allowed to purchase as much as they choose to pay for of articles of diet other than bread, meat, and sugar; and, if so, considering the shortage that is likely to arise in this country of almost all articles of diet, he will consider the desirability of putting them forthwith on all-round rations, and limiting their purchases accordingly?
  Mr. HOPE: I have consulted the military authorities on this point, and they are of opinion that it would not be

  1851
  expedient to introduce a rationing system for officer prisoners in respect of articles of which there is no shortage and of which voluntary rations have not been recommended by the Food Controller.
  Mr. FABER: Considering that there is likely to be a general shortage of all articles of diet, is it not time to put officers and enemy prisoners upon all-round rations?
  Mr. HOPE: The amount involved, taken over the whole food supply of the country, is very small indeed, and I really think this is a matter which must be left to the military authorities and the Food Controller. If I may say so, it is a case of de minoribus ne cure senator.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any reason why German officer prisoners should be treated more favourably than British civilians.
  Mr. HOPE: They are not.

  MUNITIONS.

    KINGSTOWN (PETITION).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he has received a petition from Kingstown, county Dublin, asking that a Munitions Factory may be started there, in view of the facilities of employment and situation; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
    Sir W. EVANS: Yes, Sir; the petition has been received, but my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not able to establish a Munitions Factory in Kingstown.

  MOTOR PLOUGHS.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he has received a resolution from the Naas Urban Council, county Kildare, viewing with alarm the reported refusal by the Department of Agriculture to allow motor ploughs to be distributed in county Kildare for the use of farmers who are compelled under penalties to till a proportion of their holdings; is he aware that the northern part of county Kildare is largely grazing land, where tillage is forgotten and implements and skill are in
  1852
  negligible quantity; and, seeing that the only chance of complying with the Order to till is in providing motor ploughs, will he take care that the farmers are helped and not obstructed by the said Department in providing machinery essential to the required cultivation?
  Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have received the resolution referred to, and they are aware of the conditions existing in the northern portion of county Kildare, and are making arrangements whereby this district may receive its due proportion of the comparatively limited number of tractors which are likely to be available. I would also refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County yesterday.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Does this Department intend to complete its work when the War is over?
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a firm in Dublin ordered over 100 of these motor tractors from America long before the Order for compulsory tillage was made by the Agricultural Department, that those have been sold by the firm to which I referred, and that now they are prohibited front executing the orders that their travellers took on a former occasion?
  Mr. DUKE: I am quite sure if the tractor is on the spot anywhere in Ireland the orders will be executed, but neither the Chief Secretary nor any other official can possibly control the arrival of tractors, from the United States.

  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS.
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for India whether Indian officers serving out of India have both Indian and British Income Tax deducted From their pay, although not living in either country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer is in the negative.
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in reference to his late communiqué as to the promotion of Indian officers and in view of the fact that it was clearly stated in this that officers who had acted as commandant or second in command should be entitled to

  1853
  a step in rank with pay, he can say whether this promise has been kept and carried out in its entirety?
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for India whether, as his late communiqué as to the promotion of Indian officers offered accelerated, not merely temporary, promotion, it may be understood that the promotion in question, whether it carries pay or not, grants permanent seniority in the new rank; and will so-called temporary promotion hereafter rank above a step of brevet rank granted subsequently to the temporary rank, or is the so-called accelerated promotion merely a sham?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was stated that a temporary step of rank would be given to an officer acting in a higher regimental position than his substantive position for more than thirty days. Temporary rank of this kind (now called "acting rank") is relinquished, both in the British and the Indian Army, when the officer ceases to hold the appointment in respect of which it was given. Rank granted in accordance with the second heading of the communiqué gives permanent seniority relatively to both substantive and brevet rank.
  Major HUNT: Does "temporary rank" mean "temporary promotion"?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to put that on the Paper or communicate with me in private. These matters are rather technical.

  FRIENDLY ALIENS.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give the House any information as to the decision of the Government with respect to friendly aliens of military age resident in this country who, up to the present, have been exempted from military service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the hardships which result from the calling up of British subjects of military age in localities where there is a large alien population. Negotiations are at present proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government, and I am glad to announce that the principle has been agreed upon that the same treatment
    1854
    should be given to the subjects of both nations, namely, that men of military age should be given the choice either of joining the military forces of the country in which they are resident or of returning to their own country for military service.
    Mr. DILLON: Are they not to have the choice, if they are political refugees, of going to some other country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think they are treated very fairly in being given the-option of serving with our forces, if they do not want to return to their own country.
    Mr. KING: Will legislation not be required to give effect to this decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not quite sure, but if it is required the Government will ask the House for it.
    Mr. KING: When will the Government: be in a position to say whether legislation, will be introduced or not?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Gentleman had followed my answer, he would have seen that negotiations are not completed. Until they are, I cannot give any answer on this subject.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: Has the French Government taken part in these proceedings?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No! Not in these negotiations.

    Dublin Port and Docks Board.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dublin Corporation have passed a resolution asking for the introduction and passage of a Bill dealing with the constitution of the Dublin Port and Docks. Board and the election of its members; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been caused by the delay of the Board to provide additional facilities to-the Dublin Dockyard Shipbuilding Company; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking action, to remedy those grievances?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have seen a newspaper account of the meeting of the Dublin Corporation on the 8th January at which such a resolution appears to have been passed. With regard to this question and the application of the Dublin Dockyard Company to the Dublin Port

    1855
    and Docks Board for additional shipbuilding facilities, I have nothing at present to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin on the 15th December last and the 14th and 20th of the present month.
    Mr. FIELD: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in consequence of the speech of the Prime Minister, whether he will inquire into the subject, so that additional facilities for shipbuilding may be offered at the port of Dublin?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the importance of this subject, and I had hoped that by now it would be satisfactorily adjusted. Certain representations are being made now, which I hope will have the desired effect.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. COSGRAVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state whether the tenants of the Hearnsbrooke estate, near Killimore, county Galway, have been for the past ten years applying to the Estates Commissioners and Congested Districts Board to purchase the estate, including untenanted lands necessary to relieve the congestion; and, if so, with what result; have the tenants agreed to pay twenty-one years' purchase of the present rents, or such other price as may be estimated by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners; has the landlady, Mrs. M'Phail, refused to let any of the untenanted land for tillage under the Food Production Regulations; has she taken legal proceedings against a number of the tenants for rents and obtained judgments, which she now threatens to execute; whether the Estates Commissioners contemplate purchasing the estate compulsorily at an early date; and will the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction take immediate steps to have a tenth of the untenanted lands let for food production to the neighbouring small landholders?
    Mr. DUKE: In September last the solicitors, having carriage in the matter of the estate of Thomas M. Hunter and Mrs. M'Phail, lodged with the Estates Commissioners an order by the land judge giving the solicitors liberty to apply to the Commissioners to make an offer under Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Act of 1909, to purchase this estate,
    1856
    which comprises the tenanted land and bog and cutaway. As regards the untenanted land, of which Mrs. M'Phail appears to be the sole owner, and which is, therefore, a separate property from the estate in the Land Judges Court, the Commissioners, at the request of the solicitors, in 1916, had an inspection made, and they intimated the price they are prepared to advance for the untenanted land, if formal proceedings for Sale were instituted before them under the Land Purchase Acts. The Commissioners have been informed that Mrs. M'Phail is awaiting the offer to the Land Judge for the tenanted lands before proceeding with the sale of the untenanted lands. The Commissioners understand that the tenants have expressed their willingness to purchase their holdings on the terms stated in the question, and that payment of rent has been withheld for some years. They have no power to acquire the lands compulsorily. Mrs. M'Phail took legal proceedings against eight of the tenants for non-payment of rent, and obtained judgments. The writs are in the hands of the sheriff for execution. I have no information as to whether the landlady has refused to let any of the lands for tillage, but if it becomes necessary to enter upon the lands the Department of Agriculture will take into account local circumstances.

    Congested Districts (Ireland).
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there are over sixty uneconomic holdings of land in the immediate neighbourhood of large grazing farms on the De Clifford estate, at Face-field, Claremorris, county Mayo; and what steps, if any, the Congested Districts Board have taken, or contemplate taking, to acquire these grazing farms for the enlargement of the small holdings and the relief of the congested landholders in the district?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board are aware that there are a number of congested holdings in the neighbourhood of the farms on the De Clifford Estate, and a Committee of the Board have visited the lands and will advise as to the best means of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, what steps, if any, the Congested Districts Board have taken to acquire the grazing tracts of over 500 acres on the Domville estate, near Balla, county

    1857
    Mayo, for the relief of the congestion amongst 130 tenants on the estate and surrounding townlands; and if he can state the nature of the tenancies under which the grazing farms are at present held?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board have decided to acquire possession of a farm containing 271 acres, if necessary, by compulsion, for the relief of congestion on the Domville Estate. The estate is not vested in the Board, and they cannot at present take any further steps with regard to this farm. They have acquired the tenant's interest in another farm on the property comprising 215 acres, held under a yearly tenancy.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, the Congested Districts Board have taken to relieve the congestion in the townlands of Rockfield and Dooncastle, on the estate of Lord Lucan, which was acquired by the Board in the year 1902; whether he is aware that the tenants have made numerous appeals to the Board to discharge its statutory obligations towards them; and if he will state when the Board hope to be able to deal with this case of special hardship, nearly all the holdings being uneconomic and split up in rundale?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board were unable to enlarge any of the holdings at Rockfield or Dooncastle on the Lucan estate, as no adjacent land was available for the purpose, and the sale was therefore postponed. The Board have now arranged for the purchase of the Sligo estate, portion of which adjoins the townlands referred to, and they hope to be able to provide some enlargements for congested holdings at Rockfield and Dooncastle. Until the Sligo estate is vested in the Board new holdings there cannot be allotted.
    Mr. DORIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Sligo estate is likely to become vested in the Board? It has been purchased for a considerable time.
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir; my prophetic faculty does not extend to that.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Archibald Stirling of Keir, for the County of Perth (Western Division).
  BILL PRESENTED.
  COAL MINES REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to extend Section four of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, to mines other than coal mines," presented by Sir GEORGE CAVE; supported by Mr. Brace and Major Sir Laming Worthington Evans; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in my name? ["That, with a view to strengthening the hands of the Allies in achieving the recognition of the equal rights of small nations and the principle of nationality against the opposite German principle of military domination and government without the consent of the governed, it is essential, without further delay, to confer upon Ireland the free institutions long promised to her."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we propose that the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman be taken on Wednesday next week.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of the Pensions Estimate when is the Royal Warrant to be published?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-night, I think.
  Mr. KING: Will the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill be taken to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that there is no chance of it being taken.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the business for tomorrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have informed the House, the first business will be the Motion with respect to restriction, or, rather, the absence of restrictions, with regard to the sale of refreshments in this House, and some of the small Bills on the Paper.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order [19th February] for Committal of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill be read, and discharged; and that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
Sir F. BANBURY: We were told a few moments ago that to-morrow some question of refreshments and other small Bills on the Paper would be taken. In view of this, I do not see why the usual practice
1868
of having such Bills as this dealt with in the House should not be followed. This measure is a very important one and there is a very strong feeling both for and against it, and a still stronger feeling for making amendments in it. I do not see under these circumstances why the Members of this House should have withdrawn from them the privilege of discussing in Committee this very important measure. I should not have ventured to raise any objection if there had been any evidence put forward in favour of this course, but the evidence I have had is to the contrary and I sincerely trust that this Motion will not be proceeded with. If it is, I shall certainly divide against it if I can get any support.
Mr. DILLON: I strongly support the view which has been expressed by the right hon. Baronet, and he certainly shall not be prevented from going to a Division for want of a Teller. I strongly sympathise with the view he has put forward. This Bill is being sent to a Grand Committee on the ground that it is an unpleasant subject to discuss in the House of Commons. There is no doubt at all that it is a very unpleasant subject to discuss here, but I think it is a cowardly-thing to send this measure to a Grand Committee on the ground that it is not a pleasant subject to discuss. I protest against the course which has been adopted, because it is a Bill calculated to interfere, and perhaps to grievously and unjustly interfere, with the liberty of a most defenceless section of the population. I do not expect that there will be any sympathy in this House for a large section of those who will come under the provisions of this Bill, but because there is nobody to speak for them I think the House ought to be extremely slow about dealing with this question in the dark. If it goes before a Grand Committee there will be a difficulty in forming a quorum. I know this, because I have been urged to go upon the Committee myself, and I know there is a general dislike to act on that Committee. If the Committee is formed it will be a small one, and the Bill will be hustled1 through and treated as a very disagreeable subject. I say that in these matters, painful as they are, where it is proposed to place certain sections of the population under legislation of this kind—and it may affect a very great number of people—a grievous mistake may be made

1869
and shocking injustice may arise, and the most abominable forms of blackmail may be encouraged if proper precautions are not taken. I have seen this kind of thing working in the United States of America, and I say that legislation of this character is of the most dangerous kind, and you have always to keep in mind the danger of blackmail of the most atrocious kind arising under such Acts. I think it is a cowardly thing that we should not face this question after the Government has decided that it is a subject which must be proceeded with.
Mr. KING: I also wish to join in the protest against this Bill going to a Grand Committee, and I do so on different grounds. I have great sympathy with the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary to the Home Department, who will be taken away from their offices, where they are very much wanted every morning, and they will have to spend two, or perhaps three, days a week attending the Grand Committee, where progress will be very slow. I hope, for this reason, the Home Secretary will say a good word to the Leader of the House on behalf of my object. There is another reason for not passing this Motion. We were told when this Government was formed that there would be no dilatoriness or indecision, but the Government are beginning to show in little matters like this that they are ready to procrastinate and become dilatory. You will have a long Report stage, and you will spend a great many hours on the Grand Committee with speeches that would not be made in this House, and I can speak from experience on this point. Therefore, on the grounds of wishing for no dilatoriness or indecision, I ask the Government to withdraw this Motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is quite obvious that there is no great principle involved here, so far as the Government are concerned. We have simply taken the course which, after some doubt, as the hon. Member has pointed out, we thought best suited to a Bill of this kind. It is quite true that the House, so far, has allowed the business to go through as rapidly as we could have had any reason to hope, and I could not recommend this change on the ground that we could not afford the time in the House of Commons; but if ever there were a subject which had better be discussed in Grand Committee rather than on the floor of this House, it is such a subject as that dealt with in this Bill. I think the speech of the hon. Member who last addressed the House (Mr. King) is itself the best answer to the two previous speakers. His ground of objection was that the subject would be too thoroughly thrashed out in Grand Committee, whereas the other two hon. Members thought that it would be better thrashed out in the House of Commons. I am inclined to think that the last hon. Member is right. Probably more time will be taken in Grand Committee than would be taken in the House itself, because, fortunately, the number who imitate the courage and eloquence of the hon. Member who spoke last is not very great. We have, however, come to the conclusion that this is the best method of dealing with the Bill. I think it quite right, if the Members of the House take a different view, that they should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions in the Lobby, but the reasons for and against are quite clearly before the House, and I hope that there will be no unnecessary discussion.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 91.

Division No. 2.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Agnew, Sir George

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Craik, Sir Henry

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Bridgeman, William Clive

Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

Brunner, John F. L.

Currie, George W.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Bull, Sir William James

Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

Aster, Hon. Waldorf

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Daiziel, Davison (Brixton)

Baldwin, Stanley

Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Carnegle, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Cave, Rt. Hen. Sir George

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Barrie, H. T.

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Denman, Hon. Richard D.

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willougby N.

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Dixon, C. H.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B

Bird, Alfred

Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Bewerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

Macmaster, Donald

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Forster, Henry William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Robinson, Sidney

Foster, Philip Staveley

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Rowlands, James

Galbraith, Samuel

Macpherson, James Ian

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Magnus, Sir Philip

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Goldstone, Frank

Malcolm, Ian

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks.)

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Millar, James Duncan

Stewart, Gershom

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Morgan, George Hay

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Henry, Sir Charles

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Newman, John R. P.

Valentia, Viscount

Hills, John Waller

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Wardie, George J.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Watson, Hon. W.

Horne, E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whiteley, Herbert J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Wilson Fox, Henry

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn, SW)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pennefather, De Fenblanque

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Perkins, Walter F.

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Peto, Basil Edward

Yeo, A. W.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Pratt, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Llcyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Primrose.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

NOES.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Adamson, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Outhwaite, R. L.

Alden, Percy

Hogge, James Myles

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pringle, William M. R.

Anderson, W. C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Arnold, Sydney

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Rendall, Athelstan

Bentham, George Jackson

John, Edward Thomas

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowntree, Arnold

Bliss, Joseph

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Scanlan, Thomas

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Jowett, Frederick William

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Joyce, Michael

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Keating, Matthew

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Chancellor, Henry George

King, Joseph

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickiade)

Toulmin, Sir George

Clancy, John Joseph

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clynes, John R.

Lundon, Thomas

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Watt, Henry A.

Cosgrave, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Weigall, William E. G. A.

Crumley, Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Doris, William

Morrell, Philip

Whyte, Alexander F.

Field, William

Nolan, Joseph

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fitzpatrick John Lalor

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)

France, Gerald Ashburner

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Gilbert, J. D.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Yoxall, Sir Jomes Henry

Glanville, Harold James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

O'Leary, Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

O'Malley, William

Frederick Banbury and Mr. Dillon

Hackett, John

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That the Order [19th February] for Committal of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill be read, and discharged; and that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee."

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of an annual Salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to the Director-General of

1873
National Service appointed under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of National Service, and of other Salaries, Remuneration, and expenses which may become payable in pursuance of such Act."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
4.0 P.M.
Mr. HOGGE: Before we agree to the Report of this Resolution, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he will give us some information with regard to the number of the proposed staff required and the salaries to be paid in connection with this Bill. I understand that the Director of National Service is being appointed at a salary of £2,000 a year, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to have a Parliamentary Secretary to this Director of National Service, and whether that will mean an addition to the existing Members of the Government? In other cases which we have been made aware of recently there have been one or two additional Parliamentary Secretaries added to the Front Bench, and I think that, before the House agrees to this Financial Resolution, we ought to be told whether there is going to be attached to this Ministry a Parliamentary Secretary with salary. I hope there is not. My right hon. Friend is already well provided with Whips of one kind or another, and I should imagine it would be quite possible for him to find a member of the existing Government who would be able to look after the interests of this Department in the House, and thus avoid the necessity for any fresh appointment. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is a perfectly fair and reasonable request, and I shall be glad to have an assurance from him on the point.
Mr. DILLON: There cannot be the slightest doubt that the creation of new offices, with enormous staffs which are entirely withdrawn from the control of the House of Commons, is becoming a public danger. A great many Members of the House do not really realise what they are doing in passing this Financial Resolution, in view of the Bill which is being founded on it. In Clause 2, Subsection (2), of that Bill it is provided that
"Section ten, Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section eleven, and Sections twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of-the New Min-
1874
isters and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and Ministry of National Service, and to the office of Director-General of National Service."
This is the old system of legislation by reference. Very few individual Members of this House, when reading the Clause, realise what these Sections are. I have looked the matter up, and I find that Section (10) of the Act of 1916 reads as follows:
"Any Minister appointed under this Act may appoint such secretaries and officers to serve as the Minister may determine."
In other words, we are asked now to pass a Financial Resolution which will empower the Minister of National Service to appoint any number of secretaries, Parliamentary or otherwise, that he may think fit without any reference to the House of Commons at all, and thereby to inflict upon the unfortunate taxpayer of this country any burden which, in his judgment, he may deem necessary. The public are rapidly awakening to the fact that each new Department constituted becomes so swollen with its own importance that it really imagines that it is its duty to show that it requires a larger staff and a more magnificent palace in which to house it than any other Government Department. The only result has been, as anyone with any practical knowledge of business life could have foretold, they are eating into one another's wool. We were told that these various new Departments were all to be co-ordinated, and that the co-ordination would be complete, but my observation has convinced me that, as each new one has been started, confusion has become worse confounded, and we now have this extraordinary effect that these offices are being multiplied in a most mysterious and really bewildering and alarming fashion. Buildings of a temporary character are cropping up on all vacant sites in the City and West End, and hotels, private buildings, palaces, and clubs are being commandeered and filled, or, as we are told, not filled, with staffs. The result up to the present has been extremely unsatisfactory, and all this time there has been no responsibility as regards expense attached to anyone.
The House if Commons has had no voice in the matter. Let me ask hon. Members to observe what has been done. I have always protested and shall continue

1875
to protest against the policy which has been pursued in this matter. When new offices are started we are asked to sanction such additions as the Minister may determine. What happens? All these officials are appointed at salaries of which we know nothing. In my House of Commons' experience, extending over a period of thirty years and more, it has been the practice before this for the salaries paid to officials of Departments to come under the review of Parliament, but under the system under which we are carrying on this War, there is no Parliamentary control. We grant a Vote of Credit, it may be, for £500,000,000 for the purpose, and under the new system, which I regard as absolutely indefensible and without precedent, we set up any kind of office in London for which it is alleged there is a necessity—I must confess I do not admit the necessity for a great many of these offices—and the salaries of the officials are fixed and paid out of the War credit. By claiming to be entitled to pay the staff out of the Vote of Credit, it is thereby withdrawn from the purview of Parliament. There is no limit at the present moment to the number of officials that may be appointed under this system. Already there are thousands of secretaries and clerks appointed in London. Nobody knows what they are paid. One Department may pay a man £1,000 a year for doing exactly the same work as another Department is getting done for £200 a year. These Departments compete with each other; they take efficient men from each other. There is no means in this House of ascertaining what these secretaries are paid. I say it is a monstrous thing, and although it may be necessary to conduct the Naval and Military Estimates by Token Votes, I submit it is absolutely preposterous and that there is no justification whatever in the War itself for adopting this system which is entirely without precedent. I therefore maintain that, before we pass this Resolution, we ought to have a list of the offices which it is proposed to create. We ought to have an estimate of the size and cost of the proposed staff, and we ought to be told in general terms what will be the expenditure on the new Department. There should be no difficulty in the Director of Public Service presenting such an Estimate. If it should be exceeded a
1876
Supplementary Estimate can be produced and that will give an opportunity for Parliamentary criticism.
There is another result of this system to which I should like to call attention. We heard last night a Minister complaining in this House that influential newspapers were holding the members of his official staff up to ridicule and odium, representing them as rabbits ensconced in funk-holes of the Treasury. It has been suggested that the Government are encouraged by some of the Press to multiply officials, and then, when they have done it to a monstrous and indefensible extent, they are attacked for having set up a rabbit-warren in which the funkers of the country are ensconced. I do not believe, indeed, that all these officials are funkers, but I do say it is rather a scandal that this system should obtain, and that there should be no means by which a Member of this House can decide whether these officials are all necessary or find out what they are paid. I venture to offer this protest against the system, in the hope that we may get some information from the Government.
Sir WALTER ESSEX: There is a great deal to be said in support of the objection raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and I find myself in accord with him, not only on the broad principles which he has laid down, but in a small matter of detail in which I am closely interested, and which I intend to watch, as far as I am able, during any discussion that may arise on the main Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was submitting these proposals last week I took the liberty to interject a question with-regard to agricultural labour, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that some provision was being made to avoid injustice being done to the agricultural labourer in the matter of the allocation of wages, and to ensure that the wholly inadequate provision of 25s. a week should be considered as a proper remuneration for men physically below the standard. The Prime Minister said steps were being taken to introduce some kind of court or some set of officials who would see that no injustice is done to the labourers, who were defenceless as against the employers, by the cutting down of the limit in the cases of those not so physically fit. Now, this is a question which is likely to affect at least

1877
half a million of men, and I hope that, whatever secretaries may be appointed, we, at any rate, shall have some distinct declaration of policy on the part of the Government with regard to safeguarding the promise made by the Prime Minister to the agricultural labourer. I want to secure that that promise shall be really operate, and that it shall not be in the power of anybody to withhold or cut down the advantages, slender as they are, of those who are entitled to receive them.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I must say that most of the speeches that have been made upon this Resolution would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill. I can quite understand that some hon. Members are not in favour of the principle of this Bill, but I would venture to remind the House that the Second Reading of the Bill was passed without a Division, and I cannot conceive, after that has taken place, that the House will deny the Government the usual Financial Resolution sanctioning the usual financial obligations. Having said that, I agree it is only reasonable that hon. Members should ask what is proposed to be done with regard to the officers. In addition to the Director-General of National Service, it is proposed to appoint a Secretary to the Ministry, who will sit in this House. The present Director-General, as the House knows, is occupied every day and all day with his duties, and he does not desire, at the present moment, to take a seat in this House. Therefore, it is only reasonable and fair that he should have someone to represent him in the House.
Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is to be the Parliamentary Secretary?
Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member knows that it is not for me to state that.
Mr. DILLON: What is to be his salary.
Sir G. CAVE: I think £1,200.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is he a Labour man?
Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the staff, the hon. Member is not right in saying that there is no check at all on the Government. Of course, the Director-General appoints the officials, but the remuneration paid to them must be approved by the Treasury. That being so, I do not think I need answer the general
1878
arguments used in the speeches that have-been made. This is new work for war purposes only. It is hard work, and very important work. If the House agrees with us that the work ought to, be done, I am quite sure they will not have any desire at all to obstruct the passing of the ordinary Resolution, so that the proper remuneration may be paid. I am quite sure that neither the Director-General nor the Treasury desire that any extravagant expenditure should be incurred.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I hope the House will not be content with the mere assertion on the part of the Government that no extravagant expenditure will be incurred. It would be a very new departure if the House of Commons accepted that assertion from any Government. At the present time it is especially important that we should not part with full control over the expenditure upon the Civil Service of this country. We have lost control over expenditure for the Army and Navy necessarily, because we have to bow to the war necessities of the country, but it is not reasonable or right on the part of the Government to ask us to give up one atom of the control we have hitherto possessed over the Civil Service. There is a supplementary reason why the Government should be exceedingly careful in placing before the House its full intentions with regard to the expenditure of money upon a new public service of this kind. We have now no Financial Secretary to the Treasury in this House. That is an entirely new position for the House to find itself in. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is our man at the Treasury. He is there to watch proceedings on behalf of the House of Commons and to see that extravagant Grants are not made by the Treasury. We have no such guardian at the Treasury now. The Financial Secretary is a gentleman unknown to this House. He has never been in the House, and, apparently, has no desire to come into the House. In that unprecedented situation, as he is the gentleman who will frame Estimates and sanction expenditure, when the right hon. Gentleman or any other representative of the Government asks the House to sanction expenditure he should explain to the House quite clearly what expenditure is contemplated. I have no desire to oppose the Financial Resolution, which is a necessary part of the Bill, but I do regret that the Government are taking the course in

