CLAUSE 3.—(Power by Proclamation to Withdraw Certificates of Exemption in Case of National Emergency.) (Hansard, 18 April 1918)

Mr. H. SAMUEL
Will the Home Secretary kindly explain the effect of this alteration? Is it merely a draft Amendment?

§ Sir G. CAVE
It is, I think, a drafting Amendment. This is the Clause which enables certificates to be withdrawn by Order in Council, and the House inserted words to except the certificates granted under paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section (2) of the Act of 1916. It was pointed out that where a certificate of exemption was granted on two grounds, for instance, on the ground of occupation and also on the ground of ill-health, an awkward position might arise. It might be that the certificate was granted mainly on the first ground, the other being only thrown in. In such a case the man ought to have his exemption cancelled, and to meet cases of that kind, which are very difficult to deal with, the other House has inserted this Amendment.

Mr. SAMUEL
Suppose there are exemptions which are granted both on occupation grounds and on the ground of conscientious objection, and then this Proclamation of cancellation is issued. The intention of this House when it put in these words was that that man should be exempted quâ conscientious objector, and I am not quite sure what will be the effect of the Amendment made by the House of Lords, and whether this man may not have his exemption repealed altogether. Is that intended, and, if so, is it right?

§ Sir G. CAVE
The answer to these questions is in the affirmative. Perhaps I may state what the Amendment was intended to do. There may be cases where the certificate was granted on two grounds—grounds of occupation or business and grounds of ill-health. Both may appear in the certificate, yet it may be quite well known that the exemption on the ground of ill-health was a mere subsidiary reason, the real reason being the occupation or business ground. Health alone would not have been a sufficient ground for the exemption. It is difficult to distinguish these cases in an Act of Parliament, but the object is that both grounds shall be considered. It is quite understood that where a man has a claim for exemption for health or conscience, he shall have an opportunity of bringing his case forward. As regards health, of course the medical examination will dispose of any question. As regards conscientious objections, where that is a second ground for exemption, I quite agree that alone may be an adequate ground. I spoke to the Minister for National Service on that point 630 this morning, and he agreed that provision must be made in the Proclamation so that in a case of that kind the conscientious objections can be brought up.

Mr. SAMUEL
You cannot, under Subsection (2) of this Clause.

§ Sir G. CAVE
You can if the words in the Sub-section are utilised, "except so far as the Proclamation provides for making application for such exemption."

§ Mr. SHERWELL
The matter is one of some importance, because the Proclamation largely proceeds on the assumption, which may be well-founded or ill-founded, that that second ground may be seized upon in the renewal of the certificate as the major consideration in the original grant of the certificate of exemption. It is provided that the Proclamation shall give full security to an applicant of that kind. It is a little unfortunate we have not the nature of that security under our consideration at the present moment, and whether that security will be adequate or not and the precise form it may take are quite conjectural matters. I do suggest that the decision, or rather the assumption, as to which was the major consideration when the original certificate of exemption was granted should not lie wholly or absolutely with the authorities, but should be one which provides proper security for the person concerned.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I have followed the discussion with some perplexity. The drafting is vaguely expressed, in terms that are not clear to the lay mind. As far as I understand the point, it is one of very real substance indeed. When it was under discussion in the House previously it was the deliberate decision of the House that certificates granted under paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) relating respectively to conscientious objection and to medical grounds, should not be certificates which could be cancelled by the Minister of National Service under that Clause. What I want to know is whether power is now being taken under the guise of this Amendment to cancel any of the certificates granted on the ground of paragraph (c) and of paragraph (d), and, if not, why the Amendment is necessary at all. May I remind the Home Secretary that when any certificate is granted by the tribunal under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) the ground is stated on the certificate. It is 631 granted for one of the reasons under one of those two paragraphs, or under both of them?

§ Sir G. CAVE
And others.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
Yes, and others; but will the Home Secretary tell me whether the Bill as amended by the Amendment which is now moved will give power to revoke certificates granted either on the ground of conscientious objection or medical grounds?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes, if there is another ground—business, occupation, or something of that kind. A certificate might under this Amendment be revoked, but I have stated that the Proclamation shall reserve to the conscientious objector—when that is one of the grounds of exemption—the right to renew his application.

§ Mr. WHITEHOUSE
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It does really prove the point I make. It was the feeling of the House—and when we have a small House present to receive an Amendment from another place I think it is only reasonable to remind the House of what was the general assent expressed on the original proposal—that certificates granted on grounds of conscientious objection or on medical grounds should not be subject to this Clause 3, that the Minister for National Service should not have the power to issue any Proclamation dealing with certificates granted on those grounds. We are now being asked to go behind the deliberate decision of the House of Commons, and I think it is quite unfair and quite improper for the Government to take an Amendment of substance in a small House without any notice having been given. That is why I oppose this alteration, because I think it is a reversal of the deliberate decision of the House of Commons.

§ Sir H. NIELD
I disagree entirely with the observations of the last speaker. So far from it being a matter of substance, I think I may say that I would almost give the Home Secretary a guinea for every certificate he could show me which was granted partly on the ground of business and partly on the ground of conscientious objection, or partly on the ground of health and partly on the ground of business. The health is settled by the grading, and no man gets exemption on the ground 632 of business coupled with that of health. If the grading is very low he is useless for military purposes, and he probably gets his exemption entirely on that footing. So far as conscientious objection is concerned, I do not think you will find that a certificate given on the ground of conscience is ever coupled with any other ground of exemption at all. It is regarded as the one thing which exonerates either wholly or with a provision for non-combatant service, and is given wholly and solely on that grounds. I think, therefore, that, far from being a matter of substance, this only really has substance in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman. There may be such a thing in other districts. I can only speak for a large and populous county which has done a great deal of this work, and where it is unheard of. But if there are such cases it is to be provided that the Order in Council will give an opportunity to the man to put forward an application on one or other of the grounds, and I am quite sure that tribunals will readily adhere to that.