1879
one thing after another of withdrawing matters from the House of Commons, not on account of any war exigency, not on any stated ground that I can understand, but simply and solely because they do not care to follow the long-established practice of presenting full Estimates and full information to the House of Commons.
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to protest against the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to this Ministry. I do so mainly on the ground taken by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). There are at the present moment on the Treasury Bench a number of men who, in the main, are unemployed. They are understood to be Whips. In the last Government, which had a large number of officers, the greater number of the Whips had subsidiary duties. I believe the majority of them had to reply for other Departments at the same time. I see no reason why, under this Government, the same practice should not be followed. Obviously a Junior Lord of the Treasury, who does nothing but sit at the end of the Treasury Bench or sit for a few hours in the evening at the door outside to prevent men from going away when there is no occasion to keep them here—a Gentleman who has those easy duties to perform might well be put up at Question Time to reply for the Director General of National Service. Had I been here when the Committee stage of this Resolution was being taken I should have moved to limit the amount by £1,200, in order to prevent the appointment of this additional Under-Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do it now!"] I understand that it is impossible to do that on the Report stage. I am glad to say the House has already prevented the appointment of superfluous officials for the Food Controller. There is yet an opportunity on this Bill to prevent the appointment of an Under-Secretary here. There is the additional point to which reference was made by the hon. Member for the Rush-cliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones). Are we to have this expenditure for this Department on the Estimates? That is of the utmost importance. Nobody can suggest that there is any reason for keeping the expenditure of this Department off the ordinary Estimates. We have appointed already a large number of new Controllers and new Ministers, but up to the present the Estimates for only two new Departments have been presented—namely, the
1880
Ministry of Labour and the Pensions Ministry. We have a Food Controller's Department, the Air Board, the Shipping Controller, and the Ministry of Blockade. All of those Ministers have been appointed under the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, yet apparently no Estimates are to be presented to this House of the expenditure in connection with those Departments. We should refuse this Resolution unless we get an assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill that the Estimates for the Department are to be presented to the House. That is only fair to us. There can be no reason whatever for concealment. The only motive for concealment must be a desire to conceal their extravagance. No national interest and no public interest can be served by withdrawing this from the confidence of the House of Commons, and as no national interest can be served by such action, I hope the House will refuse this Resolution unless it receives an assurance from the Home Secretary that the Estimates will be presented for the Department, so that the House may have its check upon its expenditure.
Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend who has just sat down based his argument upon the understanding that there would be no Estimates presented for this Ministry. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether that is so? I do not understand it to be so. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House as to what the procedure is to be, and what the Government contemplate with regard to the expenditure of this Department?
Sir G. CAVE: I understand that the expenditure of this Department would be War expenditure, and will fall upon the Vote of Credit. The figures will be put before the House in the ordinary way. I do not think that these Estimates will come before the House just as the annual Estimates would from time to time. I will make sure of it, but that is my impression.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The matter is quite clear. If my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) will look at Subsection (2) of Clause 2 he will see it reads:
"Section ten, Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section eleven, and Sections twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916,"
will apply to this Bill. That apparently means that the Government can do exactly

1881
what they, like, and that the control of the House of Commons does not exist. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pringle) did not take advantage of the opportunity he certainly had, if he had not allowed you, Sir, to put the Question, to move, as I have often done myself, sometimes with success, a limiting Amendment, That, however, was not done. It would have been a very reasonable course to pursue and would have achieved the object which the hon. Member and other hon. Members have in view. In the circumstances, as we have already passed the Second Reading of the Bill, would it mot be a little irregular to refuse altogether the money which is required to give effect to the Bill? Would not the proper course be, when we get into Committee, to move to omit Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, so that the matter must come before the House of Commons, and the money be voted in the ordinary way in the Estimates? Personally, I think that would be the proper course to pursue. If the Government do not make that concession I shall certainly divide upon it. That course would be much better than pursuing the present discussion.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I sympathise very much with the protest which has been made from both sides of the House. The present Government, which is formed by entirely novel methods, seems to be able to create a new Ministry whenever it likes. I remember that a friend of mine who used to sit on the front seat below the Gangway on the Government side, used to say to me, "We have Ministries enough; we want, no new Ministers." I agreed with that. Yet some half-dozen new Ministries have been formed, and they all have a staff of under-secretaries, messengers, typewriters, porters, all sorts of clerks, involving the nation in considerable expense. I was very glad to hear' the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) say that there is a way of bringing this expenditure before the House of Commons, so that we may govern it ourselves. I protest against this method of creating new Ministries and new staffs and throwing them at the House of Commons.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I listened with great attention to what the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) had to say, and to the methods he suggested to the House by which the omission of limiting the amount of money which is to be voted under this Resolution might be rectified.
1882
But the carrying out of the advice he gave to the House, which I should have been glad to see accepted, will, if he looks closer at the Bill, prove much more difficult than he imagines it to be. The only possible way of limiting the amount of money under this Resolution upon the Committee stage of the Bill would be to move to omit the words applying Section 10 of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916. You could not move out from the operation of this Bill the whole of Section 10 of that Act, because if you did so you would take out certain provisions which are necessary to make this Bill workable. It is a matter for great regret that when the Home Secretary defended this Resolution he should have suggested to the House that all the Resolution did was to provide a salary for an Under-Secretary.
Sir G. CAVE: I did not suggest that.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I certainly thought that to be the right hon. Gentleman's meaning.
Sir G. CAVE: I made no such suggestion. I said, in terms, that it provided for the whole expenditure.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I am sorry I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The fact of the matter is that there is no limit to the money which can be provided under this Resolution. Judging by the expenditure which is taking place in connection with other Ministries that have been established, there will be no limit to the money to be spent under this Bill. There is practically no check by the House of Commons upon the expenditure of the Government, and there has not been for the last three or four months. If the hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a Division upon this point I shall most certainly follow him into the Lobby as a protest against the absolute want of attempt on the part of the Government to exercise any economy whatever in the expenditure of these Departments. I put a question the other day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the expenditure of the existing Departments. I was told practically that the number of officials was so great and the number of salaries paid so large that it would be impossible to present a calculation to the House as to what that expenditure and those numbers would be without a great waste of public time. I do not believe there is any waste of public time in economising money at the

1883
present crisis. The whole conduct of the War depends upon the ability of this country to finance it, and you can just as easily lose the War by extravagance and want of economy and control as you can by any other method.
Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend has attempted to make this an issue as to the control of the House over the manner in which the Estimates are presented. So Jar as he takes that view I am entirely with him, because I think there is a danger of all Governments trying to get as much powers as they can to themselves, and gradually it appears to be the custom that the House of Commons is getting less and less power. I hope the Home Secretary in any further proposals he has to put forward will be able to give us an assurance that the House of Commons will retain its old authority even over new Departments in time of war. As far as I can see, they are following some precedents which have recently been set in asking the House to pass the money and giving the Treasury authority to fix the various salaries which are raised. Therefore there is no violent precedent being created to-day. I hear the suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we ought to go to a Division. Mr. Neville Chamberlain has been called by the Government on behalf of the nation to give his services at a moment of great crisis, in order to solve a very important question, and I cannot find myself giving a vote which means a vote against his salary and those who are to assist him. I think he has got to have his opportunity, and after he has had it then will be our time to give a vote as to whether or not he and his assistants are to be paid that salary. If it goes to a Division I shall therefore find it my duty to vote in the Government Lobby.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister of National Service.)
(1) For the purpose of making the best use of all persons, whether men or women, able to work in any industry, occupation,
1884
or service, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of National Service under the title of Director-General of National Service, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
(2) The Director-General of National Service shall, for the purpose, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to him or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "persons" ["the best use of all persons"], to insert the words "between eighteen and fifty-five years of age."
In introducing the Bill the Home Secretary twice mentioned, and I think what he said then has been repeated by the Director of National Service outside the House, that the age which it was intended to cover by the operation of the Bill should run from seventeen to sixty-one. I propose to limit those ages to eighteen as the lowest and fifty-five as the highest. The whole object of the Bill is to mobilise labour, and having mobilised it to transfer it from one to another more useful industry, and in a great number of cases there will be an actual transfer of labour from one district to another from the point of view of residence. There seems to me a very considerable danger of waste of labour and waste of money if you take these two extreme ages which have been mentioned by the Home Secretary. The Bill applies both to men and women. I would put to the Committee the very great danger there is from the point of view of morals in asking girls of seventeen years of age to accept labour under the Ministry of National Service, and to be transferred from the district in which they are living, from the place in which they have their homes and their connections with their families, to work in some separate undertaking where they would be cut off from their homes, from their families and their restraining ties, and be put into new surroundings where they must either be left to pure chance or else be congregated in a

1885
sort of barracks for the purpose of utilisation by the employer into whose service they are passing. There is at this moment a great outcry as to the demoralisation of the young people of this country of both sexes. There are complaints in every newspaper as to the conduct of many of the younger girls, and it seems to me that to ask these children, because they are little more than that, to set out on a new career, isolated from all their former connections, must lead to an increase of that demoralisation and a lowering of the general tone of the young people of this country.
So much for the younger girls under seventeen. Now take the case of the older, single women over fifty-five years of age and ranging up to sixty-one. How many single women are there employed in industry between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-one? I have made such inquiry as I can in my own neighbourhood and in the industries with which I have some acquaintance, and the number is infinitesimal. You will not really receive any substantial accession of labour, and such labour as you could get under these conditions would be extremely hard to train, would not be strong physically, and would not render you any real service or advantage in carrying out your proposal. Then take again the question of the boys of seventeen who will be caught up in the net of the Director of National Service. You will only take boys of seventeen for national service for a year. You have to take them away from some other industry, and you have only twelve months in which to accustom them to the new industry, and at the end of that time, if the War unhappily continues, they will be taken away from the work in which they will be becoming useful to the Army, and you will lose all the advantage of having trained them. You will therefore not get any advantage from the boys of seventeen that is worth having, but you will have dislocated in their case again the ties which unite them to their families, and which have some restraining effect on them at present. In their case, too, you will have to provide lodgings for them in a sort of barracks, or you will have to let them run loose, and you will not do very much good to the majority of the people of this country if you treat them in that way.
There is one other point which was raised the other day by the hon. Member
1886
(Mr. Anderson). Supposing you take old men of from fifty-five to sixty-one and transfer them compulsorily from some trade in which they are now employed, and put them into one of these other trades to which you propose to send them. What are they going to do when the War is over? They will have lost their place in the trades in which they are now occupied. They will not acquire skill in the new trades. Men between fifty and sixty do not learn either handicraft or many of the advanced trades with the same facility as young people. Inasmuch as this is a voluntary Bill you will not be stopped from receiving the services of persons of exceptional skill who may be over the age of fifty-five. If my Amendment is accepted, there will be no waste of power on the part of the Ministry of National Service, and, on the other hand, there will be great economy of expenditure both of time and of money on the part of the officials of the new Department.
Sir G. CAVE: I think the Committee will not be surprised if I say I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. To begin with, I think it is in the wrong place, and it would be more in order if it were moved on the second Sub-section. But, apart from that very small point, I ask the Committee not to limit the age in this way. We desire that the Director of National Service shall have power to ask for and to use the services of men and women of all ages at which they can render competent service. If it be possible that a man between fifty-five and sixty shall give useful service to the nation, I see no reason whatever why he should not be asked to volunteer, or why his offer should not be accepted. If these words are inserted you shut out men of these ages and limit the activity of the Director of National Service. The scheme already before the country provides for men between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one. That shows that the Director of National Service thinks useful work may be done by men over fifty-five. I should be very sorry to think that usefulness ceased at the age of fifty-five, and I am sure people who are useless will not be accepted. I hope the Committee will not limit the Director to persons under fifty-five.
Mr. HOGGE: I think the House will be surprised at the fact that the Home Secretary has refused to accept this Amendment. I am not struck by the fact that

1887
the Director of National Service says that everybody between the ages of seventeen and sixty-one are to be impressed for National Service. I should be very much more impressed by the opinion of this House. I am sick to death of people outside telling us what we shall do inside. We are sent here, with what brains are left to us, to advise this Government as to what ought to be done in regard to the promotion of National Service. I think it is an impertinence on the part of these so called genii, who have been discovered outside, to tell us what we ought to do, and then send an obedient and docile Government down to this House to ask us to provide the money for what these disturbers of the peace do outside Will the Home Secretary address his mind to the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse). For instance he has not met the argument which applies to the boy of seventeen. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that a boy when he has reached the age of eighteen is compulsorily taken into the Army, and that, therefore, to move a boy to any great distance from his own home at the present moment into any particularly useful industry is simply to waste time in training him to do nothing up to the moment when he is to be taken for the Army. Has the Home Secretary any reply to that argument? It is not sufficient for him to say that the Committee will not be surprised that he cannot accept that Amendment. That is not meeting the argument at all. I do not know whether we must expect that kind of debate from the Front Bench, but I do respectfully suggest to the Home Secretary that it is not dealing with the problem, and that it might be worth his while to consider the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend, in view of the interference of the War Office, in regard to everybody who is employed in National Service when he has reached the age of eighteen.
My right hon. Friend advanced an argument which is worth much more serious consideration than apparently the Home Secretary or the Director of National Service have given to it yet, and that is the movement about the country away from their homes of young girls under the age of eighteen. May I tell the Home Secretary the experience that some of us have had of that kind of thing in ether Departments? Take, for instance, the Scottish education system, which has
1888
recently resulted in the secondary schools being placed in centres remote from the smaller villages and towns in Scotland, with the result that girls just at the age at which the Director of National Service hopes to get them by voluntary means have to live away from their homes. If the Home Secretary will consult the Minister of Education or the Secretary for Scotland he will And some awful reports of the result of this taking of girls away from their homes at that tender age and putting them beyond parental control. I do suggest to the Home Secretary that here, again, he has failed to appreciate the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend. I think it is reasonable to ask that in this voluntary effort the services of girls under the age of eighteen shall not be accepted unless within the area of their residence, and that they will not be moved beyond parental control. The question which we were discussing to-day on a Bill which necessitated a Division as to whether a certain type of person shall be dealt with in a certain way has a bearing upon this matter. Every person who addresses his mind to this question knows perfectly well that one of the causes which brings about the things that are to be dealt with by the Bill in question is this lack of parental control just at the very moment when these young girls require such control. I respect the Home Secretary's views much more than to believe that the value of that argument does not appeal to him. As regards the age of fifty-five, I am not sure that I agree with my right hon. Friends. I am perfectly willing to yield the age beyond fifty-five, but I appeal to the Home Secretary to split the difference and accept the suggestion at any rate with regard to girls under the age of eighteen, and keep these girls within the area of parental control. I think he would be meeting the wish of the Committee if he would do that. With regard to boys, I do not know how far he can meet us, but I think the point made by my right hon. Friend is a perfectly good one that at the age of eighteen these boys must go into the Army unless they are put into essential industries, badged, and impossible to be recovered. I see the Home Secretary is nodding his head in regard to the girls. I take it that he is going to yield on that point. I hope he will also yield with regard to the boys. At any rate, I hope he will yield on the question of girls up to the age of eighteen.
Sir F. BANBURY: I thing there is something to be said for the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. This Bill, as far as it goes, is a voluntary Bill, and therefore it does not much matter what the ages are in this Bill, but there is no doubt that in all probability this will eventually be made a compulsory Bill, and if it is made a compulsory Bill then the ages are very important. What I am afraid of is that if we agree to these ages without protest, when a compulsory measure comes forward we shall be told that the Director of National Service said these were to be the ages and no one took exception to them in the House of Commons when the voluntary Bill was before the House, and, therefore, we must accept them in the compulsory Bill. May I point out to the Home Secretary that with regard to boys the argument used by my right hon. Friend is undoubtedly very strong, namely, that you take a boy at the age of seventeen and begin to teach him a trade, and that probably he will not have learnt that trade by the time he reaches the age of eighteen, when he will be taken away from that trade into the Army. He may be doing something which is more useful at the present moment. You may take him away from something which he has been learning from the age of fifteen or sixteen, and at the age of seventeen you take him away from it and set about teaching him something else for a year, and then he has got to work in the Army. I do not see why you want these young boys at all. Up to the age of from twenty-one to twenty-five they should be in the Army and not in National Service. I think it would be better if the ages were twenty-one, twenty-two or twenty-five, instead of these very young ages in this Bill. With regard to girls, the taking away of a girl of seventeen from her home may lead to all sorts of consequences which may be much more disastrous than would appear from the arrangements made by the Director of National Service.
When we go to the other end of the scale, I do not mind whether the age is fifty-five or sixty-one so long as it is voluntary, but we have to consider this Bill on the probability that it will be a compulsory Bill afterwards. Under those circumstances, is it right or wise to take away men over fifty-five, who perhaps are not gifted with the perennial youth which my right hon. Friend enjoys, and who have been all their lives in a sedentary
1890
occupation, and to put them into some other occupation where Mr. Neville Chamberlain says they ought to go, and to put them into something which is totally different from the occupations they have been in the habit of undergoing? It may be that you are taking them away from something which is useful. That is one result of bringing in a Bill which is not the real Bill. This is a Bill which is going to be followed by something else; therefore we have to argue this matter not on the Bill which is before us, but in view of the Bill which is to be introduced later on. To say that there is to be forced labour for everybody between the ages of seventeen and sixty-one is a very tall order. That is what comes to if we are to have a compulsory Bill. People of a certain age should devote themselves to the service of the State, but it is a tall order to say that everybody between the ages of seventeen and sixty-one shall be liable if a compulsory measure is introduced. Therefore, I hope that we shall modify this Bill.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: I think, if the Home Secretary would meet the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) with regard to both boys and girls, his action would meet with the approval of the Committee. I do not see any great objection to the higher age from fifty-five to sixty-one, but there ought to be some safeguard that if men volunteer at that age and state that they do not want to go away from their homes they should be allowed to remain near their homes. With regard to boys and girls, particularly boys, if the Home Secretary will come into any of our Lancashire towns he will find that there is a great scarcity of boys now for the staple industry, and that it would be absolutely impossible to get any volunteers unless he takes them from the munition works. If he will read the papers, almost any day he will find that the munitions tribunals in Birmingham are absolutely refusing to release boys of the ages of sixteen and seventeen from munition works when they want to go elsewhere. With regard to girls, I would point out that if a girl is taken from home at the age of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen, and she goes into domestic service, the person for whom she goes to work has to sign a paper which confers a very serious obligation upon that person in regard to looking after these girls. If it is necessary to have a form signed by a person with whom a girl of this age

1891
goes to live, which pledges that person to look after the physical and moral well-being of the girl, it is doubly necessary that care should be exercised when you are sending a large number of girls away from their homes into strange towns where there is, practically speaking, no one to look after them. I think that from that standpoint the Home Secretary will agree to the age of eighteen being put into the Bill as the age to be attained by a girl before she can be taken away from her home to work elsewhere.
I am absolutely amazed at the blind confidence the Government seems to repose in any one man they have appointed to control or direct a certain Department. I take it that if that one man is not a Member of this House and he fails in his mission or in the week he undertakes the Government will put all the responsibility on that man, and they will escape altogether. I say without hesitation that no one should have the control of either men, women, or material to any extent unless he is directly responsible to this House. I would much rather in connection with the National Service scheme see a small Committee of practical men appointed from Members of this House to deal with the whole question. I am not going to say anything in regard to the advice of some of these experts, but I have met experts, and I have not been overwhelmed with their knowledge and experience of worldly things. Therefore, I do hope that we shall have no more of this system of establishing Ministries, and so on, to be directed by one man or another outside this House. Let the Members of this House, who were sent to Parliament to do Parliamentary work, and who are responsible to their constituents, be appointed, if it is necessary to appoint anyone, to do this work as part of their Parliamentary duties.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. TENNANT: I want to inform the Committee that this bench on which I have the honour to sit is animated by no lazy uniformity of view. I do not find myself altogether in agreement with my two right hon. Friends who have spoken. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse) has a sincere apprehension that girls may be taken from their homes and deprived of parental control, and may be subject to great danger. All of us who know what has been going on
1892
during the last twelve months or more realise that very large numbers of girls have gone from their homes already, and are doing work which is invaluable to the State. My right hon. Friend the Under^ Secretary is very well acquainted with those cases. We know that we are deriving the greatest advantages from that work. I am not going to stand here and say that I do not think that in any single individual case has there been any hardship, or perhaps worse than hardship. Lots of these girls are from sixteen to seventeen years old.
Mr. HOGGE: They go home at night time.
Mr. TENNANT: No. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are large hostels for these girls. They have them at Woolwich and elsewhere.
An HON. MEMBER: It is a very bad thing.
Mr. TENNANT: I cannot agree. I realise that it is liable to danger. I happen to have a singular method of ascertaining this fact, which I dare say the Committee will realise, and I happen to know that a primary concern—if I do not put it higher than that—of those who are to be responsible for the allocation of work, and for the manner in which the women will be housed, is this very fact of the control of their domestic arrangements, the housing accommodation which is to be provided, and the whole of the arrangements which have to be made and seeing that they are properly looked after. I cannot imagine that anyone who realises the duty of making this arrangement will think for one moment that those who have been put in those responsible positions like Mr. Chamberlain should omit to consider the very first thing that must be in their mind. It is perfectly childish to make any such suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said he feared that boys might be taken away from useful work and put to work which was not useful. Would that be one of the functions of a Director of National Service? Obviously the Director of National Service will have first regard to the actual work which is being performed by those who are put under his control.
This Bill is a purely voluntary Bill. Anyone who is sensible and is already employed upon really valuable work is not

1893
likely to be so stupid as to leave his home to go to something different. That being so, I think that there is very little argument in that point. My right hon. Friend also spoke of boys being taken at seventeen and trained for work which they could not carry on after the age of eighteen. It is much better that they should be trained at something than at nothing. If they are trained already, let them continue at the work at which they are engaged. No doubt they will be doing valuable National Service. As this is a limiting Amendment I ask the Committee not to accept it. I do not think that it is desirable at the time of great national emergency in which we now find ourselves to tie the hands of the Director who is specially called upon to undertake a most difficult task. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. W. T. Wilson) seemed to be surprised that the Government should place reliance on any individual and suggested a Committee of this House. What would be the action of the Director? As far as I understand, he is going to propose committees of experts in various industries in different localities of the country, who are very much more capable persons than we should get among ourselves. I really think that that is so, because, after all, we are Jacks of all trades, and they are authorities on particular industries and able to give more valuable advice. That being so, I trust that the Committee will not accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment and will leave the hands of the Director as free as possible.
Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: I am inclined to agree that as this is a purely voluntary Bill it is rather a mistake to put an age into the Bill. If you are going to put ages into the Bill, I would like to say a word or two. Being fifty-seven myself, I rather object to putting down fifty-five as the age at which one is worth nothing. I do not think a man of my age is absolutely worthless, or even after sixty-one. I myself object to compulsion altogether in this matter, and I object absolutely to the compulsion of women; but if you were to have any compulsion of women, it seems to me that you would be making the greatest mistake in fixing the age at seventeen or eighteen or anything of the kind. If you were to compel women you should certainly not apply compulsion to any woman under the age of twenty-five. I would
1894
like the Committee to think that over, because we may come in a short time to the question of compulsory service. There is an idea of compulsion, and I do not like putting an age in this Bill for that reason, because, though there is no compulsion in the Bill, still there is a certain element, if I may say so, of moral compulsion, in the fact of the Bill itself and the effect that it will have on the minds of women, and of young women in particular. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that every care would be bestowed on women who went to work away from their homes. There is a great, difference between women going under a voluntary arrangement with the full knowledge of the parents, with their consent and probably their wish, and the case where they go where there is any kind of compulsion, whether actual or, as I have said, of a moral nature. I only make those suggestions, not because I think that there is any reason for an age in this Bill as it stands, but because the case might arise.
Sir G. CAVE: I only want to remove one misapprehension that may have arisen. It was perhaps by a fault of mine. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Director-General of National Service is inviting boys of seventeen. The invitation is addressed to males between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one—that is, those who have passed their eighteenth, but have not yet reached their sixtieth birthday. No invitation has yet been addressed to women.
Mr. WATT: Has he indicated the ages?
Sir G. CAVE: I would put it to my right hon. Friend that the Director-General and those who assist him with regard to women may be trusted to bear in mind the views which have been put before the Committee. I am quite sure that they realise their duty of taking care that young women and girls who come under their schemes shall not suffer, and that we need not limit the age in the Bill.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the correction which he has made about the ages of boys. Of course, I accept that; but I think that the Amendment which I have put before the Committee has had a very useful effect, because we have got a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman as to the intentions of the Director-General

1895
of National Service. But I am a little sorry that he did not go into the case of the young women, for this reason. I believe it has been stated that there is no intention at the present moment of extending this invitation to women, but it is clearly in contemplation by the Director-General to extend that invitation at a very short date.
Sir G. CAVE: An invitation.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: In view of that invitation which is to be extended, I should like some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the limitation of age which has been indicated in the case of boys—that is to say, the lowest age is eighteen, and not seventeen—should also extend to young women. At the very least—though I confess I should like very much the age which is indicated by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Colonel Sir C. Seely)—the age in the case of women should certainly be over twenty. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to answer the case which I put forward with regard to young women. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick (Mr. Tennant) said he spoke with certain expert knowledge.
Mr. TENNANT: Peculiar.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I hope it was expert as well as peculiar. I want to press the matter from this point of view. There are much greater dangers, which are known to all of us, in the way of temptation, and of falling under temptation, which are bound to arise if you are going to take young girls away from their homes and their restraining influence. What is the meaning of the Bill which we discussed recently with regard to which we had a Division this afternoon? Simply that there are great dangers surrounding these girls, and that it is the duty of the State to put these dangers as far away as possible from them. I do not wish to press my Amendment to a Division. I am satisfied with the discussion which we have already had on this subject, but I would wish the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication as to the likely age which will be fixed in the case of women?
Sir G. CAVE: I will answer that at once. I do not know what the ages are, of course, but I can only say that it will surprise me if the age is anything under eighteen. I cannot say more at present.
Mr. WATT: I think it important that the Director-General should have some indication of the views of the House of Commons on this question of age limit at which young women may be taken away from their homes. It is a very serious thing to take away young women under certain age, indeed, under the age of twenty one, from the restraint of their parents who live in districts other than those in which they are engaged, and if the House of Commons emphasises this view, as it is doing by this discussion, it may have the effect on the Director-General, and his female assistants, of raising the ages between which he desires women help. For that reason it is most essential in fixing the age that a high age should be fixed, so that young women may not be taken away from their homes and from their parent's influence. I think the more Members emphasise that point, the more likely Mr. Chamberlain and his assistants will be to take the view of the House of Commons.
Sir J. JARDINE: I would like to add my voice to those who have already spoken on this point both as regards boys and girls. I think there is very great weight in what has been said as to keeping girls at home right up to the age of eighteen; and we ought to have a further statement from the hon. Gentleman as to the hours intended to be worked in the new industries which this Bill creates.
Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the Minister give us some more definite reply as to the Department affecting women, which has already been in operation, and the Director and Assistant-Director have been appointed? It is apparently the case that the women's department are taking in women under eighteen years of age, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant) will be in a position to speak about that. I have evidence that certainly women under twenty are to some extent taken into this new department of National Service. I know the case of a young woman under twenty who was going to Canada, but was placed in the National Service, and if the Director of National Service has come to a decision in regard to this question of age, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of that decision. It is quite true that everybody who has spoken, with the exception of a single Member, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, has been

1897
strengthened in the opinion that the bringing in of younger women would be a mistake in the national interest, and would not be in the interests of the women themselves. I think, in view of the expression of opinion which has been made, we are entitled, first of all, to a statement of what the Director of National Service has in view, and, secondly, we are entitled that the views of this Committee shall be taken into consideration, in so far as the workers are concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "any" ["work in any industry"], to insert the word "essential."
This and the next Amendment which I have on the Paper are intended to be read together, the second Amendment being, after the word "service" ["occupation or service"], to insert the words "set out in the First Schedule to this Act." Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, I have not been in contact or touch with the new Director of National Service, as he seems to have been, but I very much prefer the pronouncement or verdict of the House of Commons to that of any gentleman outside, who is out of the range and control of this House, however eminent or however able he may be. It is perfectly well known to every Member of this House that persons have been withdrawn from industries for military service and for enrolment in the Army who, if they had not been taken from their industries, could have been doing good work. They have been put into the ranks of the Army and kept absolutely idle, not doing any kind of work useful to the Army. I have a case in mind where a man was taken in the third week in January, and up to the day before yesterday he had not done a quarter of an hour's work of any sort, description, or kind, although the country have been paying him, and his wife is provided with a separation allowance. That man's work has been wholly lost to the country, a fact which is more important still. In connection with this Bill, if it become an Act, the same thing will take place, unless some limit is imposed upon the words of the Clause, and it is for that purpose I put in the word "essential," making it read "any essential industry." I propose also to put in as the First Schedule to the Act the list enumerating all the essential industries which has been issued to the
1898
public. That would prevent, not the Director of National Service, but it would prevent committees and tribunals scattered up and down the country from getting people at any cost in order to add to the return which they make to the head office that they are serving. They get people to enrol themselves who are now doing useful work, and these are all collected, to follow the words used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in one of the divisions of the Army controlled by the Director of National Service and kept there for a certain time, without any useful employment, and meantime the work of these ordinary civilians will be lost to the country. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will say, of course, that we must trust the organisation that has been set up. As to the Director of National Service, we have to take his merits on the good word of the Ministry of the day, and we have that good word as to the agents with whom he works. I would much rather that this House of Commons had the opportunity of seeing what trades are essential and what trades are not essential. At present we have had no possibility of knowing, examining or inquiring as to what trades are or are not essential, and I think we ought to know, consider and pronounce.
Sir G. CAVE: I thought I had made it clear to the House the other day that the object of withdrawing anyone from a nonessential industry was to bring him into National Service. It is not contemplated that any person shall be drawn from his own industry and remain idle, for he will not be asked to leave his present employment until he is actually required in some other kind of business for the National Service. The real point of the Amendment is that my right hon. Friend desires that there shall be in the Bill a Schedule of essential trades. I venture to say that will not be a wise thing to do. It is very difficult to make sure that you have introduced every industry which is, or will be essential. The list which the right hon. Member has put upon the Paper is a very useful list, but I do not know that it is exhaustive. But even if it were the full list to-day, who can say that it will be the full list a month or six months hence. Occupations which to-day may appear non-essential may six months hence appear to be essential and useful. For instance an export trade may not in itself be of great importance for the purpose of the War, but if the Director-

1899
General finds that it manufactures goods which are sent abroad to the benefit of our export returns, that would be a reason for maintaining it. That is only one illustration. For these reasons I think it is undesirable to attempt to settle a Schedule in this House. It is far better to leave it to the Director-General himself and to those associated with him, to work out their list of important industries, and not tie their hands. I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
Mr. DENNISS: I did not gather from the Home Secretary that he would agree to the word "essential." I concur with him that it would not be wise to put a Schedule in the Bill, because if you do so you put any trade outside it in the position of being considered a non-essential trade. When the list appeared in the "Times" the other day I immediately looked to the textile trades, and found that the great cotton industry, which is an essential industry, was not included. The great cotton industry is not only essential in regard to the War, but it is of great importance to our export trade. Such an important omission as that shows that the Director-General of National Service has not really had his attention called to the cotton trade. Therefore, this list which he published in the "Times" must be very carefully considered by him before anybody can say that it is a complete list of essential industries. Under those circumstances, to put that list in an Act of Parliament would be the greatest possible mistake. Of course, if it is adopted by the House of Commons, I shall put down an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the cotton industry and its allied trades. The object of this measure is to take people away from non-essential trades and to put them into one of the essential trades, or some trade which the Director-General considers to be essential. If you take away cotton spinners and weavers it would make an enormous difference in respect to the War, because it is from cotton we make the wings of aeroplanes, besides which it is of importance in our export trade. The percentage of cotton exported helps to pay for the imports we get from abroad. To take people away from that industry, which is very shorthanded, and has never been more shorthanded, would be an absurdity; and, therefore, on these grounds, I oppose putting the Schedule in
1900
the Bill, especially as it omits what is not only an essential industry, but one of the most essential industries in this country. Therefore, if the word "essential" is put in, it does limit his absolute autocratic omnipotence to those industries which are really essential. He cannot on his own, so to speak, take men away and put them to business which is not essential. I desire to second, if I may, one of the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman dealing with this point.
Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I hope that the Government will put in some adjective to define the scope of the Director-General of National Service. We are in this somewhat awkward fix, that if we put in the Schedule, which my light hon. Friend is about to propose, we would limit the Director-General in such a way that we might either have to have fresh legislation or put in some sort of general powers later on in the Bill, which would, I think, not be a very effective way of dealing with the difficulty. Legislating by Schedule in a case like this is a very awkward method of proceeding. On the other hand, the Government comes to us and asks us to give them general powers to deal with any trade. They say, "You must trust us." We are quite willing to trust them, but the House of Commons ought to do something more than trust Ministers. It ought to make up its mind what it wants doing. It is not enough for us just to throw a very crude idea at the Front Government Bench and say, "You carry that out." The intention of the House is to give the Director-General powers to deal with the essential industries, and it is right and proper that we should put that in the legislation, so that if he interferes with any other industry, his representative in this House can be challenged to prove that it is an essential industry. The method which we have been pursuing for the last two years in legislation like this is altogether slipshod, and there is not a single Member who has had experience of the administration of those general powers who has not got very serious grievances to bring against the Departments responsible. If we put in an adjective like "essential," we do not limit the powers that are asked for, because the Home Secretary does not say that they want powers to deal with industries which are not essential. By doing so, we are making our idea perfectly plain, and we are not limiting the authority of the Director of National Service,

1901
so far as we are willing to confer that authority. Therefore, I think that it is only right the House should insist on the Government making this Bill so precise and definite that it will express the intention of the House. I hope, therefore, that the word "essential" will be put in, and that the Government will accept it, and if it does not, that the House of Commons will have the opportunity of showing its own will in this matter.
Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I think there is a very good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not proceed with his Amendment in this form, if some such safeguard is required, this is not the way to do it. Legislation by Schedule is objectionable, as has been pointed out, and if you merely put in this word "essential," you practically gain nothing. The Bill is for the purpose of making the "best use" of all persons, and you want to make sure that the best use is limited to use in essential and not in non-essential industries. No Amendment is really required for that purpose. In the words "best use" you have got all the safeguard you want, and any Member of this House can at any time point out employment in a non-essential industry. Anyone who applies to the Department will, I am sure, get information, and their complaints will be listened to. I have a very great objection to dealing with the matter in the way proposed, and while I have every sympathy with the object, I would suggest be the right hon. Gentleman that he should not press his Amendment in the form in which it now is, as I think it would be futile to achieve that object.
Mr. DILLON: I think the speech to which we have just listened is an excellent illustration of the necessity of this Amendment and more on the same lines. The hon. Member said that the essence of this Bill is that all men and women in the country should be put to the best use. That is the object of the Bill, and, in my opinion, no greater insanity ever took possession of this country than the idea that one man, surrounded by a few scratch officials, is competent to judge of what is the best use to which to put every person in the country. It is officialdom gone mad, and in it we have reached the final culmination of this idea, that all you have got to do in order to win the War and perform miracles is to start a new Department. That theory was started a year ago,
1902
and in the days of the ginger groups, when anything was said, the idea was to go and clamour at once for a Minister for everything.
Mr. PRINGLE: A ginger-beer Minister!
Mr. DILLON: We were to have a margarine controller, and everything was to be controlled. This tiling now seems to be arriving at a stage when for every act we do we must have a special controller in a special palace, with a special staff to look after it. Here is an hon. Member who apparently is of opinion that the only way to get the best use out of every man and woman in this country is to have them passed by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, formerly Lord Mayor of Birmingham. If Mr. Chamberlain were an archangel, or if he were Hindenburg and Bismarck, and all the great men of the world rolled into one, his task would be wholly beyond his powers. I say that before very long, in my opinion, it will become manifest to the people of this country that there never was a more absurd, a more impossible, a more mischievous idea than this—that one official, surrounded by a gang of officials, can put every person to the best possible use. This humble Amendment, so far as it goes, is undoubtedly an improvement, though very, very slight, of this extraordinary measure. What was said just now by hon. Member below me is perfectly true. It is a great it is misfortune, but it is absolutely true, that we are bound to discuss this Bill from the point of view of compulsion, because we are told by those responsible for the present Government that if this does not turn out to be a success, and that promptly, it will be followed by a compulsory measure. Therefore we know we are discussing the framework of a compulsory Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, whenever he is faced with that difficulty, says that there is no element of compulsion in this Bill. We heard all that last year on the question of the Army. The only difference between the voluntary proposals made last year for the Army and the present proposals is this: Last year there were solemn Ministerial pledges that those voluntary proposals would not be pressed to compulsory proposals. The present Ministry are far more practical. They say from the beginning, if this thing on voluntary lines does not become a complete success, and in a very short time, it

1903
will be followed by a compulsory scheme. Therefore we have to look at it from that point of view.
I am inclined to agree with the view that it would be a mistake to put a Schedule into this Bill. It is not in the least degree necessary to recommend this Amendment that it should be followed by a Schedule. On the contrary, my idea would be this: If you put in the word "essential" it should be required that the Director-General of National Service should from time to time lay upon the Table of the House his list of essential industries, and that the House should have some opportunity of discussing that Schedule from time to time. Let me take as an illustration of that one point that has been alluded to, and that is the omission in the Schedule already published, because the Director-General of National Service has already published two Schedules, I think, in the "Times" newspaper. Looking over that Schedule, the omission of the cotton trade created the most extreme alarm throughout the whole of that trade, because the cotton trade of Lancashire, and of this country generally, on looking over the Schedule, discovered that that great trade, one of the pillars of the finances of this country, was omitted from the list of essential trades. Let me enlarge on that point. That created alarm, not alone amongst the cotton trade, but throughout the whole country, because of the light it threw on the test which the Director-General of National Service was going to apply to the question of essential and non-essential. Apparently he is somewhat tinged with the War Office spirit and looks at this matter through War Office spectacles. He thinks that those industries are essential which can be described as war work. One of the delusions of the War Office, on which they may very soon get a rude awakening, is that it does not matter in the least whether this country can go on paying for the War, provided you put a large number of soldiers on paper, because they are certainly largely unable to take the field, as we all know, and that if you can get a large number of soldiers to wave as a bogey in front of Germany, that it is not necessary to consider whether this country is to be crippled and rendered unable to maintain the staggering and gigantic burden of 'financial responsibilities which it has assumed.
1904
It is perfectly plain that any man who is capable of drawing-up the First Schedule of essential industries in this country and leaving out the cotton trade is not to be trusted in this matter, and therefore I say that it is not only that that action on the part of the Director of National Service is calculated to alarm the cotton trade, but it is also calculated to alarm every industry in the country that is not in the first list, because inevitably the first argument that would occur to everybody interested in any industry not included in the Schedule will be that the Director of National Service is going to apply the War Office scale and treat all industries whose only justification is that they contribute to the financial stability of the country as non-essential. That is not all. One of the members of the War Cabinet, a very distinguished and influential member, inasmuch as he represents labour on that body, I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), is going about the country now—and he is the only member of the War Cabinet who is speaking to the country—and he made a speech two or three days ago in which he made this amazing statement: That there are three and a half millions of men in England to-day engaged in non-essential work. All I can say is that, to my mind, that is a preposterous statement, and it is not only preposterous but most alarming, because every man who reads that and who is engaged in any industry and knows anything of the condition of the country, must say that the Government have it in their minds to make a clean sweep and close up nearly half the industries of the country and nearly bring the whole country to a state of bankruptcy and ruin. Therefore I say that this is an extremely serious matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman takes it to a Division, I shall certainly go to a Division with him. I also think we ought not to be content with this check, but that we should put in some other Amendment so as to reassure the industries of the country that have not already been proved essential.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am sorry the Committee has taken the view that the word "essential" is necessary to be put in the Bill. As to the Schedule, I understand that my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) who moved that the Schedule should be incorporated has agreed to drop the Schedule,

1905
and therefore the discussion has been concentrated on whether or not the word "essential" should be included.
Mr. WATT: He did not drop the Schedule.
Mr. BRACE: I understood that he had. Anyhow, the point before us now is as to whether or not the word "essential" shall be introduced here, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not press it. This is a voluntary Bill.
Mr. DILLON: For how long?
Mr. BRACE: I am hoping that this Bill will be sufficient of itself as a voluntary measure to secure the number of men necessary to carry on work of national importance such as has been and will be scheduled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) and others are touring the country with the hope of raising sufficient men by voluntary endeavour to prevent compulsion being necessary altogether, and if this word "essential" is incorporated in the Bill, it will be a disadvantage to this extent, that we shall be faced with no end of litigation by people who do not want to serve the nation in these days of trial, and as a consequence our voluntary effort will fail, and we shall be driven by force of circumstances to a position that this House does not want to be put into. I am advised that if the word "essential" is put into the Bill it will weaken the endeavour that is being made to get the men by voluntary effort, and therefore I will ask the Committee not to pass the Amendment.
Mr. PRINGLE: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has somewhat misconceived the position. My own view is that it does not really matter a great deal whether "essential" is put in or not, and as a matter of fact I do not think it matters whether we have these introductory words at all or not. As far as the actual operative effect of this Clause is concerned, I do not think we really require the words
"For the purpose of making the best use of all persons, whether men or women, able to work in any industry, occupation, or service."
The rest of the Clause will be quite effective without these words, which are really something in the nature of a preamble. However, we have had this question raised here, and my right hon. Friend
1906
opposite has taken this opportunity of raising a double question: first of all, the question whether the action of the Director of National Service is to be confined to essential industries; and, secondly, whether there is to be a Schedule in the Bill. I think it is of great consequence that the new Minister should have his attention confined to essential industries, and that an attempt should be made to define those industries. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) referred to the Schedule. His speech was an argument against the present Schedule, but not against having a Schedule. Indeed, it was an argument for a Schedule, and the very fact that the Director of National Service has omitted from the Schedule which he has published such an important industry as the cotton industry is the strongest possible argument we could have that Parliament should control the scheduling of industries. If he can make a blunder of this kind——
Sir G. CAVE: It is not a blunder!
Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, yes, it is a blunder. The Home Secretary says it is not a blunder, and that makes the case all the worse.
Sir G. CAVE: I meant that this list was not intended to be a list of the whole of the essential industries of this country. It was only issued as a list of important industries in which labour is now wanted, and the Director of National Service did not say that any industries outside that list are not essential. He simply submitted those industries in which labour is wanted to-day, and that is quite a different thing.
Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know of any important industry to-day in which labour is not wanted. There are many other industries not included in this list in which there is the greatest possible dearth of labour, and it does not seem to me that the explanation of the Home Secretary particularly helps the matter. After all, it was issued as a list of essential trades, and I think it is common knowledge that there are many trades outside the list which are essential, and which are also greatly in need of labour. I think, therefore, that in view of the situation and of the uncertainty to which the action of the Director of National Service has given rise, we should insist, if we are not to have a Schedule, at least that we should have control over the industries which are

1907
scheduled by having these Schedules placed on the Table of the House. We have had an example already of the possibility of dealing with these things in regard to Home Office Orders. I think the late Home Secretary had some trouble with the Home Office Order in regard to shops. It is very important that, by the process of laying on the Table this list of essential industries, the House should have an opportunity of checking, supervising, and controlling the Director of National Service. We have been told that we should have implicit faith in the Director of National Service, but if we look at the way other directors and controllers have acted in regard to national work, I think we are justified in entertaining a great deal of scepticism. If we look, for example, at the way in which agriculture has been treated by the War Office, and if we look at the way in which munition workers have been treated by the Ministry of Munitions, and at the way in which the Ministry of Munitions have allowed the War Office to treat them, I think we shall find the very strongest grounds for hesitating to give any further dictatorial powers to Government Departments. I believe that we cannot achieve the result which my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) seeks to obtain, and I think the only way of doing it will be by moving a new Clause, because, as I have indicated, this Preamble is pure surplusage, and if we add to a Preamble I do not think it helps the operative effect of the Statute we are passing.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I think two things have emerged from the discussion. One is that the vast majority of Members who have spoken on the Amendment have approved of the insertion of some such word as "essential," and the other is that nearly everybody has disapproved of the concrete proposal which I should have made to the House with regard to the addition of a Schedule. I should like to tell my hon. Friends who have supported me in the view that we should insert the word "essential" that I shall be glad to obtain their support on a subsequent Amendment, because I should like to withdraw my Amendment as it occurs in regard to a Schedule at this point and later to put down some words which would ensure that the Director of National Service should lay on the Table of this House a list of the scheduled trades, which should
1908
not become operative until the House has had a chance of discussing them.
Mr. T. WILSON: I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a trade that is very essential so far as Lancashire and Yorkshire are concerned. I believe he has had resolutions sent to him from branches of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation, protesting against taking from their trade the cloggers of Lancashire and Yorkshire. In the Division which I represent in this House what are called "absentee committees," which deal with miners who are absent from their work, have had it proved to them many times that the men have been absent from work owing to the fact that they have been unable to get their footwear through lack of labour. I also know that during the present winter large numbers of school children have not been able to go to school on account of their footwear not being able to keep out the damp. I know that a protest has been sent by the master cloggers of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and also by the operatives, to the Reserved Occupations Committee, and to the War Office as well, protesting against men being taken from this industry. If we find miners not able to keep up the output of coal owing to not being able to get the footwear which they need, I think it is high time that something was done in this House to prevent these men being taken. It is just as necessary that people should be clothed and have good footwear so that they may get the minerals, as it is for Mr. Neville Chamberlain to get a large number of men on his voluntary list for National Service. Something must be done to prevent men being taken from essential industries, especially men who are absolutely necessary for providing footwear for the miners in Lancashire and Cheshire.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. WATT: Like the hon. and learned Member for North-West Lanark, I do not think there is much importance in this Amendment, and whether or not the word "essential" is inserted. But the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment coupled it with the next Amendment on the Paper on the question of a Schedule being put in by this House. I think that is a most important matter. It is a question of whether this House shall or shall not draw up a Schedule, or whether the House shall hand over its powers to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who

1909
is to be Director-General. The speech made by the hon. Member for East Mayo was a most valuable contribution to the Debate. I would it were printed and circulated throughout the length and breadth of the country to-morrow, for it is exactly the type of speech the newspapers will not give at any length, because it in some degree was the truth, and was against the views of the Government. It is the idea of that speech that I desire to emphasise clearly, and to say that we are now handing over to Mr. Neville Chamberlain the power of scheduling trades as essential and non-essential. When he declares a trade, such as the cotton trade, to be non-essential, he has the power of removing, and probably will remove, from that trade the labour with which it is carried on. We have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A: Henderson) going about the country saying that there are three and a half millions of men in the country employed in non-essential trades. That is a most severe shock to those three and a half millions of men, and to the men, too, who have capital employed in these trades. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, by his mere ipse dixit, will be able, when this measure passes, to ruin these trades; if not to ruin them, to give them a very severe shock by removing from them labour absolutely essential for their satisfactory conduct. This is a most drastic measure. I hope the Committee really apprehends the fact of what we are handing over to this man! Each of us in this House represents many traders who are included in this three and a half millions. Any of these may be deprived of their livelihood by the ipse dixit of this unknown man. Therein lies the importance of the situation. I think this Committee should insist that a Schedule of some kind—it may not be the Schedule of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Bristol—but a Schedule of some kind should be adopted, so that this House, and not Mr. Neville Chamberlain, may say who in the country are to be ruined by his idea of what is essential and what is non-essential.
Mr. HOGGE: In discussing this word "essential" we ought to bear in mind that Mr. Neville Chamberlain should, at any rate, be given power in the Schedule that it is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House, to take non-essential men out of the Army and place them in
1910
essential trades. I believe that the Army is the means of the greatest wastage of men to essential trades in the country to-day. My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) referred in his speech to the clog industry. That is an industry which exists in my own city of Edinburgh. There is only one clog industry in that city. It supplies, or did supply, munition workers with the clogs necessary for their work. It was run by a man who was taken into the Army. That man went through the Mesopotamian campaign, was badly wounded, and returned to this country with malarial fever. His mother and sisters were trying to run that essential industry in Edinburgh. I made application to the War Office, and used all the arguments in favour that I could for the release of the man to continue that necessary industry in Edinburgh. My application was refused. The mother has since died owing to the exertions she had put forward to maintain that industry. The man is still retained in the Army. Having been wounded, he is given light duty, and is not likely to return to the fighting line. If he were put back into that industry it could be maintained. The one absolutely essential thing to remember in all these discussions is that Mr. Neville Chamberlain should be given authority over the Secretary of State for War. He is the man who ought to be controlled. He is the man who is wasting the industrial activities of the country, by absorbing men into absolutely useless work, both so far as the country is concerned and so far as the men themselves are concerned, thus creating the necessity for interfering with the machinery of industry which is at the moment contributing to the wealth required to run the War.
I repeat the argument which I used the other day on another subject. I have made frequent use of this argument in the country recently in trying to help to raise the War Loan. Many of the business men, certainly in Scotland, hesitated, and did not contribute to the War Loan because they were not sure what Mr. Neville Chamberlain was going to do with the employés left to them. Men were not certain whether or not Mr. Chamberlain would consider their trade an essential trade, and whether or not they would be left, as many are being left, without any trade at all! Let me tell a case that I heard this morning which occurred not two miles from this House. An employer employed sixty

1911
workmen at the beginning of the War. He has been deprived of every one of them, has had to close his doors, and shut down from £4,000 or £5,000 worth of essential plant, which cannot be used for any other purpose at the moment without great loss. That man was contributing to the finances of this country. Amongst his employés was a War Loan club, which took between £600 and £800 of War Loan. That is all scattered to the four winds of Heaven, because someone insists upon taking men who will be no use to the Army. Therefore I want to emphasise,
as I have emphasised often before, that the real cry that everybody should promote at the moment is to comb out the Army. Get rid of the men who are a nuisance to the officers and the other men because of absorbing men to take care of them. Return them to industrial life, where they will be some good, and prevent Mr. Neville Chamberlain doing as much mischief as he might otherwise do.
Question put, "That the word 'essential' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 73;: Noes, 188.

Division No. 3.]

AYES.

[6.9 p.m.

Adamson, William

Hancock, John George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Leary, Daniel

Anderson, W. C.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Arnold, Sydney

Hogge, James Myles

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Holt, Richard Durning

Outhwaite, R. L.

Boland, John Pius

Hudson, Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo. North)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

Pringle, William M. R.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Rendall, Athelstan

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Chancellor, Henry George

Jowett, Frederick William

Rowntree, Arnold

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Scanlan, Thomas

Clynes, John R.

Keating, Matthew

Shortt, Edward

Cosgrave, James

King, Joseph

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Crumley, Patrick

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Snowden, Philip

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Devlin, Joseph

Lundon, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dillon, John

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Watt, Henry A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Daris, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Field, William

Worrell, Philip

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Finney, Samuel

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fitzpatrick, John Laior

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nuttall, Harry

France, Gerald Ashburner

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Galbraith, Samuel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Denniss and Mr. Thomas Richardson.

Hackett, John

NOES.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Bull, Sir William James

Fletcher, John Samuel

Agnew, Sir George William

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Butcher, John George

Gardner, Ernest

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

Glanville, Harold James

Armitage, Robert

Cator, John

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Baldwin, Stanley

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Barrie, H. T.

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Currie, G. W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Bentham, George Jackson

Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

Henry, Sir Charles

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Bird, Alfred

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Dixon, C. H.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Bliss, Joseph

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Hills, John Waller

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Hinds, John

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Bridgeman, William Clive

Fell, Arthur

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Brunner, John F. L.

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Perkins, Walter F.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Peto, Basil Edward

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwork, West)

Hunt, Major Rowland

Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pratt, J. W.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Kiley, James Daniel

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Tickler, T. G.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Toulmin, Sir George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Rawson, Colons) R. H.

Valentia, Viscount

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Mackinder, H. J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Watson, Hon. W.

Malcolm, Ian

Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

Weigall, William E. G. A.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Robinson, Sidney

Weston, J. W.

Millar, James Duncan

Rowlands, James

Whitley, Rt. Hen. J. H.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Rutherford, Sir John (Lanes., Darwen)

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Rutherford, Watson (W. Derby)

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Morgan, George Hay

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Wolmer, Viscount

Newman, John R. P.

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Yeo, Alfred William

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Younger, Sir George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Partington, Oswald

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

Starkey, John R.

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Primrose

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Stewart, Gershom

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire and three other Members, is out of order; it is not in correct form, but the substance of it is raised in the succeeding Amendment.
Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to move the first part of the Amendment, which says, "The Director-General of National Service shall have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority as may be conferred on him by Statute"?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to leave words out and then replace them. The hon. Member will find that his point is substantially covered by the next Amendment.
Mr. WATT: On a point of Order. As my hon. Friend has suggested that he should not move the second part of the Amendment, does it not make his Amendment in order?
Mr. PRINGLE: Does the Amendment not depend on the way it is moved?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in a correct form for the reasons I have given.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The Amendment standing in my name is to leave out in
1914
Sub-section (2) the words "whether conferred by Statute or otherwise." I think the Amendment ought to begin at the words "or otherwise," and with your permission, Mr. Maclean, I will limit my Amendment so as to delete the words "or otherwise."
Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to do what I am denied the privilege of doing?
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The Sub-section will then run:
"The Director-General of National Service shall, for that purpose, have such powers and duties or any Government Department or authority, conferred by Statute,"
leaving out the word "whether." The object of the Amendment is, I think, the same as that of my hon. Friends opposite—that is to say, to limit the power of the Director-General to such powers as this House can control, and to prevent his exercising powers over which the House has I no control. We have had within the last few days—certainly within the last month—very startling results from the conferring by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act of powers upon various Director-Generals and Ministers. The other day a member of the Government in this House coolly proposed to issue a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm

1915
Act which, he confessed, if it were to become operative would have the power of overriding Statute law, and it was not until he was challenged in this House as to whether or not he could exercise the power he proposed that he consented to refer the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown. I rather gather, from the silence which has been maintained up to the present as to the issue of that Regulation, that his wings have been more clipped by the advice of the Law Officers than he suspected. All that is very well in a case where a Minister happens to be challenged in the House of Commons, but if you give to the Director-General of National Service powers under these. Defence of the Realm Act Regulations he will issue all sorts of orders which people, in ignorance of the limitation of his power, will obey. His decrees will not be challenged as they ought to be challenged, and as they could be successfully challenged, and the result will be that you will create a dictator with powers unknown to this House. Should this Bill be eventually transformed, as has been suggested, into a compulsory Bill, you will have created in a person powers such as no monarch ever held or thought of holding. That may not be the intention of the House of Commons, or even of the Government at the present moment, but it is quite certain that if these words passed first of all unchallenged, and if they passed successfully through the criteria of the House of Commons, they would tend to create, not only in this Director-General, but in all other Director-Generals whom we may expect to come along after this one, powers which it would not only be very wrong to confer upon them, but which they could not usefully exercise. Therefore, I propose that the Director-General shall be limited, as he ought to be limited, to powers conferred upon him by Statute, "or such as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to him," and so forth.
Mr. R. MACDONALD: On a point of Order. I am not quite sure if my right hon. Friend has really considered the meaning of the words he proposes to leave out, and I would like to ask your ruling, Mr. Maclean. The words the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out are words which have this effect, that His Majesty may, by Order in Council, transfer to the new Director-General powers already enjoyed by Government Depart-
1916
ments, whether by Statute or otherwise. As a matter of fact, they do not mean-that powers not now enjoyed by Government Departments may be created by Statute or otherwise, and therefore the whole thing is retrospective, and if we are to strike at the extension of powers, the striking must take place further in the Clause. Consequently, if it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to carry out what he has just said, the Amendment he now moves does not effect his intention at all, and therefore, it would save the time of the Committee if that were understood. I would respectfully submit, in the form of a point of Order, that the Committee would like to save the time if they are not discussing a thing of substance.
Sir G. CAVE: I was going to point out as one reason against this Amendment the very consideration the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has put before the Committee. This particular Amendment does not touch the words under which new powers might be conferred upon the Director-General. The effect of it is only to prevent the transfer to the Director-General of National Service of powers which belong to other Departments, otherwise than by Statute. I do not know whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention. If it is, I will proceed with the argument.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: If I may say so, I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, and I think I ought to move an Amendment lower down in the Clause which would enable the Committee to have a much better discussion. In that case I should be prepared to withdraw my present Amendment, so as to enable the Amendment to come on in a later place. I do not know whether you; Mr. Maclean, will agree to that procedure?
Mr. PRINGLE: On the point of Order. In view of the fact that my Amendment could not be moved, and because of the meaningless Amendment which is now moved, will you consider your former ruling and allow me to move my Amendment?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not responsible for what takes place after I have given my ruling. If the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) will forgive me for saying so—whether he forgives me or not I shall still say it—I think his conduct is distinguished by disrespect to the Chair,

1917
and if I have to call the hon. Member's attention again to his conduct, I shall have to ask the Committee to take other steps, which I should very deeply regret. As to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, I am not prepared to give a ruling on this point against the right hon. Gentleman, as it seems to me to be a matter which is very much mixed up with the merits of the question.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: If the word "whether" is left out, will it cut out my subsequent Amendment?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall have a suggestion to make in regard to the next two Amendments.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: As long as I am assured that we shall not lose an opportunity of discussing this point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Leave to withdraw Amendment withheld; Amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the proper course to pursue now is for the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sir C. Seely) to move his second Amendment first. If that be carried, the words of his first Amendment would naturally follow.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly."
I propose this Amendment in order to carry out the promise made by the Home Secretary the other day, that this was a purely voluntary Bill, and was not intended to confer any compulsory powers. As to whether the words I wish to leave out will carry out the object I have in view, I am not quite certain. If this Amendment is agreed to, I shall afterwards move the insertion of the words
"other than any powers and duties conferred upon any such Department or authority by the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or the Ministry of Munitions Act, 1915, or any Act amending the same, or any Regulations made thereunder."
I think that proposal would confine this Bill to the duties at present existing, and it would prevent this measure being used to obtain for any Department any compul-
1918
sory powers, which, I understand, is not the object of the measure. We have already said enough in regard to the question of compulsory service, and I suggest these words to the Home Secretary as a means of carrying out his intention. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has put down another form of words to carry out his promise, and I shall be glad to hear what he has to say on this point.
Sir G. CAVE: I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet when he says that there should be no element of compulsion of labour in this Bill, and I have endeavoured to carry out my promise by the words which I have put on the Paper. If those words are adopted I, at all events, shall be satisfied that they will prevent any element of compulsory labour being introduced. They will so far govern the words which the hon. Baronet wishes to leave-out that there can be no risk of compulsion under this Bill. I prefer the form of words which I have put on the Paper to the omission of these words, because if they are omitted the omission will have another effect besides that which the hon. Baronet has in mind, for it would prevent us from conferring upon the Director-General of National Service any powers by future Regulations. I do not think the House wants that, and I am sure the country does not. The country is desirous that this Bill should pass. It is behind the Director of National Service in his excellent work, and the country would not desire the omission from this Bill of any of the objects which it is intended to secure. I am sure the country desires that the Director-General should have the full powers which are necessary for giving effect to the objects for which he was appointed. I quite accept the condition laid down by the hon. Baronet that words should be inserted to prevent any possibility of industrial compulsion, but I believe that the country wants the Director-General to have full powers. I feel sure the House has that object in view, and if so, it would be an error to strike out the words which the hon. Baronet has proposed to omit, and which are necessary to enable the Director-General to carry out his work.
Mr. SHORTT: I agree with the Home Secretary that so far as compulsion is concerned, the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman are better words, and that is a better way to deal with the matter. There are, however, other powers

1919
which may be conferred upon the Director General of National Service which might be much more insidious and dangerous. I should like to know how we are to guard against powers which do exist, and which might exist hereafter, and which would convert what is an industrial army really into a military army. The proposal today is to have a voluntary industrial army, but probably it will very shortly be turned into a compulsory industrial army. The idea is to organise it as a voluntary army, and if necessary apply compulsion to it afterwards. The powers given to the Director-General of National Service are such powers and duties as the Government Departments or other authorities already possess, and they are to exercise them concurrently, or in consultation with those Government Departments or other authorities concerned. One of the powers which exists at present is the power conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act on the War Office to try any sort or kind of offence by court-martial. I presume the Director. General will under these powers make regulations which will be binding on any voluntary member of the industrial army, and which will make him subject to punishment if he does not carry out the regulations. There will be regulations and specific orders for a breach of which any member of the industrial army may be subject to punishment. I want to know if there is to be the power to set up, in consultation with the War Office, courts-martial to try those offences?
Sir G. CAVE: No.
Mr. SHORTT: I think it is essential that we should keep the hand of the military from the industrial army, and I should like to know whether there really is any safeguard in this measure against any sort of punishment or trial for breach of regulations being dealt with in consultation with the military authorities by a military court-martial, or something equivalent to it, with all the shortcomings and evils of a military court-martial. I for one shall certainly strongly oppose anything that will lead to the introduction of the military hand in the regulation of an industrial army.
Mr. DILLON: I really do think we are entitled to have from the Home Secretary some indication of what is in the mind of the Government. I begin by recognising
1920
fully that his words, if adopted, would prevent the Government conferring compulsory powers to force anybody to take up any industry or to transfer anybody from any other industry. It is perfectly plain the Government have in their mind some large and important powers which I they are thinking of extending to the Director-General of National Service under this Bill by the Defence of the Realm Act. We must remember that it is an enormously elastic Act. I will put to the Committee, as practical propositions, one of two things, very far-reaching, which are quite likely to be in the mind of the Director-General. First of all, it is possible that he will seek power to close down any business that he thinks ought to be closed down. We are entitled to ask the Home Secretary if that is one of the powers to be conferred? Could anyone conceive a more tyrannical power to be placed in the hands of one man in the country than that he should be able to shut down and destroy the business of any man in the country? Of course, that would not in any way be prevented by this Clause against compulsion, although it would be a most formidable form of compulsion, because all the unfortunate men or women who were employés in that concern would be driven out into the streets, and be obliged to go and seek employment in some other industry.
Nothing would be more likely than that the Director-General would follow that up by saying that all men and women thrown out of non-essential employments should be compelled, if they took any other employment, to go into an essential employment. You would then have a complete system of compulsion without contravening the words of the Home Secretary at all. It would not be a general system of compulsion, but it would be used against great masses of workpeople. Men might starve if they thought fit, but if they wanted to earn their living they would have to take such employment as the Director-General directed. That would be quite consistent with the wording of this provision, and not only would it be consistent with the words proposed by the Home Secretary, but, honestly, I think it would be a very likely course of procedure, because it would enable the Director-General to bring into play, practically for all the purposes he wants, compulsion of the most stringent character. Anybody who has devoted any attention at all to the great social questions of the

1921
times knows that the wage system in this country very often works in bad times as a compulsory system of the cruellest character. What is the use of telling a man that he is free if he is only free to starve? He has to work for what he can get. I could construct out of this Bill, without infringing the words of the Home Secretary, an absolutely complete system of compulsion which could still be held up to the country as a voluntary system. That is one aspect of this question which makes me suggest that this Amendment should not be allowed to be withdrawn without a Division. I see in the Section power placed in the hands of the Government to bring about a well-constructed system of compulsion.
There is another aspect which to my mind is equally dangerous and equally probable. We all remember how dangerously near the Act which set up the Ministry of Munitions came to bringing about great strikes and labour complications, and we all remember the extremely stringent regulations imposed upon munition workers. What is more likely than that under this provision the whole labour of the country should be brought under the most stringent discipline, more stringent, if the Director-General so decrees, than is now applied to the great controlled establishments and munition works of the country? That, I think, is the proposal of the Government. They intend to bring the entire labour of the country under the strictest discipline, practically military discipline, and, make no mistake about it, they can do it under the Act in its present form without in the slightest degree being interfered with by the words which the Home Secretary proposes to insert. Therefore, I say that the House of Commons ought not to be led in blinkers, as on many occasions in the past, by appeals to duty and the fact that we are at war. We ought not to be led on in the dark to sanction legislation as to the scope and possibilities of which we have not the faintest notion. If we are to have military law, military practice, and military discipline applied as many men in this country have openly advocated—I do not agree with them because I think it would be disastrous, but there are hundreds and thousands of people who are very anxious to try it—to the whole labour of this country, and if we are to have compulsion, then, in the name of common sense, let us have the thing squarely set forth in the Bill which we have to consider, and let the
1922
House of Commons decide, because, after all, the House is supreme in these matters. Let it decide with its eyes open, knowing what it is doing, and whether it is going to submit to industrial compulsion or not.
Mr. W. ROCH: There will be a general feeling among those who have read this Clause of difficulty in understanding precisely what powers are given under the Clause and what the Amendment means, and I must say that the Home Secretary, who is a very distinguished lawyer, could throw a good deal of light on the matter and clear up any misunderstanding as to the effect of his Amendment if he would tell us quite clearly and frankly what are the powers which he wishes to preserve. It certainly does seem that the effect of his Amendment is to remove the power, without further legislation, of transferring compulsorily one man from one industry into another. As far as I can understand it, that is perfectly clear. But it is not clear to my mind what are the formidable powers which he obviously seeks to preserve under this Section. Does he, for instance, contemplate applying the terms of the Munitions Act, the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the powers given by the Section to the volunteers who come under it? If a man volunteers and goes to agriculture, will there be any power, such as the Disciplinary Code given by the Munitions Act, which can be applied to him? Will the other formidable penal powers, such as deportation, which are given by the Defence of the Realm Acts, be applicable to the people who have actually volunteered? I am not hostile to what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve, but let him make no mystery about this. Let him tell us frankly what are the powers which he seeks to preserve, and, if he does that. I do think that we shall make perfectly smooth progress and help him to secure the Bill.
Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to support what has been said. The important thing is that the Home Secretary should try to tell us what is in his mind and what the Government have in mind in regard to the very wide and vague powers mentioned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. This is supposed to be a scheme by which there can be a voluntary transfer of labour, accepted by the workpeople themselves, from less essential to more essential industries. If that is the scope of the scheme, what part is the Defence

1923
of the Realm Act going to play in it? It is highly important we should know before we agree to the passing of this Clause. I would like to point out that already increasingly industrial pressure has been applied to the workpeople even by Acts of Parliament which did not seem to apply anything in the way of industrial compulsion to them. The Military Service Acts have pressed even in the industrial sense upon the workpeople, and so have the Defence of the Realm Acts and, of course, the Munitions Act. All these Acts of Parliament have already affected the whole status of labour, worsening it in many respects, and before we continue that policy we want to know what part the Defence of the Realm Acts are going to play in this voluntary organisation. The least we have a right to ask from the Home Secretary is a clear explanation of the meaning of this Clause—how it can be used and for what purpose it can be used?
Mr. PRINGLE: It seems to me that the question we are discussing does not cover all that may be included in this Subsection. It is true that the main question which, on the Second Reading, raised the greatest anxiety was the question of compulsion as applied to labour. The powers given by this Sub-section possibly do not go the full length of compulsion, but they include power with regard to the closing down of industries over which, I think, this House should insist upon exercising control. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that his Amendment fairly meets the point regarding the compulsion of labour, but it is a very narrow Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It is to this effect:
"That no such Regulation shall authorise the compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry, occupation, or service."
7.0 P.M.
That simply means that no Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Acts will have that effect. But there are powers which may be transferred to the new Department from other Departments, and which may be quite as strongly compulsory in their character as any Regulations which might be issued under the Defence of the Realm Acts. You might, for example, by Order in Council, transfer to the new Ministry the powers which are at present exercised by the Minister of Munitions in respect of munition workers. You might do so under this Sub-section.
1924
Under Section 7 of the original Munitions Act the Ministry of Munitions can apply to any establishment in the country the Regulations in regard to leaving certificates. If, by Order in Council, you can confer that power on the Director-General of National Service then everybody who enlists under this scheme may be tied down to his job in the name way as the munition worker is tied down under Section V of the Munitions Act. I do not know whether the Committee remembers exactly the effect of that Section. Under it a man cannot leave his work without his employers assent. If his employer refuses assent he has to go to a tribunal to get a decision that that assent has been unreasonably withheld, and in that matter there is an appeal. There you have men literally tied to their occupation. Under this Section as it stands at present, even apart from the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Acts you can give a real binding power, and you may have what has been called by men under it "white slavery." It has been so described by munition workers. I know of a case which recently occurred, in which a man desired to take a foreman's place. Obviously, that would have been in the national interest. It surely must be to the national interest that a man should be employed as a foreman rather than as a journeyman. The employer, however, refused to give this man his leaving certificate. The man appealed to the tribunal, and that also refused the certificate. The matter went on appeal to a judge of the High Court by whom the refusal was confirmed, and that man was consequently deprived of the right to serve the country in a better position than he has been occupying. What has been the result? He has been compelled to go idle for six weeks in order that he may take the other job. He is, in fact, idle now. He is sacrificing a salary of £5 a week for six weeks so that he may take this better post. What we fear is that a similar state of things may obtain under this Bill.
It is all very well to talk of a minimum wage of 25s. a week, but surely what is aimed at is to make the best use of the men and women of this country, and, that at any rate being our object, we distrust these fancy proposals. It is extremely important that not only the new powers to be conferred under the Bill but also those to be transferred should be laid down by

1925
Act of Parliament, and not by Order in Council. That was the object of the Amendment I had on the Paper, an Amendment which was intended to raise this whole question. Unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity of moving it. But it does seem to me that the only way in which we can have proper security is to include all the powers to be conferred on the Minister in a Schedule to this Bill, and to set out also the powers that are to be transferred. We have had difficulties in other cases with regard to transferred powers. We know the result of going on these lines in the Bill which set up the Ministry of Munitions. We had similar troubles in other Bills, and in all cases these transfers of powers have produced the greatest confusion. It will be remembered that, in connection with the Bill creating the Ministry of Munitions, there were certain excursions and alarms about the Ordnance Department, and the attempt made to supersede General von Donop. But here we do not know what powers are going to be transferred, and, as a result, the whole thing is left in a state of confusion in which one Department will be fighting with another. The right hon. Gentleman said that the country desires to give the new Director of National Service full powers. But we do not know that he will have full powers under this Bill. Will he have full powers in relation to the War Office or in regard to the Admiralty, or in respect of agriculture? I do not think it is likely, and it is because I wish to have a clear definition on this point that I personally believe the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite would be acceptable in conjunction with one which the Government intend to propose later.
Mr. T. WILSON: If the Government wish the Bill to be a success I hope they will make quite clear what will be the position of working men and women under it. If they are in any doubt as to what their position is going to be when this Bill has been circulated in the country I think the right hon. Gentleman may rest satisfied that working people will not volunteer under the scheme. Perhaps it is part of the scheme that the Government do not want them to volunteer. If so, let them say so at once. Let the right hon. Gentleman come forward and say, "We must have compulsion." I would rather he did that openly than attempt to secure it by a backdoor system. Undoubtedly, in my opinion, the Munitions
1926
Act will apply to these men and women once they come into a national factory of any kind. I am told that men responsible for the scheme have declared that the cotton industry is not an essential industry. [An HON. MEMPER: "That is not so."] I am glad to get that disclaimer. Like other people, I want to see the Government make the best possible use of the labour of the country. At the same time, I want to see men and women working contentedly and not hanging back because they are in doubt as to what the Government intend to do. I am satisfied that when working men and women see all the cards on the table they will rise to the responsibility that rests upon them.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: We have had moderate and reasonable criticism upon this Clause. One or two very plain questions have been asked of the Home Secretary to which we should like to have a reply. Does he or does he not intend, by the Regulations which are to be passed under this Bill, to shut down industry? We have had no answer to that question, and I hope we may have a direct one.
Sir G. CAVE: I can give a direct answer, and will give the best I can to the various questions that have been put to me. I do not think it was quite fair for the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) to suggest that the Government do not wish this Bill to be a success. Why are we pressing it on the House? Why is Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and why are many of us, giving up our time in making appeals all over the country in order to press this voluntary scheme on the public?
Mr. WILSON: I did not suggest that.
Sir G. CAVE: I will attempt to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Shortt), who raised a very ingenious plea, and suggested that the Bill was going to authorise the National Director to hold courts-martial in order to try volunteers under the scheme. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made that suggestion, I should have thought it perfectly absurd. Any powers which the Director will have will be transferred to him by Orders in Council, and is it possible to conceive an Order in Council authorising the Director of National Service, under a voluntary scheme, to hold a court-martial upon anyone for not carrying out a voluntary undertaking—an under-

1927
taking which every man is at liberty to break if he chooses! I said that on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. SHORTT: But will he be at liberty to break Regulations while remaining a volunteer?
Sir G. CAVE: He will be at liberty to leave the service whenever he likes.
Mr. SHORTT: But will he be at liberty to commit offences by breaking the Regulations while remaining a volunteer?
Sir G. CAVE: We rely on the honour of the volunteer, and on the honour of the employer, to carry out their respective promises, and it is quite absurd to suggest that, under an arrangement of that kind, there could be such a thing as a court-martial for not carrying out the terms of the undertaking. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is a persistent opponent of this Bill, the Second Reading of which, I would remind him, was passed without a Division. He has suggested that under the Bill a man might be compelled to take any employment which the Director-General of National Service approved. That is not so. There is no such element of compultion in the Bill, and I say, without fear of contradiction, that no such thing could take place under this Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo made as his second point that military discipline might be introduced into the working of the scheme. Again I say it cannot be done. You cannot read" that into it. Then there has been the question of deportation raised. I do not think that is possible.
Mr. PRINGLE: Constituents of mine have been deported.
Mr. ANDERSON: They were deported on the Clyde.
Sir G. CAVE: I thought the reference of the hon. Member was to deportations from the country. It has never occurred to anyone that we should give the Director any such power. It would be wholly outside his function, and no one dreamt of such a thing.
Mr. ROCH: And will he have any penal powers under the Munitions Act?
Sir G. CAVE: Not so far as I understand it. Certain powers are given to the Minister of Munitions under the Munitions Act, but I am sure no one dreams
1928
of transferring penal powers to the National Director under this. Bill. I do not know how to meet these objections in any other way than I have already done. When introducing the Bill I described the scheme as purely voluntary. We propose to give the Director of National Service authority to invite applications from fellow subjects to give voluntary service. We propose to give him power to accept such applications, and to transfer those who are prepared to give up their present occupations, which we assume to be non-essential, to some other occupation in which they can render greater service to the country. That is the whole purpose and object of this Bill, and it will be made effective by my Amendment, which I hope to move later on. If anyone can suggest better words for that Amendment, I shall be extremely glad to consider them. But I wish to say plainly there is nothing in the Bill, as I understand it, which would enable the National Director, even if he so desired, to compel anyone to give service which he was not willing to give.
Mr. R. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us positively what powers he wishes to transfer and what type of cases he proposes to deal with?
Sir G. CAVE: I think the hon. Member knows the powers referred to—powers such as are exercised by the Food Controller—and exercised, as I believe, to the satisfaction of the country. It may be that the Director of National Service may find it desirable to exercise similar powers. I do not want to limit myself as to the powers that may be transferred within the provisions of the Bill, but I will give an instance. I believe there is power already to limit the employment of new labour only in certain industries, and it may be that exactly the same type of power ought to be vested in the Director of National Service. He would be the proper person to make regulations of that kind. It is he who, after having reviewed the-whole field of available labour and knowing where it is most wanted, would be able to say, "I want no more men to go into that industry, because I hold it is non-essential, and I require it for another industry." That is the type of power which ought to be given to the Director-General. Everything will be governed by the words of my Amendment—that is to say, that no Regulation can be made under

1929
the Bill which shall authorise the compulsory employment of any person in any industry or compel the transfer of any person from one industry to another. I hope I have given a direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I must add that I hold these words to be essential to the success of the Bill, and I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have listened to the Debates on the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill, and it appears to me that the point raised by this Amendment is by far the most important that has yet been touched upon. The Committee is obliged to consider this Bill not only in relation to the scheme which the Director-General of National Service has laid before the country, but also in relation to other plans that may subsequently be made. In doing that, I am sure none of us desire in any way to depreciate the efforts of Mr. Chamberlain or to cast doubt upon his success. Mr. Chamberlain has undertaken a most difficult task with great courage and great energy, and I am sure all of us must desire the fullest success to attend 'his measures. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), who holds a very important position as a member of the War Cabinet, spoke in this House a few nights ago and informed the House of the steps that he would find himself obliged to take if further voluntary assistance failed, and directed the attention of the House to the other measures that would thereupon have to be taken by the Government and the position that he himself would assume in the presence of Parliament. The Home Secretary has completely disposed of any fear that this Bill can be used for what is ordinarily termed industrial compulsion—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—by the terms of the Amendment which he has put down, which definitely, specifically, and in language that cannot be misunderstood, declares that there shall be no compulsion on any individual to enter any employment. It has hitherto been assumed that the alternative to a voluntary scheme, such as that which Mr. Neville Chamberlain has proposed to the nation, is compulsory industrial service on the lines that have been adopted in the case of compulsory military service. It has been assumed that, as the nation has been obliged to say to individuals, "You shall serve the State as soldiers in such-and-
1930
such a unit, or in such-and-such a capacity," it may conceivably be compelled to say in the future to individuals, "You shall serve the State as a workman in such-and-such a trade and under such-and-such an employer." The right hon. Gentleman has distinctly shown that this Bill, with this Amendment, cannot be used for such a purpose.
I have never thought, and do not now think, that these are the only two alternatives. There is a third course—you might restrict the unnecessary industries. Instead of telling the workman "you shall serve as a soldier," you might prohibit the employer in an unessential trade from employing any labour or from employing as much labour as he has hitherto done. That is the point which has been raised very clearly by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who has asked whether the words of the Bill as they stand would allow the Director-General of National Service to suppress particular employments or to restrict particular employments. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, told us that the Government did not intend to suppress particular employments, even though they might be unessential trades for the purposes of the War. He gave us two reasons, saying, in the first place, that it would be necessary to have those industries after the War, that if you closed them down you might ruin them, and that it would be difficult for them to start again; and, in the second place, that it would turn out of employment individuals who might, through age or incapacity for other employment, be unable to rind work, and who consequently might be left destitute. I think he gave us one or two other reasons as well. Those reasons appear to be sound. You would not be able to suppress industries altogether, even if they are unessential, but the question does remain whether you cannot and whether you ought not to restrict industries which are unessential, to prohibit employers from employing the same amount of labour as they have done hitherto, and then to leave the workpeople who thereupon quit those industries freely to find their way, on such terms as they can themselves obtain, into the War industries upon which the success of our cause depends. I speak for myself alone when I say that.
I agree that that policy is the right policy. It is not defensible in a time of War, when the nation is put to the stress

1931
under which it is now living, to let trades go on producing confectionery, producing jewellery, producing lace, producing all kinds of fripperies, using up labour that is essentially needed in other industries. While Rome is burning, we not only allow people to go on fiddling, but we allow them to be employed still in the manufacture of fiddles. You ought, in my view, to restrict industries. At present the restriction is purely haphazard and very unequal. Some trades are restricted by the lack of raw material imported from abroad, the importation of which is to be prohibited on account of tonnage difficulties. That may hit, quite casually and accidentally, one of the trades which is essential and leave untouched another industry which is quite unessential. You may have one employer with a number of men of military age and fitness, and you may find that particular business almost destroyed by their withdrawal, whereas another employer, engaged in the same trade near by, who happens to employ persons over military age and who are not physically fit for military service, who is able to go on almost untouched. At present the restriction of industry is quite haphazard and unequal. It ought to be put upon a satisfactory footing in a deliberate and scientific fashion.
There are two conditions which ought to prevail in the adoption of any policy of this kind: One is that the decision ought not to be left to a single individual. It is too great a power, dealing with too difficult and complicated matters, to be left to the discretion of a single individual. For this purpose there ought to be a strong Commission, fully representative of the industries and interests of the country, which should advise or co-operate with the Director-General of National Service in the execution of a policy such as that. The second condition is that Parliament ought to be fully apprised of it and that the consent of Parliament should be given. A grave matter of that kind ought not to be, done accidentally or surreptitiously. I am sure that the Government would not have any such desire. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, it is our duty to ask him, and to do so not out of hostility to this Bill, because I favour this Bill, and not out of any hostility to the policy we have been discussing, because I have declared myself a supporter of it—it is our duty, as representatives of the people, to know whether
1932
a large departure of that kind is contemplated and whether the powers would exist within the four corners of this Bill, if it is passed as proposed by the Government, to carry out a policy of that character. The point was specifically put by the hon. Member for East Mayo, but it was not, I think, quite clearly answered by the Home Secretary, and I feel sure that there are many members of the Committee who would desire to know clearly how the House stands and how the country stands in that particular regard.
Mr. THOMAS: I am not quite sure how far the arguments of the, right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) are in order upon this particular Amendment. If they are in order, I should like to say that his particular scheme might have been introduced in the Military Service Act rather than in this Bill, because all the difficulties he has pointed out arose out of the Military Service Act as distinct from this Bill. I want to put a question to the Home Secretary with regard to his statement that every man is free to leave the employment on the day after or the very day he arrives in it. The Home Secretary must have forgotten that that cannot possibly happen in a munition factory, because if a volunteer is put in a munition factory and, according to the statement we have just heard, he is free to leave the day after he arrives, the difficulty we shall have in a munitions factory will be that one set of employés are working under the Munitions Act, and will be compelled to obtain leaving certificates, while the volunteers will be free to leave the next day.
Sir G. CAVE: Of course, I did not mean that. A volunteer who accepts the conditions of employment will be bound by the conditions of that employment like any other man who voluntarily joins it.
Mr. THOMAS: I naturally assumed that that was so, because the position otherwise would be absolutely untenable. I would ask the Home Secretary what is the real objection to the deletion of these words? He has told the Committee what is not intended. I submit to him that it would clear the Debate considerably if we could have a definite statement from him as to why it is necessary to have these words at all. If this voluntary scheme is going to be successful—I hope it will be successful—it can only be so because of the spirit in which "it is accepted in the country. If there is a suspicion of ulterior motives, and that industrial compulsion

1933
can be introduced, I am absolutely certain that it will fail at the outset. It is because I want it to be a success that I would ask the Home Secretary to make perfectly clear what is the objection to the deletion of these words?
Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSON: I should not have intervened had it not been for a word which fell from the late Home Secretary. Coming fresh from the country and having heard the views of men of every class, I am exceedingly anxious that this voluntary scheme should pass through the House and become law. But I can assure the Home Secretary that unless ho and the Government are careful to state, in quite explicit terms that there is to be no form of compulsion and that military principles are not to be introduced into this measure it is bound to fail. It is not all to the advantage of the Government, or of this Bill, that Mr. Neville Chamberlain has not a seat in this House. The country is getting very fidgety respecting the manner in which men are being nominated for the highest positions and yet are not responsible in any direct fashion, except through Under-Secretaries, to the forms of this House, so that Members of the House can get at the Minister who is responsible. There is another very great danger. There is in the minds of a good many people a feeling that the terms "Controller" and "Dictator" are synonymous. If there is a term that the country dislikes—it dislikes the thing and it dislikes the name—it is the term "Dictator." Therefore I suggest that having the confidence, as they have—and I believe this Government has the confidence of the country—having been built up as it has been as one solid unit during the last two and a half years, unless they are very careful, on account of the very line they are taking now, unless they state in explicit terms that there is to be no compulsion, they are going to destroy the unity that at present obtains in the country.
I should like to put a question or two to the Home Secretary. I should like to ask whether, under the terms of this Bill, Mr. Neville Chamberlain will have power to close down a business of this sort1? A gentleman, wrote to me on Friday and came to see me on Saturday. He said, "I want a straight answer. Do you think my trade is an essential or a non-essential trade? If you believe it is non-essential and think it is likely to be shut down, I will make arrangements for shutting it
1934
down straight away." He is a miller and corn merchant of thirty years' standing in a large colliery and manufacturing area, supplying a radius of eight miles, with a population of 500,000. The only other mills in the same area are one five miles north-west and one eight miles east. His turnover is £140,000 a year, and he supplies a thousand 10-stone sacks of flour weekly to co-operative societies, bakers, and grocers, and 100 tons of corn and cattle feeding stuffs a week to fifteen collieries. Here is a letter sent to him by the managing director of a neighbouring colliery, the son of an old and respected Member of this House. He says:
"Dear Sir—I sincerely trust that you are keeping a sufficient number of men to do the necessary work in connection with supplying of fodder to our pits. It would be a very difficult thing at the present, time, if not impossible, to make new arrangements similar to the contract made with you some four or five years ago for the supply of foodstuff's, and it would be a very serious matter indeed for this company if these arrangements were to break down. As you are aware, the Government are continually pressing for an increased output of coal, and this cannot be done unless the horses are kept in first-class condition, so J trust you will fully realise the importance of doing everything possible to keep up the supplies of corn and fodder in accordance with the arrangements made with you."
The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman is, "Is that an essential trade? Has the Food Controller power to shut that industry down?" Another gentleman called at my place last night and brought me a large swede turnip, which had been half-eaten away by a hare. He said there was an acre of these swede turnips all eaten in the same fashion by hares.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would not come in on the present Amendment. We are not dealing with hares now.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I merely wish to ask this question. There are five gamekeepers on the estate protecting the hares which are destroying food, and there are 20,000 of them in this country. Is that industry essential?
Mr. R. MACDONALD: I should like to come back to the specific point of the Amendment before us, which is whether these words conferring powers on the Director-General by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, are necessary or not? That is a specific point that we have got a very long way not only in the discussion of, but, I think, in the settlement of. I should like to begin where it was left off and see if we cannot get something further. I rather

1935
object to the idea that we who are taking most interest in this and who have made speeches which have all had substance in them, are delaying the Bill. There has been no superfluous language and there has been no attempt to delay the Bill, but we want to get information about the intentions of the Government. Our fear is that, whilst undoubtedly it will be necessary to endow the Director-General with certain powers which will enable him to make his office efficient, the powers that we are endowing him with, if these words remain in, are so wide that if he adds anything at all, except subject to the specific pledges that the right hon. Gentleman has given, he would be within the four corners of this Bill. I quite agree that the instance given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newcastle, seem to be rather extreme, but whilst the setting up of courts-martial was an extreme instance, undoubtedly it could be done under the terms of this Bill. We will not dispute that. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will dispute that under the Defence of the Realm Regulations regarding the punishment of workers could be issued, and those Regulations would immediately have the force of law, and workers could be made subject to them in an ordinary Court of Law. I do not know if the Home Secretary remembers the first Clause in this document which these volunteers signed when they signify their intention of being volunteers. It is this:
"I hereby agree by my signature on the other side of tins form to attend when summoned for an interview at a National Service office near my home, and if required, on receiving seven days' notice, to undertake whole-time work of national importance in the employment of any Government Department, or other employer named by the Director-General of National Service, and to remain in such employment during the War or for such shorter period as may be required by him in accordance with the following conditions."
That is the overruling condition of service under this voluntary scheme. If a man says, "I am prepared to serve the Government during the War, and I am prepared to put myself in the hands of the Government and take instructions from it which will compel me to serve any private employer named by the Director-General during the War,'' we are afraid that the necessary supplements of punishment and authority will be taken by the Director-General by the issue of Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. Has the Government any intention of supplementing this very
1936
binding declaration which the volunteer subscribes? He certainly has the power if the Clause stands as it is.
Mr. ROCH: The Home Secretary told me quite specifically that there was no power, and that he did not wish to put penalties on these volunteers under the Defence of the Realm Act under the powers given by this Bill.
Mr. MACDONALD: in any event, if there is any misunderstanding it is much better that it should be cleared up. I really think I am right even should the Home Secretary have said something which seems to point in a contrary direction. There is the situation. You have people who volunteer. The act of volunteering is absolutely an act of their own volition. You do not compel them to subscribe to this, but having subscribed to this document, what is their relation to the Government? They have bound themselves to do certain things. They have bound themselves to serve in a certain way. There is a whole series of questions that they answer which are all embodied in that declaration, and become part and parcel of the conditions of service which they accept, and having accepted which, so far as the words are concerned, it becomes compulsion. It is that you voluntarily take upon yourselves duties which in themselves once voluntarily undertaken become compulsory in their operation. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman and I wanted to make an agreement, and I say to him, "I am prepared voluntarily of my own free will to serve you for the next twelve months," I should not object if he said to me, "Whilst I trust in your honour absolutely, and I know there Mill be no question arising between us, nevertheless I think you will agree that I am entitled to say if you do not carry out your word, especially when it is made under the conditions of this contract, I shall have some method of recovering damages or even perhaps of punishing you." Surely the Home Secretary will not deny that under the Defence of the Realm Act a Regulation can be issued that those who have come under this scheme, and who have taken upon themselves this responsibility, shall be subject to this, that and the other punishment and conditions of labour. So far as the power is concerned, I am still of the opinion that the power is in the Bill we are now discussing and in the words we are trying to keep out. So far as

1937
the intention of the Government is concerned, I do not know. That is what we want the Home Secretary to make a little clear. Does the Government intend to issue Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act which will implement and make specific the real responsibility which a person takes upon himself when he signs this document? Do they intend to use the powers in these words, "Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act," and that those powers shall be those which they will exercise when they are closing businesses? I think we ought to have a very definite statement on that. They may not want to close businesses—in fact, the Home Secretary has said they do not want to do that.
Mr. WATT: He is not Mr. Neville Chamberlain.
Mr. MACDONALD: I am going to assume that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Director-General of National Service. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is not the intention of the Director-General to close up nonessential businesses, but that the intention is to limit their scope, so that they will not be guilty of wasting labour that might be used in essential industries. I think that was the gist of his statement. I want to know whether Regulations are going to be issued under the Defence of the Realm Act to enable them to do that. These are tremendously big powers which, even at a time like this, for the safeguarding of the national interests, ought not to be transferred to the Director-General or to a Department. In any event we ought to retain such powers in our hands as will enable us to revise, consider and decide upon finally the particular method adopted to carry out the powers given in this Bill. In these words we transfer these great powers without any chance of checking or revising the decision of the Director-General. The final point I want to make is that the Defence of the Realm Act has undoubtedly been used in ways that it was not intended to be used when it was moved first as a Bill by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now sits on this side of the House. Those who remember those early days will remember that the Bill was rushed through this House. I do not blame the Government. The House of Commons gave them powers which they have been exercising. But I
1938
do say now that this House must retain in its own grasp such tremendous authority as these, which will enable one man or one Department or one body of officials to open businesses or to close businesses—in fact, to liberate labour, so that labour thus liberated must turn to the making of wages, and the only way it can make wages is to go into certain industries scheduled as being essential by the Director General. The two points I want made clear are these: first, as to punishment and labour conditions that may be imposed under the Defence of the Realm Act; and, secondly, what is really the intention of the Government as far as these powers are concerned? Are they going to use them for the purpose of limiting non-essential industries or closing industries altogether when the Director-General makes up his mind to do so?
Sir W. COLLINS: Like the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member who spoke before the hon. Member for Leicester, I also have been in recent relations with my Constituents, and I desire to join in the appeal made to the Home Secretary to accept the form of Amendment which is before the Committee rather than the form of words which the Home Secretary appears to prefer. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken more than once of the fact that this Bill received a Second Heading without any serious opposition. I cannot help thinking that that was achieved largely because of the wise discretion of the right hon. Gentleman in discounting the apprehension that then seemed to exist that there was compulsion contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, "The fear seems to be that some kind of compulsion may be introduced into the Bill by some side wind." In the country, and especially in the town of Derby, I have found an apprehension in regard to two points of this Bill. There is an apprehension as to the great powers that are to be entrusted to a single individual, and there is apprehension lest compulsion, directly or indirectly, may be contained in the terms of this Bill. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman was rebuked in one leading periodical for the timidity with which he dealt with some of the objections raised in this House on the Second Reading. I rather congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the wise action and the prudence he then exercised, and I would beg of him to proceed one step further in that

1939
wise precaution by accepting the Amendment in the form in which it has been proposed, which will, I trust, in no way invalidate the success of the Bill, but will, at any rate, serve to allay some of the apprehension which still exists. I beg of him as one who has come to this House to support His Majesty's Government in the prosecution of the War, and as a friend of this Bill, not to turn a deaf ear to the appeals that have been made from various hon. Members to discount any apprehension by accepting the Amendment.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I am not quite sure whether the objection of the Home Secretary to my Amendment, which is in two parts, is to the part which is now under discussion, namely, to leave out the words "Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914," or to the latter part, not yet moved, to take out the words "no powers shall be conferred on him under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or any subsequent amendment of that Act." He and I want exactly the same thing, and I think practically all of us want the same thing, and that is, we want to be quite certain that there shall be no industrial compulsion brought in, so to speak, by a side wind. Of course, everybody likes his own baby the best, but when I saw my right hon. Gentleman's baby I was not sure whether it did not carry out the intention, rather better than my own. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would make clear the point which has risen it would do away with much of our discussion. That point is, that although he has no power to compel anybody to work, the Director-General may have power to close up industries on such a scale as to throw a large number of people out of work, and they would be obliged, if they wished to live, to go into other industries. I feel sure that he has no wish to do that, but I should be glad, and I think the Committee would be glad, if the Home Secretary could adopt some form of words, either on this Clause or later in the Bill, by which he could make it clear that the Director-General should not have that big power of closing industries. The right hon. Gentleman said that he only wishes to limit them. We want to be sure that he cannot close industries on a large scale without any reference to Parliament; and that there is no risk of industries being closed rashly and on a very
1940
large scale, so as to throw large numbers of people out of work, and, therefore, practically to bring compulsion into the Bill. If these points are cleared up I should be in favour of withdrawing my Amendment and accepting the words of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir G. CAVE: I have listened with interest to the speeches made on this point, including the speech of the hon. Member (Sir W. Collins) whom we are very glad to see back again. I feel that these words are so vital to the Bill that I cannot possibly give them up. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a speech to which I listened with much interest, as to the necessity of having some power to restrict unimportant industries, and, if need be, actually to close them down; well, perhaps, not to close them down. I said in my previous speech that there is no intention of closing them down. I do not think there need be any misapprehension as to the authority by whom so stringent a power as that will be exercised. The Regulation now under consideration will be made by Order in Council on the authority of and after consideration by the whole Cabinet. It will not be an Order made by one individual. On a matter of such importance the right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that no such drastic step as he contemplates would be taken except by authority of the Cabinet. I think that is the best guarantee that can be given, because the Cabinet is responsible to this House for every act it does. The only other point is the question as to the transference of labour. The volunteer who comes under this Bill, and who is transferred to a particular employment, is subject to the conditions existing for service in that employment. He may be a weekly employé, and in some cases he is employed under certain special conditions. Those, of course, are contractual conditions, or conditions which by law are imported into his contract. There is not the least desire to impose upon him any other compulsion but that. If a penalty were put upon him for something outside those conditions, I should have no hesitation in saying that that would be a form of compulsion which would be a breach of the condition which I propose to put into the Bill. I hope I have answered that question.
Mr. THOMAS: Docs that mean that whatever the conditions existing in the industry which the volunteer joins, those

1941
conditions will be the conditions, and no other, that will govern the employment of the individual?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
8.0.P.M.
Mr. HOGGE: I do not think we have got to such a stage in the proceedings that we can come to a decision. I am not satisfied—indeed, I am not beginning to be satisfied—with the explanation offered from the Front Bench, and I will tell my right hon. Friend why. We have been so long accustomed to hear similar promises given from that bench which amounted to nothing. In connection with the recruiting of soldiers for the Army we were told, for instance, that men who were running single-men businesses were not to be taken into the Army, and pledges were given from that bench, dealing both with the Army and with the trade of this country, which, as this Committee knows perfectly well, were torn up within a few weeks of their having been given. Therefore, I am not inclined—and I tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly—to take promises from that bench. The only thing that will satisfy me is a definite statement in the Bill in words which cannot be misunderstood. We have had support for the Home Secretary's argument from the late Home Secretary, who has no right to come to his support on this question, because he was as great a sinner with regard to that as the present Government. The hon. Member for Leicester, a few moments ago, drew attention to the document which I am now holding in my hand. I desire to draw attention to a sentence in it which seems to me to impose conditions that are not governed by what the Home Secretary says. The fourth paragraph says:
"Any question arising on these terms and conditions shall be decided by a Commissioner or other person authorised to act by the Director-General assisted by assessors representing employers and employes, and I agree to accept his decision as final and binding on me by my signature on the other side."
What does that mean? We were told a moment ago that if a man signed the paper and went to any of the occupations mentioned in this Schedule he was free, if he so eared, to leave that service if he found it did not suit him. Inside the circular you will find a list of twenty trades for which volunteers are specially wanted. Among them you get such trades as aeroplane construction, explosive factories, munition works, national shell factories, national filling factories, and so on. Does the Under-Secretary for the Home Office
1942
(Mr. Brace) mean to say that a man who signs this can go to one or other of the occupations in this list and leave that occupation next day? That is what the Home Secretary told us less than half an hour ago. Can the hon. Member say whether that is true or not? If he has not got the document he can apply to any post office and get a copy of the document for which he is responsible Can my hon. Friend answer that perfectly plain, simple question?
The CHAIRMAN: I really think that this is in the nature of repetition. That question has been asked and answered by the Home Secretary, who said that the person would be under the conditions now existing in the industry which was concerned, and the hon. Member must have been absent, I think.
Mr. HOGGE: No, with due respect, I remember him saying exactly what you have repeated now. But he also said, when you were not in the Chair——
The CHAIRMAN: I was in the Chair when the answer was given to the question which I have just repeated. The hon. Member is now reverting to something which was corrected later on.
Mr. HOGGE: I did not understand. If, with your longer knowledge of the House than mine, you say that what was said in the second case was a contradiction of what he said the first time, of course it is not true that a man who signs that document can leave his occupation if he wishes. Therefore if that is true, this is not a voluntary scheme, because once he has signed this and been sent to one of these occupations he comes under the conditions which apply to the people in those industries, and there is nothing to prevent those conditions being applied even under the words which the Home Secretary suggests in his Amendment. I am glad to have it made clear that the second statement was right and that the first was entirely wrong and misleading, and that it does mean that once a man has signed that he is committed to any of those national industries under the conditions that exist. Now, with regard to paragraph 4. What does it mean? It says that the man is to be brought before some body set up by the Director-General, consisting of employers and employés, and that their decision with regard to that man is to be final. Does my hon. Friend intend to get the opinion of the

1943
employés in that industry upon the action which that man wishes to take? For instance, supposing a man went into a munitions factory the Munitions Acts would apply. But there are no employés taken into account in determining what may or may not happen to that man inside a munitions factory. Are you going to set up a new Court? If so, what kind of Court? It is obvious you must have some idea in your head as to the tribunal, over and above the conditions which are going to apply to the particular trade, as to what kind of Court is going to deal with this particular man who signs as a volunteer. The Committee is entitled to know whether, if a man goes, say, to munitions work, he will go before the ordinary munitions tribunal, and the decision of that tribunal will be final or binding, or whether this document which he signs gives him an opportunity of going before a different Court altogether, one that is created for the purpose of the Bill.
Mr. BRACE: I do net know whether I am in order in attempting to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend. He is a most ingenious controversialist. He has been here, and he has heard the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has been told in the most explicit terms that the agreement is an agreement which was made by the man voluntarily undertaking to serve the nation at the works engaged upon work of national importance, at the request of the
Director, and by the way he has entered into the industry upon the same terms and conditions as the other people in the industry. If he wants to leave he will give the ordinary notice, and he will leave. I should assume myself that any man who left would be guilty of a serious breach of honour, for he has voluntarily agreed to place his services at the disposal of the State, and it is expected that he will be honourable enough to carry through his undertaking, exactly as the other people who were engaged in the industry. But should any question arise as to the terms of the contract, as set forth in the document, then that authority will be set up to deal with the terms of the contract, and no one knows that better than my hon. Friend. I do hope now that we may be allowed to proceed.
Mr. ANDERSON: On the lines on which the Bill has been explained I cannot find any reason for bringing in the Defence of the Realm Act in regard to these matters. These powers are very wide, and as they can be applied in various ways under this Bill and as no convincing reason has been given by the Home Secretary as to the retention of this part of the Clause, if I can get anyone to tell with me, I shall be obliged to divide against that part of the Bill."
Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 47.

Division No. 4.]

AYES.

[8.13 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

Hinds, John

Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

Craig, Col, James (Down, E.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Armitage, R.

Craik, Sir Henry

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Baldwin, Stanley

Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hunt, Major Rowland

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Denniss, E. R. B.

Illingworth, Albert H.

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barrie, H. T.

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Fell, Arthur

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

Bentham, George Jackson

Fletcher, John Samuel

Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Foster, Philip Staveley

Kellaway, Frederick George

Boyton, James

Galbraith, Samuel

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Grant, James Augustus

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Brunner, John F. L.

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gretton, John

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Malcolm, Ian

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Clyde, James Avon

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nield, Herbert

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuels, Arthur W.

Tickler, T. G.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Valentia, Viscount

Perkins, Walter Frank

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Weigall, William E. G. A.

Pratt, J. W.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Weston, J. W.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Starkey, John Ralph

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Stewart, Gershom

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wolmer, Viscount

Robinson, Sidney

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Rowlands, James

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Rutherford, Sir John (Lanes., Darwen)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Rutherford, Watson (W. Derby)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Beck and Mr. James Hope

Salter, Arthur Clavell

NOES.

Adamson, William

Hudson, Walter

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Arnold, Sydney

John, Edward Thomas

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Boland, John Pius

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rowntree, Arnold

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Jowett, Frederick William

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Chancellor, Henry George

Joyce, Michael

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Clynes, John R.

Keating, Matthew

Snowden, Philip

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

King, Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cosgrave, James

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Thomas, James Henry

Crumley, Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Wardle, George J.

Dillon, John

Lundon, Thomas

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Doris, William

Millar, James Duncan

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Hackett, John

Nuttall, Harry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Leary, Daniel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hogge, James Myles

Pringle, William M. R.

Anderson and Mr. Watt

Holt, Richard Durning

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), at the end, to insert the words "but no such Regulation shall authorise the compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry, occupation, or service."
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to point out to the Committee that the Amendment on the Paper does not completely carry out the undertaking given by the Government. The general undertaking given by the Government was to the effect that there would be no compulsory employment or transfer of any person to any other area, occupation, or service; but in this Amendment upon the Paper there is the simple statement that it shall not be done. The Clause refers to Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and it might yet be done under those powers. That is why it is important that we should receive some real indication of what is intended on this point. I and my hon. Friends the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno), Sir F. Banbury, Member for the City, and the hon. and gallant Member for Mansfield (Colonel Sir Charles Seely) have an Amendment on the Paper as follows: "Provided that the powers of the Director-General shall not in any event extend to authorise compulsion of any person to work under any employer other than the employer with whom he has made a volun-
1946
tary contract of service." If the Government in their Amendment, instead of using the words "but no such Regulation shall authorise" had used the words "the powers of the Director-General shall not authorise compulsory employment," that would have been absolutely watertight, and no exception would have been taken. I cannot understand why the Government should confine itself to this formula, "No such Regulation" when they could have used the wider term which is in the Amendment to which I have referred as standing in the name of several hon. Members.
Mr. WATT: On the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), I. think there has been a breach of the pledge that was given by the Government, again and again, that compulsion will not be brought in under this measure. That promise was made to my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), and to others, and that is the principle which is now proposed to be carried out by this Amendment, moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office. But I suggest that it does not fully carry out what was definitely promised. The phraseology of this Amendment is that "no such Regulation shall authorise the compulsory employment," etc. To-what Regulation does that Amendment apply? Clearly it applies to the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act,

1947
1914, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed Out, this Amendment simply continues compulsion under the Defence of the Realm Act. Notwithstanding the adoption of this Amendment by the Committee, it will be possible to have industrial compulsion under this measure, though the promise has been given again and again by the Home Secretary, and is not now being fulfilled. May I say that the Home Secretary is adopting, in my view, a most wily method. He has been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol and others, again and again, whether it is the intention of the Government to close down any trades? That is a definite question, and the trades must know in a few weeks whether they are to be closed or not, and why can they not know now? The right hon. Gentleman has avoided that. We have here another instance of where, having made a definite promise in appearing to fulfil it he has not done so.
Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "such," in order to insert instead thereof the words "Order in Council or."
I quite agree with the effect of what has been said, but not with all the things the two preceding hon. Members have said. It is quite clear the Amendment, as proposed, is only partial and only refers to the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, and that it is necessary also to deal with Orders in Council. Under the document which a man signs he has an appeal to a tribunal composed of a Commissioner and two assessors. The matter is to be in the hands of the Commissioner, who will be appointed, I suppose, by the Director-General himself. One assesor is nominated by the employer and the other by the employés. If they differ the Commissioner's decision prevails, and if they agree, and the Commissioner does not agree with them, their agreement matters nothing, and he decides in spite of them. In the Munitions Act, the first objection of the trade unions was that the assessors had no power. It was an Amendment which I moved to that Act which gave power to the assessors, when they agreed, to overrule the Commissioners. That provision does not appear in this Bill, and makes a difference which puts the volunteer under this Act
1948
in a worse position than people in munition factories. I understand the Amendment will be accepted.
Mr. BRACE: I was very sorry to hear the speeches of the two hon. Members (Mr. Pringle and Mr. Watt), and also the acceptance of the conclusion by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss).
Mr. HOGGE: It shows his common sense.
Mr. BRACE: In the absence of the Home Secretary I do dissent very strongly from the idea that the Home Secretary intended at all to deceive or to bring out words that would not fully carry out the undertaking and pledge which he gave to the House.
Mr. DENNISS: I never said that.
Mr. BRACE: We thought, in considering the words of our Amendment, that we were meeting, fully meeting, the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and it is because we do not desire, and my right hon. Friend does not desire, that there should be the faintest suspicion behind these words, that we accept the words now proposed.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "or shall impose any penalty for any breach of a voluntary agreement made by any person with the Director-General of National Service."
This is also to give effect to a Government pledge, and to embody in the Bill the restrictive value of the pledge. Now that the Government is putting certain pledges into the Bill, it is very important that they should all receive equal authority. The Home Secretary gave the pledge quite distinctly that there would be no penalty imposed by Regulation on any person for a breach of the undertaking. Instead of having that embedded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I submit it should be placed in the Bill, and the words I have selected seem to me to adequately express the matter.
Mr. BRACE: I think my hon. Friend has really rather put down this Amendment in a spirit of mischief than seriously. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given a very full undertaking in the amended Amendment, and, in the circumstances, I cannot accept this further Amendment.
Mr. HOGGE: I do not mind the Government turning an Amendment down it they give us a sufficient reason for doing so, but for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to get up and suggest that he does not accept an Amendment because an hon. Member of this House, who, after all, represents a large munition area crowded with munition workers, with whom the Government have had great trouble in the past, is supposed to have put this Amendment down in a spirit of mischief is hardly good enough. Does my right hon. Friend think we are giving up our dinner in a spirit of mischief in order to support him in getting this Bill through? Why has he not got the support now of his chief on that bench? It seems to me to be most unfair, and I might retort that my hon. Friend does this in some other kind of spirit which I need not specify. What can be the objection of the Under-Secretary to inserting these words? Does he object to them being included in the Bill? After all, my right hon. Friend has represented Labour in this House long and worthily, and at one period of his career was subject to similar conditions to those to which these men are going to be subjected. As a trade union leader, with vast experience of the working of bodies of men, does he see any objection to the words suggested by my hon. Friend? That is the real way to meet an Amendment. If my right hon. Friend gets up, with his trade union experience behind him, and says there is something subtle in the words suggested, and that therefore they ought not to go into the Bill, then I would support him in spite of my friendship for my hon. Friend, because I would have on the other side the value of the right hon. Gentleman's trade union experience. But it surely is nonsense to suggest that the reason for not accepting the Amendment is that it is proposed in a spirit of mischief. There is an Amendment on the Paper proposed by the Home Secretary. Is that proposed in a spirit of mischief? If the right hon. Gentleman wants the Debate to progress at the rate at which we all want it to progress he ought to meet the argument, and I invite him now, before it is too late, to recover his position as the Minister in charge of the Bill, and give a substantial reason why these words should not be accepted. This Debate will go down to history in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and after the War historians will look up
1950
this Debate and find that the only reply of the Under-Secretary was that he could not accept an Amendment because it was put down in a spirit of mischief, and then they will say, "That is why we did not win the War." I therefore invite my right hon. Friend to wipe out the memory of those few sentences and give us a statesmanlike answer.
Mr. PRINGLE: I regret that we cannot get a reply from somebody who is in a position to accept the Amendment. It seems to me that to embody the terms of the pledge in an Amendment is the correct form, and it is exactly what the Home Secretary himself did. Ho made a promise in regard to compulsion on the Second Reading, and subsequently he was asked to put it down as an Amendment to the Bill. He did so, and we have that Amendment on the Paper now. But another matter has arisen in regard to this voluntary agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the agreement is purely an agreement of honour, that no regulation will be made which will impose a penalty for a breach of that agreement. Then why cannot we say so in the Bill? The truth is that we have two inconsistent Government declarations in regard to this. It really comes to this, that it all depends upon what industry a man is sent to as to whether the voluntary agreement is an agreement of honour or not. If he is sent into a mine, for example, it is purely an agreement of honour, because in mines you have free conditions of labour at the present time. If, on the other hand, he is sent to a munition works, or a steel works, or an engineering shop, he there comes under the conditions of the Munitions Act, and a breach of the agreement there would be subject to a penalty. It therefore ceases to be an agreement of honour. I hold that an agreement of this kind should be the same, no matter where the man goes to work, and I think it is very important to have an express statement in the Clause that so long as we have a voluntary system a volunteer will be simply under an obligation of honour and under no legal penalties whatever. As, however, there is no opportunity of having an answer from the Home Secretary himself now, I will give notice to raise this question again on the Report stage of the Bill. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "or shall authorise the compulsory stoppage of any trade, business, or industry."
I have put down my Amendment to this Amendment of the Home Secretary's in order to carry out what I have really been seeking to get carried out since the inception of the measure, and it is because it is not already in the Bill that I have opposed the Bill from the beginning. As I said some time ago on a previous Amendment, the Home Secretary has refused to give a definite answer as to whether the Government Department set up by this measure proposes compulsorily to close industries in this country. That question was definitely asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir C, Hobhouse), and no clear answer was forthcoming. We are setting up a national dictator under this measure, and one of the duties or rights which will fall into the hands of that dictator is the closing up of businesses throughout the country, the depriving of capitalists therein interested of their capital, and also the depriving of the workers in those various trades of their means of livelihood. I hold that that is an extraordinary power to put into the hands of any one man, and it is because this measure puts that power into the hands of the Director-General of National Service that I oppose this measure from beginning to end. In reply to my fears, and those of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to this drastic treatment towards industries, the Home Secretary has indicated, in a nebulous way, that it is not proposed to do this, that, or the other. Those of us who have been in the House during the last two years know that such statements from the Front Bench are practically of no avail whatever. Unless these promises are put in concrete form into the measure they are not worth the paper on which they are written. I would remind my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench of many instances of promises made that were not worth the paper on which they were written.
Mr. HOGGE: Widows' sons!
Mr. WATT: My hon. Friend beside me reminds me of the case of the only sons of widows who were not to go to the War, or the last son of the family who was not to be taken for the War, of single-man businesses which were to be preserved
1952
throughout the War. On such promises as these the measures dealing with these things were allowed to pass the House, and we subsequently found that the promises were an absolute fraud. If my right hon. Friend, when he gets to his virtuous couch to-night, ruminates over his experience in this House, and his recollection of Front Bench promises, his opinion, I think, will coincide with mine—that they are really not worth anything. It is to remedy that state of affairs that I make my proposal—to prevent these Regulations authorising the compulsory stoppage of trades or businesses. I repeat that we are sent here by constituents, many of whom will be in these businesses which may have to be closed by the ipse dixit of one man who was not known by the country at large before the last two or three months; who was apprehended by the Prime Minister and asked to take these duties. That one man should be allowed in this free country to say that my Constituents, or the constituents of any hon. Member, should have their businesses closed down, hindered, or dealt with drastically, is too much. Even a war does not justify one man saying that! That is the crux of my opposition to the measure.
Mr. HOGGE: I hope before my right hon. Friend replies ho will consider one or two rather serious considerations. We are approaching a period when we shall have our new Budget. In that Budget we may have to look forward to very much higher taxation. We ought, therefore, to be quite clear as to what powers are to be possessed by the Director of National Service with regard to closing down any kind of business. When the last Budget was under consideration well ad a long discussion, which ranged through many days and stages of the Bill, on several new taxes, such as the tax on: amusements. The House will remember that protests were at that time made, in regard to the imposition of taxation on such new subjects. The discussion was similar to what has been in respect of these particular businesses. My right hon. Friend probably Knows that a, great many of these businesses have suffered very materially, and are bound to suffer more, as the War is prolonged, and as prices rise. That is obvious. Is the Director of National Service to have a free hand to say, for example, that all theatres, music halls, and all other forms

1953
of entertainment in this country, are to be closed down because they are non-essential industries I will not argue the point as to whether they are essential or non-essential. There can be two opinions about that. In a time of war, I suppose, if it were absolutely necessary, we could do without any form of amusement, Presumably in these amusements there are occupied a large number of both men and women who might be occupied in other work. It is conceivable, too, that a Director of National Service might make, a sweeping Order saying that all amusements all over the country were to be closed down from a certain date. Obviously that would hit a very large number of people. It might be that it was not amusements, but some other industry, profession or trade. I only select amusements as an all-embracing industry well known to everybody. I should, therefore, like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, for instance, if it were ever to come to the point that the Government thought it desirable, say, to close down all amusements in the country—whether that could or would be done by the Director of National Service, or whether such a thing as that would be brought for discussion and decision by the House of Commons? My right hon. Friend will not for a moment imagine that my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Watt) is asking anything beyond what might be yielded by the addition of the words proposed. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the House of Commons ought to have the power proposed and have it placed within the four corners of the Bill, and so prevent any one man from taking a step which might ruin a whole industry before that industry had time to put its case before the Government. I hope my right hon. Friend will meet the case which has been put by my hon. Friend; that he will see the reasonableness of asking him to retain in the hands of the House of Commons such ultimate and complete power as might be given to the Director if these words were not inserted.
Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know whether the two right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of the Bill think that they are going to facilitate its progress by treating any Amendment with contempt. It is obvious from the course of the Debate-that one of the subjects which must engross attention and excite men to acute controversy is the suggested irrespon-
1954
sible powers of the Director of National Service to close down industry without any supervision on the part of anybody. We do not know the extent to which the powers of the Director are intended to go. The Home Secretary has told us that he did not intend directly to shut down any industries, because that would involve paying compensation. He made that statement on the Second Reading. He went on to say that the Director of National Service might very severely limit some industries. The question comes as to whether the limitation of any industry might not be of such a character as to amount to its total destruction. If it were to amount to total destruction it would really have the effect against which the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself, brought about by a side wind. I think that, in the doubtful position in which we are, the Committee is entitled to seek for some security by definite words in the Statute itself. I do not suggest that the words of my hon. Friend are the best words to secure the result, but they are put as a feasible means of meeting this point. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it can be done in a better way, or at some other place, I think we should be quite satisfied, but I think it is a fair attempt to deal with the question, and, being a fair attempt, it at least merits a reply.
Sir G. CAVE: I desired to know the exact nature of the Amendment before I spoke. Now I do know it, I must say I think I have dealt with this point many times. The Amendment provides that no Order in Council or Regulation shall authorise the compulsory stoppage of any industry. That is a thing which can be done to-day by Order in Council, and I do not think I should be right in the present condition of affairs to abandon the right that already exists. I have said more than once that the Director does not desire to close down any industry, even if unessential. I do not go beyond what I said on the Second Reading. I do not wish to limit the power which already exists by Order in Council to make Regulations which may turn out to be essential for the safety of this country, and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. WATT: I am sorry that no clear reply has been made by the Home Secretary. He has simply made the type of

1955
reply with which he has favoured the Committee two or three times to-day. He says the Director-General has no desire to suppress any trade in the country. There is no man from one end of the country to the other who desires to suppress a trade. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone further, and said "no intention," it would have been a different thing. The right hon. Gentleman is carefully skirmishing with the desire of some of us to get a definite statement put in the Bill. He has said in his reply that he has dealt with this question once or twice already. I dare say that is so. I have certainly been very emphatic in putting this particular matter before the Committee, and I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is my intention, D.V., to put it down on Report, so that the House may have the opportunity of cottoning on to this particular point, because I say to the right hon. Gentleman seriously that if the Members of the House realised what this Director-General had the power to do, and was likely to do with the trade of the country, the House would not pass this measure as it is. The House would be pleased, as I would be, to pass the measure if the right hon. Gentleman would clearly show that it would help to win the War or something of that sort, but it has no such effect.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I merely rise to ask a question of the Home Secretary. He said, if I understood him aright, that this power was already in existence, and he did not want to give up an existing power which might be of use in circumstances which he does not foresee. But the power of the Director-General to prohibit a trade cannot be put into force at the present time, as that Gentleman has no powers excepting those which we are conferring upon him by this Bill, and, therefore, unless these words are put in, there is an extension of the existing powers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He did not deal at all with that point in his reply, and I should very much like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to entrust to the Director-General of National Service the power to prohibit the carrying on of an industry in this country? That is the real crux of the question, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no answer to it in suggesting that the power is in existence, seeing that it is not possessed by this individual whom you are now going to clothe with new powers.
1956
Certainly the reply he made does not touch the point underlying this, or so at least it seems to me.
Mr. HOGGE: I want to understand if the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in reply to this Amendment is, that it is possible to close down a whole industry, such, for example, as the amusement industry in this country, without the House of Commons being consulted. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means, and does he mean that the Director-General of National Service may exercise that power? I should very much like a "Yes" or "No," if he can give us a "Yes" or "No" to that.
Sir G. CAVE: I have said "no" many times. I said the power exists, and can be exercised by Order in Council. The Director-General cannot make an Order in Council.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add,
"(3) The office of Minister of National Service and the Ministry of National Service shall cease to exist on the termination of a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War, or such earlier period as may be fixed by His Majesty in Council, and then any appointments made under the powers conferred by this Act shall be determined, and any powers or duties which have been transferred to the Minister of National Service under this Act shall, without prejudice to any action taken in pursuance to those powers or duties, revert to the Department or authority from which they were transferred."
This is a purely verbal Amendment to insert the words of Section 13 of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act in this Bill, in order to make a little clearer than it is at present that the services of the Ministry terminate after the War. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: The Committee will observe that we propose later to incorporate Section 13 of the Ministries and Secretaries Act, and therefore we do incorporate a Section which repeats word for word this Amendment. If that section stood alone, I should not object, because I

1957
know the Committee like to see in black and white what is proposed. But, as there are other sections to be incorporated, I think it would be better to keep to the form which has been adopted by the draftsman in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move to insert the following sub-section:
"(3) The Director-General of National Service shall from time to time lay before Parliament a Schedule of trades to which labour has been transferred under the provisions of this Act, and no labour shall be so transferred until such Schedule shall have been presented to Parliament for ten days."
The object of my proposal is quite plain, and it was approved by a very considerable number of Members of this House when we were debating the question earlier in the day. I do not wish to labour the arguments which I presented earlier, but I wish to emphasise the need for some revising power in the House of Commons upon the Schedule which the Director-General of National Service shall, upon his own ipse dixit, insist upon. He is to be the sole judge, under this Act, of what trades are essential and what are non-essential, what are useful and what ought to be abolished, and I trust sincerely that the Home Secretary may accept some such words as these. If he does not like these particular words I hope he will consider the matter and bring up another proposal on Report. I hope he will accept some such words so that the Committee may have a chance of seeing what it is that the Director-General of National Service is doing. The cotton trade has been omitted from the list of essential trades, and another similar incident may occur and may cause great apprehension. Therefore I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of my proposal and (either embody these or similar words in the Bill on the Report stage.
Sir G. CAVE: I think this proposal requires some consideration. The first part provides that the Director-General shall lay before the House a Schedule of the trades to which labour has been transferred, and the second provides that no labour shall be transferred until such Schedule has been presented to Parliament for ten days. The two proposals will not work together. At any rate, we will
1958
consider this point and see whether it is desirable that this should be done.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: When this point is being considered I hope the Government will consider not only the trades to which they are transferred, but also the trades from which they are transferred.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: On that understanding I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Ministry of National Service.)
(1) The Minister of National Service may adopt an official seal, and describe himself generally by the style and title of the Director-General of National Service; and the seal of the Minister shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister or of a secretary or some authorised by the Minister to act in that behalf.
(2) Section ten, Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section eleven, and Sections twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and Ministry of National Service and to the office of Director-General of National Service and to Orders in Council made for the purposes of this Act and powers and duties transferred by virtue of this Act, as they apply to the Minister and Ministry of Food and the office of Food Controller and to Orders in Council made for the purposes of that Act and powers and duties transferred by virtue of that Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, a Member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance at any time within one month after the commencement of this Act of the office of Secretary in the Ministry of National Service.
Mr. L. JONES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words, "Provided that an Estimate should be presented to Parliament in Committee of Supply of any expenditure to be incurred under this Section."
This Amendment was sugested earlier in the afternoon as a result of the short discussion we had on the question of

1959
salaries, and I do not need to argue the point again. It was argued fully when the first Bill was before the House this afternoon, and I only want to point out to the Home Secretary that the plea which he made in the Debate that the presentation of an Estimate to the House might involve delay does not really prevent him from being able to present an Estimate, because the expenditure can go well ahead of the Estimate. It is open to the Department to do what the Army and Navy are doing at present—that is to present a Token Estimate. After all, if the Army and Navy in time of war can present their Estimates in the old form without giving the full details under the different Votes, surely this new Department can follow that example and present at least a Token Estimate upon which the doings of the Department could be discussed. The presentation of such a Token Estimate would have the natural advantage that it would be followed by the preparation of an Appropriation Account, and the expenditure would then be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department, and it would come before the Public Accounts Committee. I suggest that with the necessary lack of control during war over financial matters we should not increase that evil when it can be avoided by the preparation of some form of Estimate which will enable the House to discuss these matters.
Sir G. CAVE: I think the object of my right hon. Friend is that there shall be an opportunity for a debate in Parliament upon the expenditure and proceedings of the Director-General of National Service. I sympathise with him, and there is not the least desire on the part of the Government to withdraw from the cognizance of the House the proceedings of the Director-General. I should now like to accept the words which he has put down; but perhaps he will take it from me—I make the statement after consulting my hon. Friend who represents the Treasury (Mr. Baldwin)—that we will put down a Token Estimate, and I hope that will satisfy him.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I really cannot see why there should not be proper Estimates presented to Parliament. There may be certain difficulties in drawing up Supplementary Estimates at the moment, but I cannot see why some reasonable Estimate should not be made for next year.
1960
We are having a very large number of Ministries of all kinds started. Anybody who has had any experience in this War knows that a large number of private societies Have been started and that they have had no difficulty in keeping proper accounts and forming some estimate of what they will require to spend. I cannot see, therefore, why it should be necessary to have a Token Vote, and why there should not be presented to the House a list of the officers with their salaries, because that is what it comes to, and an estimate of the probable cost of the Department, its housing, and everything else concerned with it.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go a little further than he has done. All you can do on Token Estimates is to discuss the principles which underly the administration of the office, but in discussing the Estimates you find, as a rule, that the general Debate turns upon matters of detail, small in themselves, but very considerable when they are accumulated in one discussion. Such a debate really does inform the House of Commons what has taken place in regard to the administration of a Department. If you put down the salary of a Minister, or some sum, £2,000,000 or £1,000,000, or whatever the expenses of the Department may be, you cannot possibly get an informing debate on the actual administration of the Department. I quite see that it is very difficult in the middle of a war and in the case of a newly-formed Department to put down detailed estimates, but I do hope that we-shall have an acknowledgment from the Government that they will give us something more than a mere Token Estimate. I hope, at all events, that we shall get the expenditure of the different Departments in the office of National Service the salary of the Director and of the Sub-Director, and so on. I press for that, but I do not press for anything further. I do not wish to embarrass the new Department and cause delay, but I should like to have something more than a mere Token Estimate, on which we can only discuss the general principle of the administration of a Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a little more satisfactory assurance upon that point.
Mr. KING: We have got a Lord of the Treasury on the Treasury Bench and we should do well to give him an opportunity

1961
of marking the position quite clear. First of all, are we to have this Estimate on the Civil Service Estimates of the year, or is it to be a Supplementary Estimate? If it is to be in the regular Civil Service Estimates of the year, there may be some ground for making it a Token Estimate, but if it is not to come on for something like ten or eleven months and it is to be a Supplementary Estimate, then we are entitled to have an Estimate with fairly full figures. After all, the Director-General of National Service will have his office here in London, and most of his work will be done here. Will he not be able to keep an account of all the work that is done? I understand his policy is to ask the local authorities, at their own expense, to do all the work that will have to be done out of London. I imagine, therefore, that there will be no great difficulty in keeping accounts and presenting estimates for the work done here under the direct supervision of the Director. There are two objects in having estimates. One, of course, is that we may be able to criticise the work of the Department, and the other, and equally important object, is that we may control, and, as far as possible in the public interests limit the expenditure. We cannot possibly pretend to limit the -expenditure when there are only Token Estimates, but it is just in the limitation and control of expenditure, which is increasing to an alarming extent in every department of public life, that we, as a House of Commons, can do most service to our country at the present time. I therefore believe it would be the desire of Members in every part of the House and would be greatly in the public interest that we should have as full Estimates as possible, and not merely Token Estimates.
Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a little further information than is conveyed in a Token Estimate. It is only a fortnight ago that a Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Munitions came before the House. It was a Token Vote for £100, and there was an item, Item A, for salaries and expenses of the head office and branch offices. I asked what it amounted to. It was a very simple and a very necessary request, and it would have given us some opportunity of knowing what was really the amount spent on the salaries and expenses of the officials at the head office
1962
and branch offices. I was informed by the Minister in charge that to comply with my request would give information to the enemy. I thought that was a rather farfetched argument, and after some considerable time—I believe three hours—the Government, finding that the majority of the House were in favour of the figures being given, gave us some hasty estimate. My recollection is that the figure was £837,000. It is quite evident that we now desire to know what is the cost of the officials, and what is the number of the officials in this Department. We want to have it in our power, at any rate, to make some observation on that point. If we only have a Token Estimate of £100, and if the information as to salaries is to be refused on the ground that it would give information to the enemy—probably that is the first reason that came into the head of the hon. Member who answered me—we shall be no better off than we are now. I quite see it might be difficult to make a regular Estimate which would come nearly within the mark. But still something more than a Token Estimate might be given, certain items might be particularised—the amounts put to these particular items; the salaries might be stated and the number of officials as well. It would really save time if this information were given to the House, because these questions are sure to be raised on a Token Vote, and the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon matters of this kind.
Sir G. CAVE: I think I have gone as far as I can to-night. This is a new point, and I should like to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to it before saying anything further.
Mr. L. JONES: May I take it no words are required in the Bill for this purpose?
Sir G. CAVE: None.
Mr. JONES: I hope the tight hon. Gentleman will give all the information he can. After all we here represent the taxpayers, and therefore the Government should make the information as full as possible. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extent of Act.)
This Act shall not extend to Ireland.—[Mr. Dillon.]
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
My object is to exempt Ireland from the operation of this Act. Everybody has been told that it is but a preliminary to a compulsory Act, and Ireland, I venture to warn the Government, will not submit to a compulsory Act of this kind. Apart altogether from the fact that this Act is admittedly a prelude to a compulsory system, and that after very short interval, as we have been warned, I object to this Act being applied to Ireland, because the circumstances between Ireland and this country as regards labour are such that, in my opinion, it would be in the highest degree injudicious to apply the Act to Ireland. Since the beginning of the War, what has happened with regard to Irish labour? It has been the custom, as is well known to the Chief Secretary, for a very large number of Irishmen to come over to this country to work for periods without deserting their own homes. They have come over to the number, roughly, in recent years, of about 15,000 yearly, and their labour is of a most convenient and valuable character, chiefly to the agricultural interest of this country. I myself represent in this House the great bulk of the agricultural migratory labour in Ireland. That class of labour, as I know from personal experience, is very highly valued by the farmers of this country, and I was applied to in regard to that long before the War broke out, when labour began to get scarce in this country under a system condemned the other day in a great speech by the Prime Minister, a system which has depopulated the countryside of Great Britain and left it with inadequate labour for the tilling of the land.
Irish labour became more and more valuable, and long after the War broke out Members of this House, who represent agricultural constituencies in different parts of Great Britain, came to me personally and asked me if I could influence my Constituents to come to their particular districts, inasmuch as labour was so scant and Irish labour was of an extremely valuable character. It was valuable to the farmers of this country for this reason: it was a peculiar character of labour unknown to, and impossible in, this island.
1964
It was labour most efficient, available during the pressure of harvest time, and it departed from the farmer when the pressure passed away. It suited small Irish, holders, who are willing to come over and work in this country for certain weeks of the harvest at high wages, and then return to their homes. That was a class of labour of peculiar value to the farmers of this country. Not only was that the case, but the Irish labourers were men of excellent physique and large skill, and were willing to work under rather hard conditions. They saved a great deal of money, and in my own Constituency I had a man who took two sons with him and brought home as much as £30. That is a most important part of their living.
The relations between the English farmers and the Irish labourers were to their mutual advantage. What happened? All went on with the greatest possible good will, and I might, if I were so disposed, tell many tales of mutual benefit which have resulted from it. The Irish labourer attained great agricultural skill, and some of them would remain for two or three years with their English employers. Most of them went only for the season, however. But some remained two or three years to enable them to carry out a custom which prevails amongst Celtic peasants, a most estimable and laudable custom. I have known hundreds of my people come over here and work for an English farmer two or three years, or work in the cement works or in the mines, in order to apportion their own sisters. Such are the habits of our peasant people. A young man looks forward to get his father's farm, but he feels it his duty first to save a part of his earnings in order to-give to his sisters a portion, and to marry them, before he comes into the inheritance of his father at all. These are customs which have grown up among peasant people, and are known to us, and in France as well, but are quite unknown in this country.
This system went on harmoniously, and with mutual advantage, until the Compulsory Military Service Bill was brought ill in this country. The Irish people refused to accept that Bill, for reasons which I cannot go into now. I immediately saw the risk that would result from the difference between the two countries to these Labourers. I made an appeal across the floor of the House, and subsequently privately to the Ministers in charge, including the President of the Local

1965
Government Board, now the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to their attitude with regard to Irish labourers. I said, "If you desire not to have Irish labour, I shall go home to my people and tell them to stay at home. Thank goodness, owing to the agitation of the last twenty-five or thirty years, they are no longer starving—no longer dependent on the English farmer, but they are willing and anxious to come over here and earn good wages, but they can live without them. If you propose to harass them and seize upon them for military service, I shall advise them to remain at home." The President of the Local Government Board and the Ministers to whom I spoke assured me that the Irish labourers would not be interfered with if they came across harvesting. That pledge was broken. Not alone were they interfered with, but some of my own Constituents, who came across under the protection of that pledge, were pursued to their Father's homes in Ireland and were arrested and dragged into the Army. One man for whom I went to the War Office and proved quite clearly that he had been illegally arrested in his home in my own Constituency is now in Salonika. That has contributed to making numerous Sinn Feiners in Ireland and, of course, it has created very bitter feelings. The result of it is that no pledge given by a British Minister has the slightest value now in Ireland. They do not believe in it. They believe it will be broken. That is one reason why I move to exempt Ireland from this Bill.
There is another reason which, perhaps, will make a stronger appeal to some hon. Members in the Committee than the reasons I have already given. When in the early days of this War the Irish people and the Irish leaders were strongly endeavouring to do their best to obtain recruits for the Army, and when recruiting meetings were held—this may surprise the present Chief Secretary, because he came to Ireland in far different times—when recruiting meetings were held in every quarter in Ireland, including even the county of Kerry—enthusiastic meetings—when members of the Irish police who recruited for the Army were played to the stations in different parts of the country by Nationalist bands, when in the first six months of the War, in the county of Fermanagh, when recruits were marched into the station, the Orange bands and the Nationalist bands, for the
1966
first time in history, turned out together and played them to the station, when that spirit prevailed in Ireland, what was going on? Agents of the Government in the West of Ireland, in the county of Donegal and in many other counties of Ireland, were holding meetings and offering the Irish labourer £2 a week to work in England, while the recruiting agents were offering them a shilling a day to go and get killed in the trenches. The head of the recruiting in Ireland came to my house in Dublin frequently and complained to me saying, "How in the name of God do you expect us to get Irish recruits when we have agents of the British Government, when I hold a recruiting meeting, holding labour meetings and offering them £2 a week, while I am only authorised to offer them a shilling a day to go and get shot out in France?"
That is how the British Government does its business. That was going on when the Irish party were struggling to encourage the people to go into the Army. There is very little recruiting going on in Ireland to-day, but there is a great appeal for the increase of food production. I noticed that Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are now appealing to Ireland to supply them with potatoes. I shall be very glad to respond to that appeal, always provided that our own people are not threatened with starvation. We shall be glad to supply all that we can spare. In order to cultivate land, as the English people are beginning to learn, you must have labour. The Minister for Agriculture the other day made a pathetic appeal in the North of England, and indicated that the hopes of English farmers largely depended upon Irish labour. How did you treat Irish labourers when they came over? Some were arrested illegally, others pursued back to their homes; and in Lincolnshire, when our people went there last year, as they have done for the last thirty years, to dig potatoes on the great farms in Lincolnshire, they were hounded off the farms, insulted, and not allowed to do their work. If you apply this Bill to Ireland you treat the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland as one country. That is impossible.
What security have our people that the Director-General of National Service will not invite our people to come over to this country, and, if they come, what security have we that they will not be insulted, hunted, and, boycotted just as they were

1967
before? You have to make peace between the two countries before you can treat them as one. In Ireland there will be an extremely jealous feeling against any attempt to extend this National Service scheme to our country, at all events until there is an assurance that if Irish labourers are invited to volunteer for National Service—when, mark you, they may be sent to any part of the country—they will not be boycotted and hunted as they have been. The other day one of the greatest manufacturers in this country—one of the men in Sheffield on whom the War Office chiefly depends for the supply of the largest-sized shells and other great steel works of the country—driven to desperation by the inroads of the War Office, appealed to some of us to procure him three hundred Irish labourers. We did it. What was the result? That when our men went to Sheffield they were told they must clear out if they valued their lives. In the face of that kind of thing you cannot apply the same rules to the two peoples. You have to recognise that Ireland is a wholly separate country and that it must be dealt with upon its own merits. There is this further consideration. We had an epoch-making speech delivered by the Prime Minister last week in which several revolutions were announced—not one, but several—in a single speech. He laid down the principle of a minimum wage for English labourers. I do not know what the Irish Government are going to do with regard to that minimum wage.
Mr. DENNISS: What Irish Government?
Mr. DILLON: The Castle Government—your Government. We have no more power over the Government of our own country than we have over the Government of China, and we do not in the least know what the Government of Ireland is going to do in this matter of the minimum wage. Another reason why I object to this Bill being applied to Ireland is that, although hon. Members may perhaps not realise it, labour is very scarce in Ireland at the present moment. There is not labour enough to increase the cultivation of Ireland. The British Government has already taken to the great works on the Firth of Forth—at Gretna, and other places, where the Irish are so numerous that they can afford to defy anybody who dares to insult them—Gretna is chiefly manned by Irish—they have taken vast numbers of our workmen, and they are taking at this
1968
moment, when they are appealing to our people to till the land, hundreds and thousands of labourers from the land of Ireland every week to Gretna and other great works in England at enormous wages. This Bill might and I think would be used for the purpose of stripping the land of Ireland and making it absolutely impossible not only to increase the tillage but to maintain the tillage of last year, just as the War Office has stripped the lands of England of necessary labour. Therefore I feel bound to move this Clause, both because I believe the Bill, even in its present state, will do injury to Ireland and be received with great suspicion in that country, and because I know that it is only the prelude to a compulsory Bill to which undoubtedly the Irish people would never consent.
Mr. JOYCE: I beg to second the proposed new Clause.
Sir J. LONSDALE: I do not know what authority the hon. Member has behind him in moving this new Clause, or how far he is expressing the views of the Nationalist Members of the House. The Unionists of Ireland are opposed to this new Clause, and I believe the hon. Member is completely out of sympathy with the great body of moderate Nationalist opinion. There is no question whatever here of applying industrial compulsion either to Ireland or to any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member appears to be alarmed at the spectre of conscription looming up in the background, and his fears do not appear to be allayed by the very clear and definite assurances which were given by the Home Secretary both to-night and on the Second Reading. He should curb his suspicions of the Government. The course he has taken in regard to this measure and other matters connected with the War is calculated to place Ireland in a very unfavourable light with the people of this country. Ireland has been exempted from compulsory military service because of the threat from the hon. Member and others that resistance would be offered if a measure were applied. Now we have the hon. Member proposing that the Irish people should not be asked even to volunteer civilian service for winning what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) once described as "Ireland's war." In another Motion which the Nationalists have put on the Paper they

1969
profess to desire to strengthen the hands of the Allies. The hon. Member's ideas on the subject of how Ireland can best strengthen the hands of the Allies are, to say the least, peculiarly impracticable. He stated himself, not long ago, that he had never stood on a recruiting platform and he never would; and if this Amendment is not intended to discourage Irishmen from helping the Allied cause by civilian labour I am unable to understand what purpose he can have in view. I have intervened in this discussion simply for the purpose of saying, on behalf of the people of Ulster and Unionists in Ireland generally, that we strongly protest against this proposal to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill. We are ready to accept all the obligations which have to be borne by the people of Great Britain, and so far as we have been permitted to do so "we have given practical proof of our willingness to bear our share of the burden. Ulster has given more recruits to the Army than all the rest of Ireland put together, and I think it will be found, whilst we are on the subject of Ireland's contribution to the War, that the great bulk of the money which has been subscribed to the new War Loan has come from that section of the Irish whose loyalty has never been called in question. We should strongly object to being left out of this measure simply to satisfy the desires and demands of the hon. Member, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity of telling the people of Ireland plainly that the duty lies with them as well as with the people of Great Britain of doing all they can to help to win the War.
Captain O'NEILL: The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) has compelled me to intervene, as I happen to find myself for a day or two in this country at a time when an Irish matter is before the Committee. It seems to me somewhat illogical of the hon. Member to suggest that those people in Ireland who wish to take part in National Service should be prevented from doing so when he himself is taking part, perhaps more fully than most other Irishmen to-day, in at any rate a service which, whether it is helpful or not, is at any fate in a sense national. I see day by day in the Press reports of speeches by the hon. Member, not by any means confined to the question of Ireland, but speeches upon matters of high importance and general questions of policy—speeches about the attitude of Greece, the advis-
1970
ability or inadvisability of the continuation of the Salonika Expedition, and about the interview of the Commander-in-Chief in France with French journalists. Why should the hon. Member be permitted day by day to take his part, and it may be a good part, in the conduct of our national affairs while he wishes to withdraw from those in Ireland who desire to do so their right to take their part in joining with their compatriots in England in bearing their share of the gigantic task which is before every man now, be he Englishman, Scotsman, or Irishman. I must protest against the desire of some members of the Nationalist party to prevent those Irishmen—I dare say they are not few, both in the North and in the South—who wish to bear their full shave of the burden imposed by this War from doing so.
I will not go into the larger question which I believe we are going to debate next week, and as to which I hope, as one of the representatives of Ulster, I may have the opportunity of speaking a few words. It does seem to me a very hard thing that those of us who are Irishmen, and who can be proud of the fact that they belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, should constantly have the feeling that Ireland in all matters which come before the House in relation to the War is being treated with a sort of advantage and being put, to a certain extent, in a favoured position. We simply ask—those Irishmen from the part of the country to which I belong—that we may be included in all the sacrifices which will be demanded of us by this Bill and by every other Bill which is brought forward at this time of crisis, the object of which is the better waging of the War. We ask that we may not be in any way treated separately with regard to these matters. The policy of the last Government appeared to be the policy always of a desire to drop Ireland out of every Bill that came before the House of Commons. I do ask the present Government to have more courage in regard to Ireland than the last Government. There are questions pending, as we all know, which concern Ireland, such as National Service, not national service in this sense, but in the military sense. Those are questions which, so long as the War lasts, must still be pending. There is the question of the inclusion of Ireland in any measure of compulsory military service. I do ask the Government in these matters

1971
relating to Ireland; in the question of compulsory military service, in the present question of National Service, and in the many questions which were foreshadowed the other day in the speech of the Prime Minister to remember that no matter what Members of the Nationalist party may say in this House, there exists in Ireland a large body of opinion, certainly in the North, and I believe also in other parts of the country, who are terribly downhearted and disgusted at the way in which in every matter of national importance their country has been left out in the cold. I ask the present Government to realise that, and to adopt on this question, and in all the questions concerning Ireland, a policy of greater courage than was adopted by their predecessors.
Mr. ARCHDALE: I want to associate myself with the two last speakers. I come from a county which, I suppose, has sent more men into the Army than any county in Ireland. I mean the county to which the hon. Member for Mayo referred when he spoke of an Orange band and a Nationalist band escorting troops to the station. I am proud to say that our Nationalists in the county of Fermanagh have enlisted well. They are imbued with military spirit, and it is the deeds of our gallant soldiers at the front that make me sometimes not afraid of saying that I am an Irishman. When I come over to this country and people say, "Why are your men not under military service, the same as the rest of our fellow subjects," I can only point to the deeds of the brave Fermanagh soldiers, and of the rest of our brave Irish soldiers at the front, and say, "I am proud to be an Irishman, and it is only the cowardice of the late Government which prevented the Military Service Act being applied to Ireland, and men from all over the country going to the front."
10.0 P.M.
When I was recruiting I remember reading a speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liver pool, in which he said that recruiting was stopped in Ireland by ultra-Orange recruiters being sent to Roman Catholic counties. My county is half-and-half. The recruiting people who came there from the Central Recruiting Office in Dublin were Professor Kettle, who was certainly not an Orangeman, Mr. Lloyd, a Limerick man, who was a National League organiser, and two other men who were what I might call
1972
rabid Home Rulers. Those were the men whom the hon. Member for the Scotland Division called strong Unionists and Orangemen. We went round the county, and had a good response all over the county, and I never wish to go with a better man or a better comrade than Professor Kettle. He was beloved in the county, and we all appreciated his most loyal, patriotic speeches. I only wish there had been more men like him who went to the other counties. As regards the security against insults for migratory labourers coming over to England, there would be no security against insults required if those men had done their duty to their country and enlisted. I can well understand English labourers being annoyed when men came over from Ireland——
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid of the Committee digressing into a discussion on military service. We are not engaged on that at the present time. We must confine ourselves to the question as to the powers of this Bill being applied to Ireland.
Mr. ARCHDALE: I beg pardon for going a little wide on the subject. I may add that I am perfectly sure the men of my county, both Nationalists and Unionists, would be very annoyed if this Bill was not applied to Ireland. They know they are under the same Government, and I hope they will remain under the same Government, and they know that the best protection for our men at the front is to have this National Service Bill applied to every man in the British Dominions, both Ireland, England, and everywhere else.
Mr. THOMAS: I am not desirous of entering into the controversy between the North and South of Ireland, and I do not think it is quite germane to the discussion; but the hon. Member for Mayo raised a very serious issue in the charge against labour on this side. I am responsible for two of the disputes which he mentioned, and I do not in the least want to shirk my personal responsibility. It is true that in two places at least there was a stoppage of work by men who positively refused to work in consequence of Irish labourers being sent over, but the circumstances put an entirely different light upon the matter from that which was put by the hon. Member. The circumstances were these, that there was a large

1973
number of Irish labourers sent over here, men of military age, to take the place of men who were being released for military service, and the question of these men who were being released put to me, because they were members of my own union, was, "We do not object to be released for military service, but we do object to be released and to find our places taken by others of military age."
Mr. DILLON: I referred only to the Sheffield case and to the potato farmers in Lincolnshire; I did not refer to any railway case.
Mr. THOMAS: I was referring to the Birkenhead and Bristol cases, for both of which I was responsible. As the hon. Member knows, I very largely agree with him in most questions, but the definite question was put to me on this issue, and I agreed with the men that they should have refused to allow themselves to be superseded by men of military age. But, on the other hand, knowing the difficulty of the country and the necessity for men, I advised, and it was agreed to, that, wherever the men were over military age or unfit, not only were they to be allowed to work, but every assistance and encouragement was to be given to them. That was done in both cases, and the only men who were sent back to Ireland were the men of military age. Whatever one's views of Conscription may be, I submit to the Committee that it would be far too big a strain on workmen to ask them to agree that other men of military age, as fit to fight as they were, should be brought over to release men for the Army.
Mr. DILLON: That is why I object to this Bill being applied to Ireland.
Mr. THOMAS: I want to make this perfectly clear, because I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to do any injustice to labour on this side.
Mr. DILLON: Not at all.
Mr. THOMAS: Both these cases were within my own knowledge. I gave the instructions myself, and in the same circumstances would do precisely the same again.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I shall not attempt to enter into the matters which have been referred to by my hon. Friend. I shall deal with this matter on material grounds, but even dealing with the Amendment upon narrow and material grounds, I hope to satisfy
1974
the Committee that it would inflict harm upon Ireland. The hon. Member referred to two topics, apart from the usage of Irish labour to which the hon. Member for Derby has referred. He referred to the depletion of labour in Ireland and the necessity of preserving the labour supply in Ireland for the tillage scheme. With regard to the depletion of labour from Ireland, even at the present time, when there is no great organised system under a Minister of the Crown, there are grounds for the observation which the hon. Member made to this extent—namely, that where by advertisements and public addresses, and procedure of that kind——
Mr. DILLON: And by labour agents.
Mr. DUKE: And by labour agents, very attractive offers have been made to labour in the countryside of Ireland, labour which was indispensable for local industry has been taken away from particular areas and has produced a temporary dearth, at least in those areas, whereas if there had been a proper system there was plenty of labour in Ireland which could have supplied the demand, which was met in the somewhat clumsy way to which I have referred. At the present time, without the existence of a Ministry, that state of things exists, and is frequently brought to my notice in various parts of Ireland. The labour agent comes, or there are advertisements, or means of one kind or another are used, and from a limited area a body of a hundred or two hundred men disappear, and great shortage of labour is found afterwards to exist. The reason is that the high wages offered—wages as high, I think, as 50s.—are an, irresistible temptation to these men in the countryside. The hon. Member does not propose to refuse to any British subject the right to better his conditions by getting more wages?
Mr. DILLON: Certainly not.
Mr. DUKE: You cannot put a veto upon the Irish labourer and say that he shall not come to England and earn 50s. a week or gain any other advantages which are offered. When this Ministry is in existence, and when the demand is more intense the means which will be taken, unless there is some regulation of men, will be more serious in their effects in certain areas than anything to which I have referred. Therefore, on narrow and material grounds, in the interests of Ire-

1975
land, as I consider, you ought to have your machine for dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom. It is essential in my view, that the control of labour which is to be set up in this country should extend to Ireland where there will be no other means of control. Merely as a protection for labour in Ireland, as a protection for industry in Ireland, I think that it is essential, if you are to have this system in Great Britain, that there should be the advantage of the same system in Ireland. As to the men who are offered these wages it is very desirable if an Irishman is free to labour elsewhere that he should come to this country and render his services where his services will be most valuable for an object which, after all, is the common object of every loyal subject of the Crown.
What can be done for maintaining National Service is to see that the demand for labour is so regulated with regard to Ireland as to obtain the men who are free to come, while seeing that the countryside is not denuded of labour. That will protect individuals and will protect industry and will prevent that interference with tillage and that withdrawal of labour from the increased tillage which is now required, which I understood was one of the objects which the hon. Member had particularly in view when he moved this Amendment. I did not gather from the hon. Member's speech that if explanations were given with regard to the scope and extent of this measure which were reasonably satisfactory to him, he had any invincible determination to exclude Ireland or seek to exclude Ireland from this Bill for the mere purpose of maintaing a particular political theory. There are those practical advantages which cannot be obtained for Ireland unless the control of the Ministry of Public Service extends to the United Kingdom. What are the objections? The first objection was that Irish labourers might be insulted if they came here. I can tell the hon. Member that of the 160,000 men who were reported to be within the age of military service in Ireland and to be a surplus from labour which could be used, one, if not two, score of thousand are said to be already employed in this country, to be suffering no insult and no injury and to be doing substantial good to Ireland by the larger wages which are earned. I am not concerned to see that advantage withdrawn. I am not content to see it artificially limited.
1976
It is said that we have no security that the Ministry of Labour will not exercise some arbitrary and aggressive authority. The question of the operation of this Bill in Ireland has been the subject of conferences between the Director-General and myself on several occasions since the scheme of National Service was published, and I am satisfied from the assurances I have from the Director-General of National Service that there will not be the least difficulty in organising National Service in Ireland, so that it will be voluntary, so that it will be advantageous to the individual willing to give his service, so that it will be advantageous to the country to which he renders the service, and which secures to him payment for it, and so that it will be advantageous to the common cause. Those are the conclusions at which I have arrived after most dispassionate consideration of the case, and I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
Mr. LUNDON: I desire to support the Amendment, and to take the opportunity of resenting the attack made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), and to refer to the references of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim. I may say before coming to the attacks by the Member for Mid-Armagh, that we rejoice to see the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim back in his place, for we fully recognise that the brigade to which he belongs to is as Irish as the Munster or Royal Dublin Fusiliers. Whilst we differ on this question affecting national and military service, we hope that his men will come through the War with flying colours, and that the kindly relations which exist between men of the North and South will continue to exist between him and Members on these benches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh maintained that the Government ought to tell the people of Ireland that they should do their duty in this War. Does he mean by saying that to imply that the Government at all costs, must put industrial and military service into force in Ireland? I can assure him that we on these benches will tell the Government, as we tell him to-night, that any attempt to enforce military conscription and industrial conscription in Ireland will meet the same fate as those who went over to mow down the rebels did in Easter week last year. Ireland has not changed one iota in this

1977
respect. As the hon. Members for Antrim, Mid-Armagh, and Fermanagh are so eager for military service to be enforced in Ireland, and so anxious to see that country do her duty in this War, the ire is nothing to prevent every young man in Ulster not less than eighteen and up to forty-five to join the ranks of the Army, and do their duty in the trenches of Flanders. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh wants to know whether the representative for East Mayo spoke for the Irish party. The hon. Member for Mayo speaks not only for the Irish party, but speaks for every Nationalist in the four provinces as regards the question of compulsory military service and industrial compulsion. The hon. Member for Armagh said the hon. Member for Mayo does not speak for moderate Nationalists in Ireland. I can tell the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh that there are no moderate Nationalists at this particular moment in Ireland now.
As far as assurances from the Treasury Bench are concerned, whether they come from the Chief Secretary or from the Director of National Service, I just treat them as if I got an assurance from a train conductor driving down the Strand. We have got assurances on many things in the last twelve months, and what has happened to every one of them? What has happened to the late Prime Minister's pledge that Home Rule would be settled, and the assurance of the present Prime Minister that he would carry out the settlement in the North? The same thing which happened those assurances in those days will happen the assurances which are unfolded to-night. This is putting in the thin end of the wedge. If the Chief Secretary imagines that his rameis, or, as he does not know Irish, I will say that his soft soap is going to tell with the Irish people, he is making a big mistake. He made a statement to-night about labour in Ireland, and we have got a Scotsman, who is the President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, who says there is not enough labour to do the farm work there. Which of the two statements are we to believe? One man tells us there is a surplus of labour in Ireland which ought to be brought over to this country, and another says you have not got enough labourers in Ireland, and that they ought to be kept at home and are necessary to produce food for the Irish people. We have made up our minds on one thing, and on one thing alone, and
1978
that is that compulsory Conscription in the shape of industrial conscription, or in the shape of military service, will never be accepted by the people of Ireland. The Chief Secretary may carry this proposal, but if in the future any attempt should be made to enforce industrial conscription upon Ireland, or any attempt should be made by our Friends from the North to induce the present Tory Government which is in office to enforce military rule, we are prepared, some of us, and I would say 95 per cent. of us who do not owe allegiance to the physical force party in Ireland, to follow where they led last Easter week and risk our lives against, that system of Prussianism which our kith and kin went out to France to fight against. Ireland will never have military Conscription in any shape or form, except enforced by the will of an Irish Parliament according to the will of the great bulk of the majority of the Irish people.
Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I should like to join in the appeal to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) not to press this Amendment. He seems to have taken a totally wrong view of the Bill before the House. During this Committee we had ample assurances from the-Home Secretary that this Bill does not involve anything in the nature of industrial compulsion or Conscription. It is-purely a voluntary measure, and, in my judgment, it would be a mistake of a most grievous kind to make this Bill so that it does not apply to Ireland. If I may venture to say so to my Friends below the Gangway, it is a dangerous thing when an attempt is made to contract Ireland out of her Imperial obligations. This House has agreed not to apply military compulsion to Ireland. This. House, I think, in that respect yielded^ to the advice of hon. Members below the Gangway. We do not want to go over that ground again. I myself regard Ireland as being at the present moment in a state of suspended self-government, and we are bound to pay the greatest deference and respect to the opinions of those who represent the majority of the people of Ireland, but it cannot fail to produce a very unfortunate impression on the people of Ireland if the Irish leaders ask this House to remit what, after all, is a purely voluntary obligation in the case of Ireland. We had a speech from the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who pointed to disputes arising from the employment of Irishmen

1979
in England. That is a very dangerous tendency. For the first time in my life and in that of the oldest Member of this House, there has grown up in some parts of England a feeling of resentment against the Irish people. I think this House should do everything, and I put it to my hon. Friends below the Gangway with great submission that they should do everything, to remove and obviate any feeling of that kind. I am only a humble Member of this House, but I share the views of my hon. Friends below the Gangway in regard to their larger aspirations, and I venture very humbly to beg them not to press this to a Division, which I venture to think, whatever its result, would have a very bad effect on the people of Great Britain.
Mr. DILLON: I regret very much to say that I am unable, while I recognise in the fullest and heartiest manner the intention and the spirit in which that appeal has been made by one whom I recognise as a sincere and valued friend of the Irish party to accede to his appeal. The hon. Member said that for the first time in his life a spirit of hostility has grown up towards the Irish people in this country. He is much younger than I am. I remember very well the time when this country was solid in its ferocious hatred of Ireland and when I walked the lobbies here and no single Englishman, except the late Mr. Henry Labouchere, would speak to any Irish Member. The hon. Member referred to disputes arising from the employment of Irishmen here, but we are not to be frightened by symptoms of that kind. We know on whose head the responsibility lies for the bitter feeling that is arising. I know it to be the case, and I deeply deplore it. I have seen it coming for a long time, and if I have spoken strongly in this House it is because I know from long and bitter experience the terrible potency for evil caused by the arising of that spirit, but we are not to be intimidated by such considerations. We must speak at whatever cost in this House what is the sentiment and the mandate of our people, and I know that I am speaking the sentiment of three-fourths of the Irish nation when I say that we object to this Bill being applied to Ireland, because by the confession of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who is one of the warmest friends that Ireland has in this House, our men are
1980
liable to insult in this country if they are transferred to work here by the Director-General. How can you pretend for a moment that we stand on the same footing, or can by any pretext be placed en the same footing, as the people of this country? You have admitted that we are not to be subjected to military compulsion, and if our labourers come across to this country they are liable to insult. I refuse to submit to such offence, and I say that by your own actions you are compelled, from the way you have treated our country, to treat it as a separate country from this country, and I object to this Bill on that ground, and because we are fixed with full notice by the Ministers of the Crown who are responsible for this Bill that in a very few weeks it will be turned into a compulsory Bill.
Mr. NUGENT: I beg to support the Amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh is so keen in the expression of the views of the people of Ulster upon this question of Conscription, it is a strange thing he has not attempted to hold a meeting in his own constituency for the purpose of saying so. No, Sir; I happen to know the situation probably as well as the hon. Baronet. Whenever we hear it urged, as it was by the right hon. Gentleman, that Ireland is in a state of suspended self-government, it recalls to my mind that state of suspension that was meted out to the men of No King Street, to the Skeffingtons, and the other people in the City of Dublin. That is what has made the people of Ireland to a large extent change their view in reference to this Government. When we are given a promise that the Director will consider the case of Ireland one has brought back to their memory the fact that similar guarantees have been previously given in this House. What have we seen carried out? At this moment you have the entire labour population in Ireland up in arms against National Service being applied to the country. They feel it is the thin end of the wedge. In experience they have found that to be the case. I can inform the Chief Secretary, and others, that if they press this Bill upon Ireland they have got more in their noggin this time than they will be able to sup for the next three months. I trust sincerely that in the interests of the Government of the country, pending a settlement of the Home Rule question, that they will leave Ireland alone, and not proceed to further irritation.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916 –17.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional number of Officers
The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 133.

Division No. 5.]

AYES.

[10.34 p.m.

Anderson, W. C.

Hogge, James Myles

O'Leary, Daniel

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

John, Edward Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Chancellor, Henry George

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rowntree, Arnold

Clancy, John Joseph

Jowett, Frederick William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clough, William

Joyce, Michael

Watt, Henry A.

Cosgrave, James

Keating, Matthew

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Crumley, Patrick

King, Joseph

Wiles, Rt. Hon, Thomas

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Dillon, John

Lundon, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Doris, William

Nolan, Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Fletcher, John Samuel

Nuttall, Harry

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

Foster, Philip Staveley

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

Galbraith, Samuel

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Armitage, Robert

Grant, J. A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Baldwin, Stanley

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barnes, Bt. Hon. George N.

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Gretton, John

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Perkins Walter F.

Barrie, H. T.

GuInness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Peto, Basil Edward

Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Pratt, J. W

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Seek, Arthur Cecil

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

Bliss, Joseph

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Boyton, James

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Hills, John Waller

Robinson, Sidney

Brookes, Warwick

Hinds, John

Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

Broughton, Urban Hanlon

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Brunner, John F. L.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuels, Arthur W.

Butcher, John George

Hunt, Major Rowland

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

Illingworth, Albert H.

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

Cater, John

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Starkey, John R.

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Stewart, Gersliom

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Clyde, J. Avon

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Thomas, J. H.

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tickler, T. G.

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Valentia, Viscount

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lowther, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Weston, J. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Macmaster, Donald

Whiteley, Herbert J.

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon, Dr. T. J.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Currle, George W.

Maicolm, Ian

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Wing, Thomas Edward

Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Millar, James Duncan

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Younger, Sir George

Dixon, C. H.

Morgan, George Hay

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Primrose

Tell, Arthur

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Nield, Herbert

and Men, not exceeding 50,000, be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This is a Supplementary Estimate for 1916–17. We are authorised to raise 350,000, but we have already gone beyond that, and we now come to Parliament for the necessary authority. That is the

1983
maximum number we are entitled to raise, and we shall continue to join these men. If our requirements necessitate a further provision we shall, of course, have to bring in a Supplementary Estimate.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for additional Expenditure on the Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines."
Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a Supplmentary Estimate for 1916 –17, the result of the Token Vote system. I explained in full detail on March 1st last year the reasons for a precisely similar Vote. We are authorised in Token Estimates to spend £100 under each Vote, and these amount to £1,700 in all. We estimate to receive not £l,700, but £17,000,000. To use that, we must get Parliamentary sanction, and for that purpose we bring this Vote before the House as a Token Vote of £10.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [26TH FEBRUARY].

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1917 –18.
  Resolution reported,
  "That 400,000 Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. CHURCHILL:I regret that I must ask the House to return for a very few moments to a subject which was raised in the course of the discussion on the Committee stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. Meux), in the course of his speech, made reference to two matters connected with the past naval administration which reflected on various officers in the Service and which require a brief mention from me this evening. My hon. and gallant Friend dealt, first of all, with the
  1984
  question of the removal of Admiral Hood from the Dover Command, and he sugguested that this removal was part of a policy of proscription pursued by Lord Fisher. There is absolutely no-truth whatever in the accusation. It is a pure invention, and there can be no-difficulty whatever, if research is made, in proving that fact by reference to the documents in possession of the Admiralty. Admiral Hood was a most brilliant and charming officer, and he had distinguished himself in all the operations in November, 1914, on the Belgian coast. Early in 1915 I formed the opinion that a sea-going command would be more suited to his abilities and special qualities than the peculiarly complicated and tactical conditions which prevailed in the Straits of Dover. There we were endeavouring to organise a great trap for submarines and there we required not only the skill and daring of a naval commanding officer of experience, but the technical skill of an inventor and the special aptitude of an officer accustomed to improvisation of all kinds. At any rate, it was decided to make this change. I was the person responsible and not Lord Fisher. He had nothing to do with it at all, except that I obtained his general concurrence. I was the person responsible for removing Admiral Hood from the Dover Command and of appointing in his stead Admiral Bacon. Admiral Hood was given an appointment at sea, and almost immediately afterwards it was possible to appoint him to the command of a Battle Cruiser Squadron, and that I did. After all, he was naval secretary to me for a year at the Admiralty, and I think I knew his views and wishes. A sea command was far more congenial to the temperament of this gallant officer than working out the extremely technical and scientific problems connected with the Dover Straits. At any rate, he went away with the Battle Cruiser Squadron, and in that command he perished most gloriously in the Battle of Jutland, adding renown to the ever-famous name he bore. In his place Admiral Bacon took up the command of the Dover Patrol, as it was then called, and he has held it ever since under two totally different successive Boards of Admiralty for over two years. He has held it, I believe, with the entire confidence of the different chiefs under whom he has served. To make out of this case a charge of proscription or intrigue or favouritism is not only grossly unfair, but

  1985
  a mental process which does contact with truth at any point however remote.
  The other point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was that connected with appointments of Admirals of the Fleet. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that a special change was made in the method of appointing Admirals of the Fleet at the instance of Prince Louis of Battenberg, in order that he might remain an Admiral of the Fleet. That was an odious charge against Prince Louis. No man has deserved better of this country; no man has suffered more from the hard accident of war and fortune of war than he has. What are the facts? I noticed some hon. Gentlemen who were carried away by the oratory of my hon. and gallant Friend cheered that reference to the question of appointing Admirals of the Fleet. But what are the facts? The system of naval promotion is very peculiar. You have a strict system of selection up to the rank of captain, and after that a rigid system of seniority. It is the reverse of the system which prevails in the Army practically, but by that system, whether a man is to be Admiral of the Fleet, is practically determined by his promotion from commander to captain. If he is promoted from commandor early and gets a reasonable share of employment afterwards, he must in the ordinary course of events, if he lives, become an Admiral of the Fleet. I thought that was a very absurd system. I thought it was due to the dignity of the Admiral of the Fleet that it should be placed on something like the same basis as Field-Marshal, of which it is the correlative rank; it ought to have some basis corresponding in merit. It seemed absurd that men like Sir George Callaghan or Sir John Jellicoe should never be able tote Admirals of the Fleet, and should be automatically cut out, while admirals who had never been used for any great command, or had never taken any leading position in the Navy, should naturally and automatically pass to this great dignity. It is true that theoretically there was discretionary power. It did not go by absolute seniority—there was discretionary power of selection. But that had only once been exercised in several generations, and I thought it was necessary and right to give a reality to this rank. I suggested three conditions which should govern the
  1986
  appointment of Admiral of the Fleet Prince Louis of Battenberg had nothing to do with it at all, although he assented to it as a member of the Board. I ask the House whether the1 conditions are not reasonable? The first was twelve months' service in command of the principal Fleet, or twelve months' service as First Sea Lord, or distinguished war service rendered since the rank of captain had been attained. One of these three qualifications I proposed to the Board should be in future indispensable to the exercise of the selecting power for Admiral of the Fleet. My hon. and gallant Friend who raised this question had no reason to complain because he came under the third qualification. I made these proposals to the Board of Admiralty, and they were unanimously accepted by the Naval Lords. They are in practice at the present time, and I doubt if they will ever be departed from. I have not entered into any of the personal matters upon which my hon. and gallant Friend was so eloquent, because in these times they would seem to be rather far beneath the attention of the House; but I did think it necessary these two points to which I have referred should receive categorical refutation. I have no doubt that the House will accept my statement on the subject, but if there should be any doubt in anyone's mind as to the facts I have stated, I have no doubt they will be confirmed by the representative of the Admiralty.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution reported,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918."
  Resolution agreed to.

MINISTRY OF FOOD (PARLIAMEN TARY SECRETARIES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection; That in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following fourteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir John Ains-worth, Major Anstruther-Gray, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Currie, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Millar, Mr. Morton, Sir John M'Callum, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Watson, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Wilkie.
Sir DANIEL GODDAKD further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Alden, Mr. Archdale, Sir John Barran, Sir William Beale, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Burns, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cator, Mr. Chancellor, Sir William Collins, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. George Faber, Mr. Fell, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Fox, Sir George Greenwood, Mr. Rupert Gwynne, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Mr. Henry Percy Harris, Mr. Gordon Harvey, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Higham, Mr. Hills, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Keating, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir George Croydon Marks, Mr. Millar, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Nield, Mr. Nugent, Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Pennefather, Mr. Perkins, Sir Owen Philipps, Mr. Kendall, Mr. Charles Roberts, Sir Herbert Roberts, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir John Spear, Sir Albert Spicer, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, Mr. George Thorne, Mr. William Thome, Lord Alexander Thynne, Mr. Turton, Mr. Watson, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Viscount Wolmer.
Sir DANIEL GODDARD further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill): The Lord Advocate, Mr. Brace, Secretary Sir George Cave, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Bartley Denniss, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Glyn-Jones, Mr. King, Mr. Hugh Law, Sir George Radford, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Commander Wedgwood, and Mr. Aneurin Williams.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ROSYTH NAVAL DOCK (WAGES).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEI, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. ADAMSON: There are several matters I desire to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty relative to the wages and conditions of the workmen engaged in the Naval Dockyard at Rosyth. The first is the fact that there is 2s. per week difference in the wages paid to the locally-entered men as compared with the men transferred from the southern yards. This matter is causing a considerable amount of feeling on the part of the locally entered men. I have no objection to the transferred men being paid at their present rate. As a matter of fact, when one takes into account the present high cost of living, I think their wages should be increased rather than decreased. My objection is that the locally entered men are not paid at the same rate. These men are performing the same duties in quite as efficient a manner as the men who have been transferred from the southern yards. These locally entered men have also to meet the same high cost of living as the men who have been transferred from the southern yards. I do not think that the saving effected is value for the friction among the employés caused by this anomaly, and the right hon. Gentleman would be well-advised to remove it at the earliest possible moment. The second point to which I would direct his attention is that there is a number of tradesmen employed in the dockyard who are paid by time rates, such as masons, bricklayers, and other workmen of that character. These men are being paid one halfpenny per hour less than the wage paid to similar classes of tradesmen in Dunfermline. That is a direct violation of the Fair-Wages Clause, and as it is a Government Depart merit that is involved, it is a complaint that should be remedied at, the earliest possible opportunity.
11.0.P.M.
The third point to which I want to direct attention is that there is a number of men employed in the power station at the dockyard who, because of the fact that they have an eight-hours working day, and consequently cannot travel by the trains provided by the Admiralty, are not provided with facilities for travelling, free, as are

1989
the other workmen, neither are they being paid the 6d. per day travelling time that is paid to the other workmen. In some cases this anomaly is causing the workmen involved to be 9s. per week worse off, because in addition they have to pay 1s. a day 'bus fare.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Are these Inverkeithing men?
Mr. ADAMSON: No, Dunfermline men. The next point I wish to direct attention to is the fact that the train arrangements are of such a character that the men who are travelling to Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Kirkcaldy, and elsewhere are sometimes more than fourteen hours absent from their homes. Surely this is a matter whereby some reasonable arrangement could be made with the railway companies which would obviate these men being delayed so king to and from their homes. One point in connection with these complaints to which I should like to specially direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is that there is less delay in the morning from their homes to the dockyard than there is in the evening. Sometimes they are double the time on the homeward journey than it takes to do the journey in the morning. Further, there is a distinction drawn as to the carriages in which the various classes of workmen and workwomen travel. Some grades of the employés are provided with first-class carriages and others with third, but the third-class carriages are often so crowded with workmen that a number of them have to stand during the whole journey. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a very enviable experience for a man who has been working in the dockyard for, in some cases, twelve, fourteen, and sixteen hours, while at the same time, first-class carriages are running almost empty. The last point to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention is the fact that some men are having their establishment promotion delayed in consequence of their losing time, notwithstanding the fact that these same men are working as many as seventy-eight hours per week, with their overtime. I do not think that is fair treatment. I think that if a man is working seventy-eight hours a week he should not be penalised because on one morning of the week he may be two or three hours off his work. If a man is working sixteen hours on one day of the week, and feels not in the best form for going to his work at the regular
1990
time in the morning of the following day he should not be penalised and have his establishment promotion put back. These are matters which are causing a considerable amount of friction, and I think it would be well worth close inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman with a view to having them remedied at the earliest possible moment.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I raise no objection to my hon. Friend having put these points to me. These men work hard; they are engaged on work of great national importance, and it is up to us to see that they are properly and sympathetically treated. In regard to the first point, the question of the wages, I would point out that the ordinary dockyard employé, locally entered, gets the regular dockyard rate of pay. That is the same in every dockyard in the United Kingdom, and has been the subject from time to time of the closest possible examination. That pay is up to the level of the pay of other employers in the locality. There is no question about that. See what is happening. We asked a certain number of men from the southern yards to go to Rosyth because we wanted a considerable number of men there who are acquainted with dockyard methods, procedure, and routine; and, in order to give them some sort of inducement to go there, to leave their old associations, and to tear themselves up by the roots from their homes, we said, "We will give you 2s. a week over and above ordinary dockyard rates." The moment we do that, along come the men locally entered and say, "We want the same pay." These locally entered men are really getting fair and reasonable rates. What they are asking for is that, in addition to the ordinary dockyard rates, they shall have the special consideration which we have given over and above the ordinary rate to the transferee from the South, on the grounds I have named. I will represent my hon. Friend's views to the Board, of course. I daresay that when a man sees that the man working next to him is getting 2s. more than he is getting he thinks he ought to have the same. But this 2s. is a special award above the ordinary rate given to the transferee for having gone to Rosyth at our request and left his home associations and friends.
The second point is in regard to bricklayers getting one halfpenny per hour less than the rate current in the locality. We are bound under the

1991
Fair-Wages Resolution to pay the rate current in the locality for competent workmen. We have no alternative. It is part of the contract. I am speaking of the contractors' men. If the hon. Member or anyone else can prove to me that we are not paying the rate current in the locality for competent workmen, we have no alternative but to pay the rate. The difference between my hon. Friend and myself is that I shall question the evidence that he brings before me to prove that we are paying ½d. less than the current rate. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. If the hon. Member will show me that the contractors on our behalf are paying less than the rate current, we are bound to pay the current rate under the Fair-Wages Resolution. The third point is the railway facilities. There has been, of course, great pressure on Rosyth in the matter of housing, and men have had to go further afield. In order that they might do so and get proper housing, we have provided free railway facilities. I can well believe that there is great congestion in the mornings. There is a great tax upon the rolling stock just now.
Mr. ADAMSON: It is worse in the evening.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I will make representations to the Railway Executive about that, because we want the men to have reasonable facilities. My hon. Friend spoke about the Dunfermline men having to pay nine shillings a week. Free railway travelling has been granted for Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and other places in the neighbourhood, and I do not quite understand the point about Dunfermline.
Mr. ADAMSON: The point is that a number of men employed in the power station, because of the fact that they have an eight hours' working day, cannot take advantage of the train provided by the Admiralty. The time of starting and finishing does not permit of their using the trains, and they have to pay bus fares of a shilling a day, which in some cases means that they are out of pocket to the extent of 9s.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I thought that my hon. Friend was under the impression that the Dunfermline men did not get free railway traveling.
Mr. ADAMSON: Not the men employed in the power station?
Dr. MACNAMARA: It is part of the conditions that the Dunfermline men shall have free railway travelling, but I shall look into the matter. In reference to the congestion, there is great pressure upon the rolling-stock. I will, however, certainly make representations to the Railway Executive to do all they can to give these men reasonable facilities. Establishment was referred to by my hon. Friend. In all the other Royal yards a man gets his chance of establishment when he reaches a certain age, and if he is a competent worker. Rosyth transferees are in a better position as regards establishment than any other unestablished men in the employment of the Admiralty. We have said this to them: "As another consideration, in addition to the 2s., if you go to Rosyth, if you have been in our employment for three years, when you have done one year in Rosyth, and have a good record, you shall be established." I may tell my hon. Friend that some of the men in other yards have complained that the men at Rosyth got too favourable treatment. My hon. Friend says that he knows a man doing seventy-eight hours a week, who has not had his establishment given because of having lost time. I will look into it, but I should make it clear to him that the condition at Rosyth is that any man, having completed three years in our service, when he completes a year at Rosyth, will be established if he can give us a good report. I know that in some cases the commodore superintendent has said, when the time has come for establishment, "Your timekeeping has not been as good as it might have been," and certainly my hon. Friend would be the first to say in this time of national crisis that everybody must pull his load for all he is worth. Of course he would. If it appeared that there was no good reason why a man could not keep better time, then of course it would be right that the fact should be considered. If, on the other hand, it appeared that he could not make better time because of the bad train system, then there would be something on the other side of the balance sheet, and it would be looked at from that point of view. With regard to all these questions, you have a very sympathetic man in Commodore Bruce, who is a large-minded man, and my communications from him show that there is not a point that the men have put forward that Commodore Bruce has ever overlooked, and there is no one more continually anxious to look

1993
after the position and condition of the men on all occasions. Let me repeat that the 2s. is a special consideration over and above the ordinary rate, for the reasons I have already given. As to the bricklayers, if they are getting a halfpenny less than the current rate which obtains, we shall have to make it up. We are bound to do that. As to the question of railway facilities, I will look into that, and in reference to the subject of establishment the Rosyth men receive it after one year at Rosyth, having served three years in Government employment previously, if they have got good reports, and I am quite certain Commodore Bruce will not withhold good reports from any man who has done his work properly.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for his very sympathetic reply. The last time we raised this question he was good enough to give us an increase so far as travelling was concerned. That gave great satisfaction, but at the same time it did not remove all grievances. My hon. Friend has named a number of them to-night. This really does not amount to such a great expenditure, and we look forward with confidence for the special investigation which he is going to give to the
1994
matter. With regard to the distinction between local men and transferees, for a considerable time the local men and the transferees were equalised, and they received an extra 2s. for many months, and this was carried on until a new advance was made, and some inquisitive person, I think, discovered it, the result being that, having been equalised for many months, a new distinction was made, and 2s. was given only to the transferees That fact in itself has given rise to a good deal of feeling. With regard to the question of travelling, it is really a case for investigation. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of some of my own Constituents who are concerned, and I only hope we shall have as satisfactory a reply a few weeks hence as we were able to obtain on a former occasion.
Mr. T. WILSON: Will these transferees go on getting the 2s. in perpetuity?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes. It was given to them as a solatium for taking them away to Rosyth from their homos and all their friends, and it will be paid to them all the time they are there.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock.