§ Mr. W. BAKER
I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment with no very great hope either of receiving a sympathetic hearing from the Treasury Bench or even of obtaining any reply whatsoever to any point which I shall endeavour to urge. The position is that I have already spoken on this subject on two 1934 occasions in this House, once dining the course of the discussion on the Address and once during the Second Beading, when, I venture to hope, I submitted one or two points of substance for the consideration of the Government. In fact, one Member of the Government was good enough to say that a case of some substance was submitted during the course of the Second Reading, mid unless I am misinformed, and unless I have been unconscious of statements made in this House which would have been of special interest to me, no attempt whatever has been made to deal with the case which on those two occasions I ventured to submit to the House.
1935 As far as I know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present on the occasion of either of the two speeches to which I have referred. I should not venture to hope that he has read what I had to say, and, at the same time, I cannot have sufficient courage to weary the House with a repetition of the argument which I ventured to put forward on those previous occasions. But it is essential that I should repeat the statement which I made on both occasions, namely, that the general strike offered the Government absolutely no justification whatever for the inclusion of Clause 5 in the present Bill. On the occasion of the Second Reading I read to the House a very carefully prepared statement in order that the facts with regard to the general strike and the Civil Service Unions might be placed in a position of absolute certainty, and I really must ask the House to be patient with me, because I consider that this statement is of sufficient importance to warrant it being read a second time. The statement reads:On the occasion of the general strike it is true that some of the Civil Service trade unions placed their funds at the disposal of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, but it is perfectly clear that by doing so they did not amend or suspend their rules and could only offer such assistance as those rules empowered them to give. The General Council were subsequently informed by the Civil Service trade unions that they had no power to instruct their members to withdraw their labour even if such requests were made. The General Council never imagined or desired that civil servants would do more than subscribe funds. No Civil Service organisation was at any stage of the strike called upon to take an active part in it.It is perfectly clear that the Government are conscious of the truth of this statement because in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this in reply to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon):I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite about the Civil Service and the general strike, and I would like to point out that out of 220,000 established civil servants, I think only 40 were guilty of actively participating in the strike.Let me interpolate here that, as far as I am informed, none of the 40 acted on the request or instruction of the leaders of their trade organisation, and certainly 1936 none of the 40 belonged to any organisation for which I have any title to speak. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:Therefore, we are not dealing with evils which have yet come into the field of practical politics to any great extent. Nevertheless, we are legislating in good time before that impartial loyalty which is now given to ail parties has been perverted and a situation created where each party has its own friends and favourites and enemies in the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 70, Vol. 207.]One might almost hope, with honourable opponents, that the statement I have read to the House, plus the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would place this matter beyond the power of misrepresentation, but I find that the National Union of Conservative Associations have issued a pamphlet in which they say:The majority of civil servants know full well that as employés of tile Crown they are at the service of any Government which may be in power. It has for years been the unwritten law of the Service that no civil servant should take a prominent part eiher in national or local politics. This unwritten law has very recently, been flagrantly violated by a certain minority of the Civil Service, and during the general strike threats were made of a sympathetic cessation of work by a certain union belonging to that Service. It is essential for the good of the Service as a whole that the former well-established rule should be restored and respected.I submit, most respectfully, that the two statements I have just read cannot be reconciled with this partisan statement, but it does give the key to this Clause, if not to the whole Bill. When we seek for an explanation of the Government's action we have to turn again to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th May, when, with greater candour than some of his colleagues, he gave us, I believe, the whole of the facts. He said:The increasing politicalisation of the trade unions and their increasing intermixture with controversial party politics has emphasised the position, and for some years there has been a great deal of anxiety not only outside the Civil Service but amongst very powerful sections inside the Civil Service at the increasing extent to which civil servants seem to be associated with controversial party politics, and identify themselves with the fortunes of one particular political party."—[OFFICIAT. REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 69. Vol. 207.]No one could place the facts in a clearer or plainer light. I am perfectly 1937 satisfied in my own mind that the action of the organisation to which I have the honour to belong in supporting the Labour party, not for any advantage to be directly secured from affiliation with the Labour party but because we believe that the Labour policy is the correct national policy, and the action of that organisation in trying to strengthen the ranks of Labour in this House has led to Clause 5 being included in this Bill. But my real difficulty with regard to this Clause is due to the fact that the Government have made no attempt whatever to give an impartial consideration to this problem. The political motive has actuated this Clause. The Government might have made some pretence at an impartial consideration. This is no new subject. It has been carefully considered by the MacDonnell Commission and the Blanesburgh Committee, neither of which body supported my own political views, but what is clear is this, that in considering, not the withdrawal of the rights we now possess, but in considering the possibility of the extension of the rights we now possess the Blanesburgh Committee did report that many members of that body were of the opinion that a case existed for an extension as far as the poorly paid grades were concerned, and in those circumstances it is altogether unsatisfactory that the Government should introduce this Clause into a Measure designed to deal with a totally different problem, and solely for the purpose of withdrawing from the Labour party the financial and moral support of the two organisations representing the more poorly paid grades in the Civil Service.
Instead of taking this action and endeavouring to take from us valuable rights, I am hopeful that we shall go a step forward and follow the example of New South Wales and France and extend to the Civil servant the right to stand as candidate for Parliament. I know of no case which justifies the Government as an employer of labour mixing up its functions as a Government and an employee of labour. It is essential that State ownership and enterprise should be rapidly extended, and it would be perfectly ridiculous to combine an extension of State ownership with the disfranchisement of the men employed in the mining and railway industries. There is no case for Clause 5, and 1 believe that a careful 1938 examination of the report of the MacDonnell Commission and the Blanesburgh Committee——
§ Mr. BAKER
There is no proposal in the Bill to disfranchise them, but I do not know why the Government hesitate to do it. It is very kind of the Government to say that a postman shall be free to record his vote. The Solicitor-General the other day definitely stated that under Clause 5, and under this Bill, a, postman would be able to be Chairman of the Labour party. It is not so; and I say that there is nothing in the duties of a postman or of the vast majority of men and women in the Civil Service which should preclude them from enjoying and fulfilling the whole of their citizen rights and duties. I would not trouble the House with any remarks to-night but for some statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He seemed to justify this particular Clause on quite another ground. I do not suppose for a moment that he will accept my view that it is a political move against the Labour party, but in Column 62 he said:The position of the established civil servant is a coveted position. I think that, for the Civil Service as a whole, there are between two and three candidates for every vacancy and the status of an established civil servant is a greatly desired status. To be permanenty employed, to be employed all your working life and to be pensionable at the end of your service, and to have these advantages guaranteed, not by a private employer, who may rise or fall owing to the competitive accidents of the world of business, but by a strong, stable State and nation—these are conditions which are greatly desired and greatly valued and cherished by a very large number of people in the country. It is only to this class of established civil servants, permanent and pensionable, that the special provisions of this Clause apply. We consider that, in view of their special permanent and pensionable position, the State is entitled to demand from them a particular relationship; and the object of the State, in giving these special conditions, is to secure faithful service in all circumstances in the hour of need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 62, Vol. 207.]I am not at all sure, desirable as security may be, that everyone is prepared to sacrifice his citizen rights and political liberty in order to secure this security. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be amused at this 1939 but if he cares to came to the City of Bristol he will be able to see thousands of ex-Service men who are unable to obtain a position, and he need not be surprised, therefore, that ex-Service men who can obtain positions in the Post Office apply for them to the extent of three to one. That does not make them coveted positions. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer covet such a position? There are 300,000 civil servants in this country, and 150,000 receive a total remuneration of less than £3 a week, including bonus, while 225,000 receive less than £4 a week. I regard many of our opponents as gentlemen who may almost be members of the Labour party, but for rich men to behave to poor men in the way in which some of our opponents behave in relation to this problem is caddish. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have a little more regard to the feelings of men and women in the Civil Service, who, admittedly, have rendered loyal service to the Crown and State through a long series of years. He should not throw at them the suggestion that, because of the present state of unemployment in the outside world, they are seeking a privileged position. The people in the Civil Service earn a great deal more than they receive in remuneration. I trust that that sort of attack will not be continued.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not stop there. He told a deputation that the Government were anxious to introduce this Clause in order to avoid the introduction of the spoils system into this country. The spoils system, so far as I know, exists in one country and in one country only, to any great extent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House referred in less direct language to the spoils system. All I have to say is that there is no justification for such a statement or charge. The Civil Service of the country is recruited on an open competition basis for the main part, and the bulk of the people who are not so recruited secure their positions after service with the forces of the Crown. Where the nomination and patronage system is retained it is not to the advantage of the poorer grades in the Civil Service; it is retained in the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's class and their descendants. There is no justification whatever for 1940 talking about the spoils system in this country. I am really amazed that such a line of attack should be taken on this question.
There is one further point I wish to make, and that is in regard to the representation of special interests in this House. Here, perhaps, I should be forgiven if I say a word or two of a somewhat personal character. In this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:Secondly, we hold very strongly to the view that a Member of Parliament ought to represent a constituency. If the House of Commons is to preserve its historic character and meet the many dangers that menace it and that menace all Parliamentary institutions, I am sure that the less we have of Members representing particular interests, or particular groups, and the more we have of Members who come here to represent the Commons of Britain, the better, more efficient, and more respected our Parliamentary institutions will be."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1927; col. 68, Vol. 207.]The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) whom I had hoped to see here and who is not present, was good enough in the Debate to deal with a somewhat similar point, and I would like to thank him, even indirectly, for his kindly references to myself during that discussion. The substance of the point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Finchley was that my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell and myself were in this House to represent special interests. I want to say, first, that the Rouse of Commons has no objection to the representation of special interests. The House of Commons welcomes the railway director; the House of Commons welcomes the man who can speak on behalf of the Federation of British Industries; and, so far as I know, the House of Commons never takes the slightest objection to the presence of a Member, provided that the money which pays for his entrance is obtained from rent, profit or interest. But if a person like myself comes here, whose passage is made possible by the contributions of his colleagues in a similarly lowly status in life, it apparently is an immoral and most deplorable thing.
I make no apology for the fact that I am not in a financial position to pay my own election expenses. It may very well be that the old saving is true, that anyone who turns his attention to making 1941 money can succeed. I do not know because I have never tried. I am here as a result of 90,000 men and women in the Post Office service having been good enough to express a desire for my presence here, and because they have been good enough to subscribe in order that my expenses might be paid. But I would not have the House believe for a moment that I am here in any sense as a representative of the Post Office or of the Civil Service. The hon. Member for Finchley said:It may come as a shock to the nerves of those hon. Members whom I have named when I inform them that there is a very considerable section of the Civil Service who would most happily surrender that privilege"—of being supposedly represented by us—who are strongly opposed to this form of political levy, and do not regard those hon. Members as representative of them selves as individuals or as civil servants in any way whatever."—[OFFICIAL REPORt. 30th May, 1927; col. 78, Vol. 207.]All I can say, in reply to that, is that I do not claim to represent the Civil Service in this House. I do not claim to represent the Post Office in this House. All I claim is that 90,000 men and women who were colleagues of mine in the Post Office were good enough and generous enough to make it possible for me to come here to represent a constituency and to support the Labour party. So far as I know no member of the Post Office, and no Post Office organisation, look to me to make any return whatever for the contributions they are good enough to make. I stand here to-night representing the political Division of East Bristol, and I believe that I have been a good and faithful representative of the people in that Division. I challenge anyone to say that I have ever been detected in claiming to speak for the Civil Service.
My complaint about the Government's action is that they have seen fit to tell disinterested persons in the Post Office who have subscribed money towards the election expenses of my colleague and myself that they were self-seeking, that they were endeavouring to exploit the political system to their own personal advantage, and I say most emphatically that those charges and suggestions are absolutely untrue. I fear that the process of reasoning whereby supporters of the Government arrive at their conclusions 1942 follows a very peculiar course. I read a good deal of their literature, and I have often come to the conclusion that their method of reasoning is to find an exceptional case and then to lay that down as representing a general law. Too much of their political propaganda and proposals for legislation is built up of that sort of thing. Although there is no hope here to-day of persuading the Government to change their point of view, although there is no hope of securing the elimination of this Clause of the Bill, yet I sincerely hope that, this protest having been made, it will have some effect upon the mentality of the Government, so far as future events are concerned.
§ Mr. SNELL
I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot claim to have any special information respecting the details of the Civil Service and the relationships that may exist between the different grades of its staff; but it may not be inappropriate that one who is interested only because many of his constituents are interested should express an average general view on this matter. The main objections to this Clause are not very difficult to state. Our first objection is that there was absolutely no need for this Clause to be included in the Bill. The Bill claims to commend itself to the public because of what was called the general strike of last year, but the outstanding fact of the matter is that the Civil Service did not strike, that there was no likelihood of their striking, and that they never intended to strike. They have not a strike fund at their disposal and they are not organised for the purpose. But the Government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to drag in this highly contentious and altogether unnecessary feature in a Bill which deals with other purposes. That is one of our chief objections-that the Government is here exposing itself to the suggestion that it has been rattled and is undertaking legislation not for anything that did happen but for something that may happen.
I am not sure whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House, or in accordance with the political history of our country, that you should seek to penalise men for something they have not done rather than for something they have done. As a Member of this House who has to deal with many civil servants 1943 and very frequently, my experience is that efficiency is their policy, that above everything else they desire to do their work in a way which will bring them self-satisfaction and pride, and it is that Departmental pride, found throughout the service, which the Government is through this Clause criticising or rather throwing a reflection upon. I hold, therefore, that the Civil Service did not deserve that this indignity should be put upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he spoke on the last occasion, said that so mild and gentle was this Clause that when it became law no average civil servant would know that it had been passed. But the civil servant will know this—that he is cut off from association with his fellows in the country; he will know that this Government is isolating him and setting him as a class apart from the rest of the workers with whom in ordinary life he has to associate. I suggest that that creation of an isolated bureaucracy is bad politics and is a bad outlook altogether for the nation. I would have said chat if anything would commend what we call the bureaucracy of the country to the people as a whole, it would be that no political distinctions were made between them, that a man who was employed by the Government directly he got out of his office and away from the discipline and routine of his profession, was a citizen free to mix with his fellows, and they, mixing with him, would understand what his work was, and they would have a sort of rough partnership in what he was doing.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Nothing in this Clause prevents such a civil servant mixing with his fellow servants.
§ Mr. SNELL
He cannot be represented through his Civil Service association, acting in consort with his fellows in political matters. That isolates him. It puts him into a class apart, and I suggest it does a great disservice to the 1944 Civil Service. I have no desire to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, but, to me, the outstanding difficulty in regard to this Clause is that the Government have not thought fit to distinguish between people in the Civil Service, who are responsible for policy and those who do routine work. Had the Government said in relation to Clause 5 that many of the higher grade civil servants are really advisers of the Government, and have a part in the policy of the nation, and that it would be inappropriate that they should take part in political controversy, one would have understood the logic behind that view. But to apply this principle to a ledger clerk, or a postman, to a person who works under orders, and under strict Departmental discipline, seems to be altogether unnecessary, and is, I suggest, inadvisable.
The final point I desire to make is in regard to partnership in industry. I thought we were groping our way in English politics towards the time when the worker would be associated with the department, the manager, the board, the directorate—the employer in whatever form—for the good of the firm. I understood that the outlook for British industry depended on the worker's association with his employers in the management of industry. Here the employer of the civil servant happens to be the Parliament of this land, and they are not to be allowed to approach Parliament in an organised way, and presumably, they are not to have organised political views of their own. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is enough of a political scientist to know that this is going to make real difficulties, and in creating this anomaly between one class of workers and another, the Government are doing a great disservice to the country. My last word is a repetition of what I said on a previous occasion. If the Government were wise, they would leave the Civil Service alone. It is an efficient service, it is a clean, a pure, an incorruptible service. It knows no distinction between Governments. Its members devote themselves loyally to their tasks, and to put upon such a service this indignity is a thing that ought not to be contemplated.
§ Sir HARRY FOSTER
I need hardly say I do not agree with the general purport of the speech to which we have just 1945 listened. I think the Clause as a whole is not only a wise Clause, but one very much to be desired in the interests of an efficient Government service. I do not believe any large number of people in the Civil Service object to the general principle, and certainly, they do not regard themselves as being made a segregated class by these proposals. I wish to snake an appeal—probably I should not have another opportunity of making it—to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two points, which have I think been overlooked in the drafting of this Clause. They require attention, because I do not think the effect of the Clause at present represents the intention. The first point is with regard to those who have been in the Civil Service and who have been superannuated. There can be no reason why these ex-civil servants should not be allowed to continue to give other members of the Civil Service in the Civil Service unions the benefit of their experience. In the Bill, as at present framed, they would be ineligible for this purpose, and if their membership of these unions were to continue it would constitute a breach of the Regulations proposed in the Bill. I have put down an Amendment which embodies my suggestion. When I brought the matter before the House during the Committee stage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, but the Attorney-General promised that the matter would receive consideration.
I also wish to call attention to the extremely inelastic and severe provisions of Sub-section (2), the wording of which is quite exceptional. It leaves no discretion in the Treasury or anybody else to review a case, however small may be the offence which has been committed. If a civil servant knowingly contravenes, in the smallest degree, any of the provisions which are laid down here—however slight may be the breach of those provisions—he is ipso facto disqualified by this Clause from continuing to be a member of the Civil Service. In other words, there is no locus penitentice. If a civil servant has contravened any one of these provisions even in the most trifling manner there is no appeal. There is no power in the Treasury to act. He ceases automatically to be a member of the Civil Service.
§ Sir H. FOSTER
I do not want to use language of that kind, but I think that the wording is exceptionally severe and that the Clause cannot be intended to have such a result. There should surely be a discretion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself ought to have the power or the Lords of the Treasury ought to have the power to say whether the contravention is serious or trifling; but neither the Chancellor, nor the Cabinet, nor this House by a Resolution can do anything for the relief of the civil servant who comes under these provisions. There is no discretion in any Court or in any Judge to say that the offence was a trifling one, and that the penalties applicable under this Measure ought not to be enforced. I suggest that either here or in another place, the exceptional provisions of this Clause should be considered and some modifying words inserted which would give a discretion to somebody to give relief in such a case as I have indicated. Subject to these suggestions the Clause is one which I heartily support and I have no sympathy with the proposal that it should be omitted.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Will it be in order to make reference to the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has clown on the Paper—in page 7 line 7, to insert the words(b) any person employed at the commencement of this Act by or under the Crown who thereafter becomes an established civil servant from remaining, so long as he is not appointed to a position of supervision or management, a member of any trade union or organisation, not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown, of which he is a member at the date when he so becomes an established civil servant, if under the rules thereof there has at that date accrued, or begun to accrue, to him a right to any future payment during incapacity, or by way of superannuation, or on the death of himself or his wife, or as provision for his children; or"?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Yes, the present Amendment is to leave out the whole of the Clause. Although subsequent Amendments have been protected, we may not reach them, and it is in order to refer to the Clause as it stands, or as it may be amended.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I raised a question which chiefly affects employés in His Majesty's dockyards, and I would not like 1947 to withhold my gratitude from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having to some extent met the point which I then raised. He has down an Amendment which virtually covers the grievance to which I referred on that occasion but it does not entirely cover it. As in his speech in reply to this Amendment he will probably deal with the whole subject, I would ask him now whether he would not be preferred to accept the two small Amendments to his Amendment which I have down on the Paper—to leave out the words "at the commencement of this Act" and to leave out the word "thereafter." The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment confines the relief which he is now giving to those employed "at the commencement of this Act." I see no valid reasons why those words should be used, restricting the exemption to those who happen to be employed at the commencement of the Act.
This is a time when many men are being discharged from His Majesty's dockyards, and men may be discharged on the day before this Act comes into operation. Other men may be discharged on the day afterwards. These men, in the natural course of things, hope to be re-employed in His Majesty's dockyards when the present state of emergency has subsided. Men are now being discharged for reasons of economy, but at a later stage these men may be re-engaged. They are registered at the Employment Exchanges, and they are probably men who have been employed for many years in the dockyards, and who hope to return to that employment. These men will not be permitted to remain members of their unions after they become established, and therefore the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little illogical, because you will have two sets of men in the dockyards. There will be one set who, because they are employed in the higher capacities at the commencement of the Act may continue to belong to their unions, after they have been established, and there will be another set, who, having been discharged a day or two prior to the commencement of the Act, and subsequently re-employed, will not be able to remain members of their unions after establishment.
I feel certain the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point, and will 1948 see that the Amendment would do an injustice as between the two categories of men and would do so to no particular purpose. It will bring no advantage to the Treasury, or to the Government as a whole, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to omit the words "at the commencement of this Act," I think it would remove one grievance. There are other words in the Amendment which are open to question. He gives this exemption conditionally on these men being entitled to some benefits from their trade unions. If they are entitled to some benefits, and are employed at the commencement of the Act, they can remain members of their unions. If they are not entitled to any particular benefits they cannot remain members of their unions. I fail to see why this restriction should be imposed. If you discharge a man from the dockyard, it does not matter whether he is entitled to benefit from his union or not. He has to belong to the trade union in order to get another job. On the general question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to his administration at the Admiralty and said he had been guided by the policy of establishing as many civil servants as possible.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I mean as many dockyard employés as possible. That generosity and wisdom of his have often been utilised by me in favour of the record of the Liberal party, because I think it was a wise and proper provision. I hope that having taken credit for his past good deeds, he will carry them into further operation, and will give some undertaking that, while introducing this Clause, it will be the policy of the Government to establish as many dockyard men as possible. In future none of these established dockyard men will be able to belong to an outside trade union, and, if discharged, they will not be able to get any further employment. The higher men will not belong to a trade union if they hope to become established. It is only right and proper that some security of tenure should be given to them in return for what you are taking away from them, and that you should lay down a general policy and say that it will be in future the policy of His Majesty's Government to establish as many dockyard men as 1949 possible, because the numbers established in recent years have been very small indeed and they bear a very small pro-Portion to the total of those employed in His Majesty's dockyards. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making his general speech, he will be good enough to say whether he will grant this concession not only to men who happen by mere chance to be employed at the commencement of the Act, but to men who in future may become employed one day after its commencement.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and who represents a dockyard constituency, has made an appeal to me to make a concession in respect to the position of the future unestablished men who have not yet joined the Service. I cannot attempt to go so far as that. The principle of this Clause is that established civil servants must not retain their membership of outside unions, but it was pointed out at an early stage of the Bill that some of the existing established civil servants had claims, in virtue of their membership of those outside unions, which they would lose if they had to give it up; and, therefore, we say in our Clause that, if they are at the present time established and if they belong to such a union, then the Clause would not cover them and they might continue to be members of the outside union. Then one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House came along and said, "What about the unestablished man? He does not know whether he will be established or not. It may be many years before he is established, and meantime, he belongs to his trade union. When he is established will he be able to continue to belong to his union?" I think it was going a long way for me to meet that case and to delay the application of this part of the Clause for a very considerable period of time, measured by a good many years, perhaps 10 or 15 years in some cases. I have decided to meet the wishes which were expressed on this side of the House and also, I think, on the other side of the House, and provide not merely for the existing established civil servants, but also for the existing non-established civil servants. Unsatisfied with this, and indeed insatiable, the hon. Member (Mr. Hore Belisha) 1950 comes forward and says, "You must now provide for the future unestablished men. You must provide that any man who may join the Civil Service at any future time, if he belongs to an outside union, may continue to retain his membership." To do that would be to make the Clause a dead letter, because never so long as the world goes round would any man employed in the Civil Service be required to sever his connection with any of the outside unions. That would push the Government to a point where all our labours would be brought to nought. I cannot go further than the long way I have already gone in putting down the Amendment which the Government have placed upon the Paper. That will delay the full effect of this provision for a period longer than quite a number of us are likely to see, and further than that I cannot go.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) has two Amendments on the Paper about which he spoke. He spoke of the position of retired civil servants. He said, "May not a retired civil servant remain in his union after he has retired on pension?" There are one or two Civil Service institutions which include retired civil servants, but we cannot feel that there is any necessity behind this request. There would be nothing to prevent the retired civil servant continuing to subscribe, if he thought fit, to the funds of his union, and, of course, he might, if he chooses, retain the most friendly personal relations with his old colleagues, but we do not think it necessary to insert an Amendment which would appear to depart from, the principle that the Civil Service trade unions are for the existing members of the Civil Service. Then an hon. Member asked about penalties. Anything connected with penalties is always very disagreeable to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth asks that we should insert, instead of the word "knowingly," the word "persistently," and that there should be an appeal tribunal consisting of one of His Majesty's Judges of the High Court. We could not possibly accept that Amendment. No one, as far as I am aware, has ever questioned the right of the Crown and the necessity for the Crown to have the power to maintain discipline 1951 among its establishments by inflicting penalties for disobedience.
§ Sir H. FOSTER
I did not say a word in favour of the particular Amendment. I only desired to call attention to the fact that the Clause is so worded that for any breach or contravention, however trifling, ipso facto the man ceases to be a civil servant. That was my point.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That is not the fact.The offence in question is "knowingly." It is not a question of inadvertence, but "knowingly," and it is right that a man should be made aware that if he knowingly affronts the law and breaks the conditions of his tenure, he disqualifies himself ipso facto from the service. The extent to which clemency may properly be exercised is a matter for the authorities. But I think it is a right and proper position that the man who knowingly and wilfully, and with his eyes open, offends against the provisions of the Bill should realise that he disqualifies himself.
§ Mr. CONNOLLY
The Clause says, "the said regulations." Three sets of regulations are mentioned in the Clause. In the first part you have "the regulations"; then you have "the inclusive regulations," and further on you find "the regulations made in compliance with the provisions" etc. Does the phrase "said regulations" cover the whole of the regulations or only those made to comply with the Bill?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The penalties referred to in Clause 5 refer only to the regulations which are made in pursuance of Clause 5. We cannot accept the position of any intermediary coming between the State and its employés in matters of this kind. I have no doubt that such power of clemency and reinstatement as may rest with the authorities will be exercised in considering the facts in particular cases. I have dealt with these Amendments, and I have also explained the Amendment which the Government have in contemplation, because Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, seemed to consider that this general discussion on the Clause was the most convenient way to deal with these matters, and that also appeared to me to be the wish of hon. Members who are 1952 taking part in the Debate. I shall not attempt to deal with the general issue. The Report stage is far more appropriately occupied by dealing with points which have been overlooked in Committee, or which have arisen out of discussions in Committee than by being taken up with repetitions of the speeches which have been delivered at earlier stages of the Bill. I made a speech on the Committee stage when I presented the general case which is behind this Clause as fully as I could, and I do not really feel that I should be expediting business, or serving any useful purpose, if I were to repeat all I said on that occasion, or as much of it as I could remember. There is always a danger that one would not reproduce it so exactly that some discrepancy between the two versions would not arise. I am the less called upon to take this step because the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) who made a very rasping speech, a speech which certainly showed how very far as a political representative of the Civil Service his flagrant partisanship allowed him to go——
§ Mr. W. BAKER
I make the specific statement that I am not here representing the Civil Service; I am here representing East Bristol.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am all for that policy, but I consider that the hon. Gentleman is, to a very large extent, a representative of the Civil Service, and——
§ Mr. BAKER
I am very sorry to interrupt again, but according to all the traditions of gentlemanly conduct in this House I have always understood that an emphatic statement made by an hon. Member was accepted. I say most specifically that in no sense do. I represent the Civil Service in the House of Commons. I am here as the representative of East Bristol, and I represent no one else.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The hon. Member told us exactly what his position was, that 90,000 members of the Civil Service had, as he said, generously contributed to secure him his means of entering the House——
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
There is no question of any difference of view between us as to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but——
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House. If the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) thinks that anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said unfairly represents him, I am sure the House will allow him to speak again in order to put it right.
§ Mr. BAKER
The words I object to most strongly are the words "flagrant partisanship,' and we shall see when we get the OFFICIAL REPORT, if it is not corrected, but I say quite definitely that any hon. Member in this House, with the exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have withdrawn his remarks, having regard to my repudiation.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I consider myself perfectly entitled to form my own opinion of the character of the relations of the hon. Member with the 90,000 civil servants he told us about, and in forming my own opinion, and in expressing my own opinion, which I have an absolute right to do, I do not consider in the least that I throw any aspersion upon his own personal integrity or any statement which he may have made. He has stated certain facts, and I am entitled to draw my own conclusions from them, and, if I may say so——
§ Mr. BAKER rose——
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in possession of the House. Therefore, if he does not give way, the hon. Member is not entitled to rise in order to make any comments or interruptions, 1954 but at the same time, at the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if the hon. Member for East Bristol thinks that some personal explanation is necessary, I am sure the House will be willing to hear him, and I would take notice of him if he rose.
§ Mr. BAKER
On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer to my flagrant partisanship in relation to the representation of the Civil Service, having regard to my express statement, made in this Debate to-night, that I do not represent the Civil Service in this House.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is not a question of order. The hon. Member may complain of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if he wishes to make his personal position clear, I am sure that, notwithstanding the rule against speaking twice, the House will be willing to hear him again at the conclusion of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. BAKER rose.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I have already given way to the hon. Member, I think, live times in rapid succession, and I am endeavouring to address myself to the remarks which he made with some asperity in those interruptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense! "] I am quite entitled to do so, and I shall certainly not be prevented from saying what I think it right to say by any remarks made by any hon. Members in any quarter of the House; and, since the matter is to be pressed—and I do not think we should ever shrink from pressing any point when it is brought up—I should like to point out that, if the hon. Gentleman objects to the expression "flagrant partisanship" which I used, let me tell him that I used that expression because he applied to Members on this side the extremely offensive and impudent expression "caddishness." I do not object in the least to strong and rude language being used in these Debates—I have never taken a mealy-mouthed view of these matters—but I do say that the man who uses the word "cad," and flings it out as a taunt, in cold blood, to his political opponents, ought not to come and whine and complain because somebody says that 1955 he is guilty of flagrant partisanship. Lots of us are guilty of flagrant partisanship on this question or on that, and to run around crying out for order and help and succour because an innocent retort of that kind is made to a highly offensive expression is, I am bound to say, not up to the general level of spirited conduct which we expect from the hon. Gentleman. I will conclude my remarks by saying that the last argument in favour of my repeating my speech on the Committee stage has been removed by the fact that the hon. Member read practically the whole of it to the House this afternoon.
§ Mr. AMMON
The House will, I am sure, agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on the Report stage of a Bill we are more concerned with new points than with discussing the general provisions, but I think it would be quite fair that some reference should be made to the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Committee stage and to the remarks that he has just made. First of all, however, I want to comment on one or two points that have arisen earlier. Although one feels that it is quite hopeless to try to move the Government with regard to this Clause, there are some points that should be placed on record, even if the Bill is going to prejudge them without any intention whatever to consider the merits of the case, so far as the Government side of the House are concerned. In supporting the rejection of this Clause, I am strengthened by the fact that in the opening stages of the Bill I think it was the Attorney-General, or perhaps the Solicitor-General, who indicated that they need not have included this Clause in the Bill to achieve what they desired because it could be done through the ordinary regulations of the Civil Service. Everyone who knows anything about the Civil Service knows that that is a perfectly accurate statement of fact. The position of the Civil Service at present in regard to its alliance with any outside movement and the activities in which it takes part in politics or in questions concerning economic movements is solely regulated by departmental regulations, varying from department. Some departments allow a bigger latitude—on the ground, perhaps, of the employment of the employés in those departments 1956 in respect to outside activities such as county councils, borough councils, and so forth—than are allowed by other departments, and I think I am within the measure of fact when I say that the larger latitude obtains in the Post Office having regard to the large amount of routine of the men employed on that sort of work.
If the Attorney-General agrees that this could have been done, by regulation, it seems to me to make it quite clear that the sole intention of the Government in including this Clause in the Bill must have been to aim a blow at their political opponents, that the Clause was not inserted through any fear of any dishonest action or partisanship on the part of civil servants, but because the Government see within this Clause a means whereby they hope to hit and help to cripple in some measure this political party that has been built up largely by the self-sacrifice and small contributions of the hundreds of thousands of working men and women in this country. By this action they are hoping to withdraw from the industrial movement outside and from the political Labour movement a certain measure of support both as regards cash contributions and perhaps, for what it may be worth, the personnel of certain men who may be able to give service to the movement. If that he so, I want to point out again, even at the risk of reiteration, that this difficulty is emphasised still more when we come to examine the composition of the Civil Service and consider the persons who will suffer a certain amount of disfranchisement under this Clause. It is utterly absurd to talk about the majority of civil servants, the tens of thousands of postmen, cleaners and porters and other persons engaged in routine and industrial work, having any influence on the Civil Service, its deliberations or its impartiality. These people mix with the mass of the industrial workers and in ordinary circumstances cannot be differentiated from them.
So sure as night follows day this country, no matter what Government may be in power, will be compelled to bring more services and a larger amount of industry under the direct control, or even of the ownership, of the State. Does it follow that all those people will 1957 be automatically deprived of the power of association with their colleagues in the industrial world outside in an endeavour to improve their standard of life and for political purposes? Whether it be deferred for a long time or come soon, it is inevitable that the mines and railways at least will come under that direction at some time; and if this law remains these people will come under the ban of this Clause. Do the Government imagine that that state of affairs will be accepted quietly? Do they imagine that they would be able to enforce the application of this Regulation? They would be, by this Measure, introducing into the Service dissention, points of view and discussions which hitherto have been absent from it. The very passing of this Bill, with this Clause, is going to bring into the Service those conditions which the Government say it is intended to keep outside. From that point of view alone it is worth while, even at this late hour, for the Government to reconsider their position; and at least the Attorney-General might be frank enough to admit, as is admitted by his followers on the other side of the House, that we should never have heard of this Clause if it had been not for the fact that a large section of the Civil Service supports one political party. That is the gravamen of the offence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not pursue the suggestion that it arises from any action, either direct or indirect, in connection with the recent general strike. That has been abandoned wholly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government speakers. They have admitted that the Clause need not have been introduced and that the Regulations of the Service could have dealt, with it if necessary. They have been actuated solely by grounds of partisanship, not to use the term "flagrant partisanship" to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given expression.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask what is going to happen to those Services which are in a semi-Government position, for instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is now under the direct control of the Government. If we want to bring up any question relating to that organisation, we have to put down the salary of the Postmaster- 1958 General in order to have a discussion upon the subject. Is it suggested that this ban is going to extend to Services like that, that persons who are on the staff of that Corporation will fall within the ambit of this Bill? It must follow, if there is to be a logical application of the Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will not try again to suggest that employment in the Civil Service is a coveted position, and to say it is proved by the number of applicants. The constituency I represent has within its borders large numbers of men who are employed in the docks. One can go there and see crowds of men lining up or going to the office for a ticket in the hope of being able to obtain work, a far larger number than can find employment. But is it suggested that that is a coveted position, and that this is proved by the large number of applicants there are for it? Within the last two or three days I have had no fewer than eight letters from men asking me if I can secure a "tally" for them in order that they may get work in the docks, where they were employed at some time before they joined up with the Forces. One of the rewards for joining up with the Forces is that when they come hack they find they cannot get employment. They are surplus to the demand for employment. Would it he equally fair to say that what they are seeking is to be regarded as a coveted position? One knows very well that their eagerness for such a job is created by the economic situation, that it does not follow that it is a position they covet above all others, hut, simply, that they must have the means of existence.
As a matter of historical curiosity it is of interest to note that it was on the 30th May this year that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech on this Clause during the Committee stage of this Bill. I had the curiosity to turn up the speeches of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when the earlier Trade Disputes Bill was before the House, and I found that it was on the 30th May, 1911, that he made a speech, probably one of the most powerful speeches made in this House—he was then a Liberal, by the. Way—in favour of the Trade Disputes Bill of that day, the Bill which we are now proposing to repeal under this Measure. While some complaint has 1959 been made from the other side of the House about the force of the language used by some of my hon. Friends on this side in fighting this Bill, I am bound to say that when I read the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of that earlier Bill, I was green with envy at the force, the power, and the vigour of his language, language which drew protests and brought about the interference of Mr. Speaker owing to his attack on the Judges of the High Court, and so forth. We might learn something of the power of invective, and even of unparliamentary expressions, if we were to read up some of those speeches.
Sixteen years ago to the very day the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the champion of the Trade Disputes Bill. He said then that it was quite true that men were called upon to contribute to a fund to support members in whose polities they might not believe, but he said that, after all, it was very small in the aggregate, it did not matter very much, and they themselves did not trouble very much about it, because they exercised their own right at the ballot box to cast their franchise as they wished. He was then supporting strongly the very position which we are now supporting. I do not believe he will deny it. He has just said that he is not mealy mouthed in his language, or over-sensitive to criticism of the position which he takes up. He is a pure soldier of fortune. Such trifles as principles do not trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All he is concerned about is that he may he in office and in power. He said quite early in the life of this Parliament, in reply to some question, that it was a very unusual thing not to find him in the Government—no matter what the complexion of the Government may be, although he has come to a halt now. He can only be in one Government now, because the alternative Government would not find room for him under any circumstances, whatever might happen.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It was natural that the hon. Member should make these observations about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think he should now come back to the question of the Civil Service and outside bodies.
§ Mr. AMMON
You have just anticipated me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by a second. At any rate, that was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, and now he has reversed his attitude and has been put up as the chief defender of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman made certain charges about special interests being concerned in regard to this Measure. I am not going to defend those special interests, but an argument like that comes ill from a party concerned mainly with guarding special interests and a party in which all the big capitalists are crowded on the benches opposite who are there to see that their interests are well looked after and safeguarded. The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) said that so far as he knew there was no question of any feeling about segregation on the part of civil servants by the passing of this Clause. I do not know what is the hon. Member's association or knowledge of civil servants, but I speak on this subject with some knowledge, and I know there is a considerable feeling among them on this question. They object to being cut off or singled out from the rest of the workers in regard to this particular matter.
Let us see how we arrive at this position. The right of civil servants to be associated with outside organisations both for trade union and political activities was granted by this House, because of the feeling that Civil Servants had against being segregated from the rest of the community, and there was a long agitation which occupied much of the time of this House until at last the Government, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member, granted the rights which it is now proposed to take away, and they granted them because they thought no harm could be done to the Service and because there was a steady and persistent demand for them. After this Bill is passed, all that feeling of unrest will be aroused once more, and the House of Commons will again be troubled with many questions which since the establishment of the present position of civil servants have not been brought forward.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the want of courtesy of the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). I notice that the right hon. 1961 Gentleman has left the House. May I point out that it is the established custom of this House that when a Member has made his speech he should remain in the House during the speech of the Member who immediately follows him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has in this instance departed from that well-established custom by not remaining in the House to listen to anything in the way of a reply to the remarks which he has just made. I think hon. Members in every part of the House will be ready to support me in that particular connection, and I would not have made these remarks had the right hon. Gentleman not been so persistent in his discourtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol.
I want to reply to a point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) upon the question of the unestablished workmen and their position. Other hon. Friends of mine will deal with this matter more fully. The point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has missed altogether is that these people are ordinary tradesmen and workmen following their ordinary occupations as joiners and blacksmiths, and they are placed in an invidious position if owing to slackness in their trade they have not a trade union card which would join them up to other trade unions. For that reason alone, I think the Government ought to extend full liberty to those in an unestablished capacity, no matter what they do in the case of the established civil servants, because by this Clause you are jeopardising their very means of subsistence. After all, we have to see that those Regulations which are going to be made under the provisions of this Clause will not be included in Regulations already operating for the guidance and direction of civil servants of all grades and all capacities. Under those Regulations, even if they have nothing to do with Clause 5, it seems to me it will be impossible for them to become members of the Civil Service. I hope that is not so. If such a question should come into the Law Courts, the Judges will give their judgment on the precise wording of the Clause itself, and not upon any opinion expressed in this House by hon. Members, however learned they may be.
1962 I do not think, however, that I can do anything to improve the Bill while this Clause remains in it. But the Govemment would at least have done something to safeguard that position if they had given some court of appeal to the members who may be brought within the particular ambit of those Regulations. I have been long enough connected with the Civil Service to remember the time when political opponents during an election used to write to the Post Office, to other Departments, complaining of the activities of men employed in the Civil Service. This Clause is going to open the door to all that sort of thing in the fixture, and people are again going to be made the victims of anonymous letters, and all those means of pressure which can be brought by political opponents simply because they happen to be in the Civil Service. In that way, you are going to bring about a state of things in the Civil Service that will not make for the well-being of the Service, and will not promote that high standard of conduct of which we are all so proud to-day. All this is being done to aim a blow at the Labour party, because by mere force of circumstances a large number of organised civil servants have found that their natural gravitation is towards that party in the State which represents to the fullest extent the larger mass of the workers of this country.
§ Captain BOURNE
I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, hon. Friends of mine and myself raised the question of established civil servants during the discussion on the Committee stage, and I merely rise to express, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, our thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General for the concession they have made.
§ Mr. TOWNEND
One point that has emerged from the remarks of the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) calls for some comment. It has been pointed out from these benches that the application of Clause 5 would place tens of thousands of civil servants in a position of disadvantage as compared with other members of the community, and that very largely is the ground of the opposition which has been raised to 1963 it from these benches; and when we gather, from the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth, that, even when civil servants retire from the service on pensions which they have rightly earned, they are still to be denied the right to move and have their being on level terms with other sections of the community, we think that that is carrying the process of shackling too far, and really descends to a form of cruelty on the part of the Government which all right-minded people are bound to condemn.
While it is true that the pension they are drawing is an ex gratia pension, it has been recognised over and over again in argument, not only in Government but in other circles where it has been useful to employ that argument, that this ex gratia pension is neither more nor less than deferred payment of salary. Therefore, having performed their duties as civil servants, these people are, surely, entitled to exercise full and free citizen rights with their fellows, irrespective of where they happened to be employed before they retired on pension; and I do think that this is a matter which the Attorney-General might submit again to those who are responsible for this Bill, so that justice may be meted out to men who have placed their experience at the disposal of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while claiming that he had dealt with this Clause on the Second Reading, from his point of view satisfactorily, used that, as I thought, rather unfairly in refusing to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), and perhaps the Attorney-General will treat the Members on these benches, and their suggestions by way of criticism of this Clause, with, shall I say, a greater degree of regard, and he will, perhaps, endeavour to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
It has been suggested that, among the reasons why members of the Civil Service should be prepared to forgo certain of their rights as citizens, is that they possess security of tenure, continuity of service, and that, unlike others, even salaried people, under private enterprise, they are guaranteed pensions when they reach a crtain age. There is a certain analogy between civil servants and others, 1964 which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and which to me is very sinister, having regard to the possible developments under Clause 5, and bearing in mind the chameleon-like qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One need not carry one's mind back to 1911 to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer voicing certain principles. It may be within the recollection of certain Members of this House that, when he was wooing Dundee in 1918, he advocated nationalisation of the railways. [An HON. MEMBER: "He promised it."] He promised it definitely. One never knows, with the turn of the wheel of time, what position the Chancellor of the Exchequer may occupy in days to come. He may occupy a position in which he will wield even greater power than he wields at the present time, sufficient, perhaps, to give effect to the principles which he then advocated, but which for the moment he has dropped. Perhaps he may return to a degree of consistency that has been missing, at any rate, from his words in this House quite recently, and may again advocate the principle of railway nationalisation. When that takes place, we shall find exactly the same position obtaining on the railways, with the railways nationalised, as obtains in the Civil Service to-day.
Drawing the argument from that corollary, I want to submit to the House that there are very strong arguments, even to-day, and facts which ought to be submitted to the Government, which should justify their reconsidering one of the objections which they raise to civil servants exercising the freedom which they exercise to-day. Their connection with a particular party seems to be regarded as a strong argument for denying them full citizenship. It is suggested that relationship with, say, the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress has resulted in the politicalisation of industry, something to which the Government object as far as it concerns the Civil Service. Take the comparison that I have already drawn, between those in the Civil Service and those in the railway service who are enjoying security of tenure and pension rights, and who at the same time are in a salaried position as administrators or supervisors, occupying to a very large degree an exactly 1965 similar position in the railway service to that which obtains in the Civil Service.
Is it not true that those in the railway service who could be put in exactly the same category as civil servants owe most of the benefits they enjoy to what has taken place on the Floor of this very Chamber? The politicalisation of that industry has resulted in laying down a wonderful set of machinery that determines their conditions of service, that practically determines their hours, and, at the same time, has enabled them to obtain even better salary rates than apply to a very large number of those who are in the Civil Service. Is it not, in addition, a fact that time after time those salaried individuals in the railway service, on questions of pension, and on other questions also, have had to come to this House to ask the House to see that they obtained equity and justice? Nevertheless, we are told that that protection, regard and support which the Government to-day rightly gives to this salaried supervisory and administrative class of citizens, and which has brought all these benefits in its train, is to be denied to civil servants. Surely, if ever there were an argument for the politicalisation of an industry, if ever there were an argument for a retention of relationship with the Labour party or the Trades Union Congress, what we now know in respect of the administrative side of the railways ought to warrant the Attorney-General in again reviewing, as I hope he will, Clause 5 of this Bill.
As has already been pointed out, only a very small percentage of these civil servants have any influence whatsoever upon the policy of the Government. The other 95 per cent. stand in exactly the same category as millions of other workers throughout the length and breadth of the land, and their economic circumstances ought to be protected in exactly the same way. The civil servants to-day, if they require their conditions of service, their hours and all pertaining thereto to be considered as between the Government and the staff, have to depend upon a mere statement of the case. There is nothing else behind it, and we all know from our experience of organised labour, its relations and its interdependence by and through the political 1966 machine and the industrial machine, that it is only according to the strength that is behind the arguments that results emerge. The fact that there is nothing to rely on except merely their spoken word is something that is going to place them at a tremendous disadvantage, and in the line they have taken the Government are depriving these people of that which they are prepared to guarantee to every other section of the community. Surely, therefore, we are entitled to make the charge against the Government, in insisting upon this Clause, that they are reducing the whole of the Civil Service to a state of servitude that does not reflect credit upon those who impose it
§ Mr. GERALD HURST
I rise to make only two points. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) said this Clause had its origins in the partisanship of the Government and their supporters and had no relation whatever to the action of any association of civil servants during the general strike. In my submission, the great justification of this Clause lies in the very point the hon. Gentleman said had no relation with the Clause at all, namely, the conduct of the Civil Service associations during the general strike, because there could be no better justification than the action of the leading Civil Service associations which had outside affiliations for the line the Government have pursued in introducing this Clause. The hon. Gentleman who made that speech, and who leads the opposition to the Clause, will remember perfectly well what the conduct of his own union, the Union of Post Office Workers, was during the time of the general strike. I receive from time to time from loyalist members of the Post Office literature issued by the Union of Post Office Workers, and I have here a document issued by that union on 1,st May, 1926, by the general secretary, who, on behalf of the executive council of the association, which is an association consisting entirely of State servants, says:A state of emergency has now been proclaimed in connection with the crisis precipitated by the Government. The General Council of the Trade Union Congress are acting on behalf of the whole of the trade union movement, and pledges of loyalty to the decision and the requests of the General Council have been given by the great majority of the unions, including not only those representing vital industries but black-coated 1967 organisations, including those of the Civil Service. Your own Executive Council have taken a full part in all the proceedings which culminated in the acceptance of the Government's challenge to the trade unions. … In common with other organisations, a pledge of loyalty has been given by the Executive Council on behalf of the Union of Post Office Workers.To whom was that pledge of loyalty given? Not to the State, but to the Trade Union Congress. There could be no clearer illustration of the embarrassing effect of what has been described as a dual allegiance.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HURST
Of course, the Government recognised their obligation to the great mass of the Post Office servants, who are as loyal citizens as we could desire. The persons the Government did not thank were the officials of this union, whose letter speaks for itself and needs no gloss or interpretation from anyone. I have read the exact words that were used. The union executive state that a pledge of loyalty has been given to the Trade Union Congress and the point I am making is this. How can you reconcile the duty of a civil servant to give his undivided allegiance to the State which employs him with giving at the same time a pledge of loyalty to the Trade Union Congress, an outside body, engaged upon what is generally recognised to have been an illegal and revolutionary movement against the interests of the State? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be under two allegiances, and that is the real reason why this Clause appeals not only to the general public and not only contributes to the general interest but also appeals to the main body of loyal civil servants.
There is another association—the Civil Service Clerical Association. I have a letter of the same date marked "Urgent and Important," from Mr. W. J. Brown, the General Secretary, in which the members are told on no account must they 1968 volunteer for any sort of outside work. "Above all," it says,No members should sign a form of undertaking for service with voluntary organisations which, so to speak, would be a blank cheque. Where branch officers are in doubt as to the advice which they should give, they should report immediately to headquarters advising the members to abstain from decision until headquarters advice is received.That means that when the members of the Clerical Association are under a duty to the State, they are told, "Do not give the State a blank cheque. Be very careful how you obey the directions given you. Do not act until you obtain advice from headquarters. "Whose headquarters? The headquarters of an association affiliated with the Trade Union Congress. It is another clear illustration of the disadvantages of allegiance on the one side to the community and on the other to a revolutionary outside body like the Trade Union Congress. I have here a very interesting document, the balance sheet of the Union of Post Office Workers, made up to 31st December, 1926, given me by a loyalist in the Post Office. It shows how much money, subscribed very often by perfectly loyal members of the Post Office, was wasted by being devoted to a seditious and revolutionary purpose during the course of that year. Among the disbursements in this balance sheet, which is an official one, audited by chartered accountants, there figures an item of special expenses arising from the general strike, "to Trade Union Congress funds, £5,000." That means to say that £5,000 contributed by these men was handed over to the Trade Union Congress for the purpose of the general strike. The total contributed for the purpose of the general strike, according to their own balance sheet, was £5,867 8s. 7d. In addition to that, they contributed to what they call the Political Fund, £17,275 8s. 7d., the whole of it going into the pockets of the Socialist party and persons associated with it, notwithstanding the fact that in this union, which consists of something like 80,000 or 90,000 civil servants, a very large number indeed are not Socialists and do not believe in Socialism at all. That shows what is the result of allowing unions of civil servants to have their devotion and their loyalty to the State undermined and sapped by subjecting 1969 them at the same time to an allegiance to another outside body, which is quite incompatible, in my submission, with their undivided loyalty and allegiance to the State.
§ Mr. AMMON
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the money he has mentioned in the balance sheet which was contributed to the political fund was collected for other purposes? Is he not aware that under the present system it is lodged with the Registrar-General and that it was subscribed for that purpose?
§ Mr. HURST
I never suggested it was legally wrong. My whole point was, that it was morally wrong. It is what public opinion and morality regard as, wrong. That is why I suggest to the House that we ought to welcome this Clause which brings the law of the land into relationship with one's ordinary conception of right and wrong. I cannot see how anyone who really takes a serious view of the loyalty which civil servants owe to the State which employs them, can reconcile that position with tolerating the continuance of the law which permits payments of this sort and which tolerates a dual allegiance of this sort. The only other point with which I wish to deal relates to the expression used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker), when he said, I think quite properly, he did not speak for the Civil Service. He does not speak for the Civil Service because there are in the Civil Service, besides the handful interested in political movements, thousands and tens of thousands of absolutely loyal servants of the State. They do not want to see the politicalisation—if I may use the expression used by the last hon. Member—of the Civil Service. They want to see the Civil Service unfettered by outside matters of that sort, so that they can devote the whole of their labours and duties to the service of the State. The civil servants I have come across in my own constituency are loyalists, and they 1970 have no wish whatever to drag the Civil Service into the political arena.
The growing infusion of politics into the life of the Civil Service is an unhealthy sign of the times. It is the tradition of this country, and a very high tradition, that the administration of our public affairs, and especially the personnel of the Civil Service, should be entirely dissociated from any consideration as to the party to which a man belongs, to what opinion he is attached and what creed he professes. The State should choose its servants regardless of their political beliefs. It is because this Clause makes it impossible for civil servants to have their loyalty adulterated and poisoned by outside associations that I think it will commend itself, not only to the great mass of public opinion in this country, but also to the great body of civil servants themselves.
§ Mr. CONNOLLY
The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) to which we have just listened is an illustration of how far the Tories will go in their ardent admiration of nationalisation when they see it in operation. The hon. and learned Member has said that, in his opinion, the majority of the Post Office employés are not Socialists. I do not know whether he is right or not, but, at any rate, the employment in which they find themselves is a Socialist service. It is Socialism in operation. The hon. and learned Member wants to claim—and this Bill does claim—a privilege for that Socialist service that it does not require. He wants a loyalty given to a nationalised service of which it does not stand in need, and to which it has no more right than any private employer. The Socialist system of which he has been speaking shows a profit of millions of pounds every year, and it does not want any privileged basis on which to stand, as is sought to be given in this Clause.
My main purpose in rising is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question concerning the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha). Out of that answer arises a most interesting situation, a most curious position. Clause 2 of the Bill prevents victimisation and gives to the man who wants work the opportunity of working, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the hon. Member for Devonport 1971 is going to debar hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands of men, from getting work. In his reply he said he had made several concessions under this particular Clause. He used the word "insatiable," and said he was going to make no more concessions to him. This was in reply to the hon. Member's request that the Government should adopt the Amendment that was on the Order Paper to give exemption to dockyard employés who are paid off and who are re-employed by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "No, we are not going to concede that."
Let us see how that works out in practice. I am a dockyard established man, and I am paid off like 600 of the hon. Member's constituents who are established men, and who have been paid off quite recently, and on whose behalf he has spoken several times in this House. I am a member of my trade union and I am entitled to superannuation and other benefits. I am paid off. In the course of time I am allowed to start again. The hon. Member for Devonport says he wants me exempted from being compelled to leave my trade union. I am, under the provisions of the Bill, up to now exempted, and he wants me further exempted when I am re-employed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says "No, you are insatiable. You are not going to get any more concessions." I am re-employed, and I am asked to leave my union. The Act covers me, someone will say, but I say that the Act does not cover me, and I refuse to leave my union. On what grounds? Under this particular Clause I claim that I am exempt in spite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. I have been an established civil servant, but I have been discharged. Clause 5 says that I must be an established servant in the permanent service of the Crown. How can I be in the permanent service of the Crown if I am liable to be discharged every now and then? I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General to define this position, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said most emphatically that in these circumstances I must leave my union. I hope that whoever is going to reply will devote a minute or two to explaining what the position of a man will be in these circumstances.
1972 I want to touch upon another part of this Clause that was dealt with by a Member below the Gangway on the Government side and which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). It is in regard to the word "knowingly" in Sub-section (2). In British law, ignorance in a Court of law is not accepted as an excuse. This Bill will become an Act of Parliament, and this Sub-section says that before a civil servant can be liable he must knowingly contravene the Regulations. As I understand the meaning of the word "contravene," I do not know how a civil servant is going to contravene the Act if he does not know. I cannot comprehend that. He may contravene the Regulations from wrong motives, or through misinformation, but how he can do it without knowing, I am at a loss to understand. With regard to the Regulations themselves, I would emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for North Camberwell and by one of the Government supporters, that the Minister should define more clearly the meaning of the words "the said Regulations." In the first paragraph of the Clause the Regulations are mentioned three times, and it is a reasonable interpretation to put upon the words "the said Regulations," that they include all the Regulations. A breach of the most trivial Regulation may involve a man in dismissal from the Civil Service. I do not think that is quite the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to know who will determine whether a man has contravened the Regulations and whether he has knowingly or unknowingly done it. Presumably, it is to be left to some official in a higher position than himself to determine that. It ought to be clearly defined or explained by the Minister in charge.
By this Clause, the Government apparently think that they will take support from the political party which sits on these benches. I am of the opposite opinion. I listened to representatives of the Civil Service, representing three very large societies, and I gathered from their remarks that experience has shown that as far as political opinions were concerned the preponderance in the Civil Service was in favour of the present Government, and that there certainly was not a majority of Labour men in the Civil 1973 Service Associations. It was very well pointed out by the three speakers who addressed us in the Committee room upstairs that this Bill, and particularly this Clause, will force the civil servants into alliance with the movement which is pledged to give them back the freedom which they now enjoy.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) did scant justice to the people of this country when he said that, apparently, the only way that the civil servant could get justice would be by showing that he had strength behind him in his negotiations. By that, I presume the hon. Member meant the strength which he thought would come from the Trade Union Council.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
As far as one can judge the strength which the Trade Union Council gives to anything, it is a type of strength which fails just at the moment when it may be most needed. The hon. Member did scant justice to the people of this country, because if there is one thing which characterises the British people more than another it is their sense of fair play and their sense of justice. There is nothing either in this Bill or in practice which prevents a real grievance in the Civil Service from being brought prominently before the people of this country. Once that grievance has been brought forward before the people of this country, the Civil Service will get something very much better than the broken reed of the Trade Union Council; they will get the force of public opinion, which will be reflected through this House. Therefore, the hon. Member for Stockport in his criticism of this part of the Bill did scant justice to the people of this country.
I have been at some pains to try to find out how far there is any opposition to this Clause in the Civil Service itself. I am told that in my constituency there are 1,600 civil servants. I believe the number is very much more. I am told, on the authority of one or two people who came to see me in one of the rooms of this Rouse and who said they represented the Civil Service Defence Committee, that I have at least 1,600 members, 1974 of the Civil Service in my division. Every time that a member of this so-called Civil Service Defence Committee has come to see me, I have tried to find out by what authority he calls himself a member of the Civil Service Defence Committee, who he represents and how he was delegated to that representation. I have never yet been able to find out exactly how he was constituted a representative or how any of them was constituted a representative; neither have I been able to discover from any one of these so-called representatives, who they represent or had authority to represent. When men come to me in that way, I put to them the position which I put to most constituents if they come to see me about matters of importance. I asked them whether it was possible, being anxious to hear the views of my constituents, to arrange a meeting of those they said they represented, so that I might meet them not secondhand but face to face, in order to hear from them the way in which this Clause might affect them adversely.
I was told that they would get such a meeting together. They went away and I heard nothing from them. I inquired when the meeting was to be arranged. It was then suggested that I should meet one of their representatives, not at a meeting of those they said they represented but in a public debate in some hall in my constituency, with no guarantee on their part that there would be a single member of the Civil Service present, and no guarantee even that the man who was to debate with me would be a member of the Civil Service. I declined that offer, for the simple reason that there was no suggestion that it was going to be a meeting of civil servants. It was going to be an ordinary public debate to advertise a few people who, as far as can make out, represent nobody but themselves. Having failed in that way, they wrote to me and suggested that I should attend a public meeting. I pointed out to them that I had held a considerable number of public meetings in my constituency and that at every one of my meetings I had explained my views upon this Clause and why I supported it, and that I found as far as civil servants in the audience were concerned that there war no opposition on the part of those civil servants to the attitude which I was taking up.
1975 From that day to this, and it was some considerable time ago, I have been trying to get this so-called Civil Service Defence Committee to have a meeting in my Division to which they would give me an opportunity of going and meeting face to face those persons they claimed to represent; but they have not been able to arrange a meeting. I was, at last, able to arrange with a branch of the Union of Postal Workers, who said that they had some members in my Division although their headquarters were outside the Division, to hold a meeting, which took place last Sunday morning. I went to that meeting. They told me that they had invited every member of the Union of Postal Workers in my Division and a number of other civil servants from my Division to be present at the meeting. The room in which it was held was moderately full. There were something like 60 or 70 people present, but, although there is a good branch of the Union of Postal Workers actually in my constituency and although this branch said they had plenty of members in my constituency; there were less than 20 members of the union present at that meeting. In these circumstances, having tried every possible way of getting information as to the number of civil servants who oppose this Clause in my constituency out of the 1,600 they profess that I have got, I can only come to the conclusion that the number is very small indeed—something less than 20 or 30, for even of the 20 who were present at the meeting on Sunday certainly not all of them were in opposition to this Clause as it stands. That being so, where is the real opposition to this Clause? It is entirely an engineered opposition like the rest of the opposition to this Bill. It is an opposition which finds its place in this House in a repetition of misrepresentations of the Bill, and which, when you try to test it outside, is found to have no backing at all in any part of the country.
The hon. Member who spoke last said a word or two about a meeting which was held upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms. He neglected to tell the House that the principal opposition of the three gentlemen who spoke there was based upon a statement with regard to this Bill which was entirely untrue and 1976 unfounded. He forgot to point out that the statement which was made by those gentlemen upstairs, and upon which they founded their criticism, was that if this Bill passed in its present form it would deprive the civil servants of any chance whatever of exercising political liberty or political judgment.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
The hon. Gentleman is apparently still in the position that those gentlemen were. Either he has not read the Bill or, having read it, is content to continue misrepresenting it, because all that this Bill does is to prevent a man joining a union which is dealing with the conditions of his employment in the Civil Service, if that union is going to attach itself to people whose main object would to destroy the Civil Service and make it an unfit employment for those people. In these circumstances, and knowing perfectly well that this merely limits political activities between associations which should exist, not for political purposes, but for totally different purposes, one knows quite well that the statement made upstairs, and which has been repeated so often by Members of the Opposition in the country, namely, that this Bill deprives the civil servants of the right to express political opinions, is not only untrue and unfounded, but untrue to the knowledge of those who say so in the country.
§ Mr. CONNOLLY
With regard to the meeting upstairs, all I want to say is that what the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has stated is not a proved fact. It is only a difference of opinion between the hon. and learned Member and the people upstairs. He is begging the quustion.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
The hon. Gentleman who was present at that meeting will probably remember that, after these gentlemen had spoken, I pointed out to them that this Clause only applied to limit and to prohibit political activity in an association the main purpose of which was to influence and affect the remuneration and conditions of employment of its members.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
The reply was "Ah, we had considered that that 1977 might possibly be a loophole," but they very carefully omitted to say anything at all about it. That is exactly what they have been doing, not only upstairs, but in every speech that they have made in the country or anywhere else. The real position with regard to this Bill, as far as I have been able to ascertain from the very large number of civil servants in my constituency—and there are a very large number—is that they recognise that when this Bill is passed no one will any longer have the right to send to the civil servants the type of circular which was sent to them by Mr. Bowen and Mr. Brown in May of last year. They resented the insulting tone of those letters and circulars. They resented the presumption which was made in those letters that they would be disloyal, and they support this Clause because they realise that it will protect them from insolence of that kind and because they believe that loyalty to the State is much more important than even the luxury of being represented by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker).
§ Mr. KELLY
I listened with very great interest to the last speaker, inasmuch as I was one of those responsible for calling that meeting upstairs, and I wish the hon. and learned Member had not rested content with just mentioning his own question, but had given the replies which were made to him when he attempted to describe this Bill. I think probably he was like a good many other members of his own Party who expressed the opinion to me on the following day that they had made a mistake in going to that Meeting and hearing from civil servants exactly what were the views of the Civil Service with regard to this Measure. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member that this is a Bill which is only intended to prevent civil servants from engaging in the political sphere. I think there is another intent on the part of the Government—the intent that they will have a much weaker organisation to deal with just as they had in the years that have gone.
The hon. and learned Member says that civil servants can depend on the British public for seeing that they are adequately paid and well conditioned. If that be so, 1978 the British public neglected that when they had no organisation, for it was not until they had a trade union organisation that the civil servants were able to make some impression on the Treasury and the Departments who were concerned. That is well known. The Attorney-General can get that advice without much difficulty within a few seconds. The civil servants were not treated well, and they are not treated well to-day We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the civil servant's position is a coveted position and one that men are scrambling for. Scrambling for a job at £3 a week in order to be in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered a coveted position! Is that the height to which our people have got at this time, that they look upon £3 a week with permanent employment as a coveted position? We have been told in this Debate that they have continuous employment and that the chance of being able to work for 48 or 49 weeks in the year is something which you should be thankful for and something that is an advantage to you. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought so, I expected hon. Members to cheer that, as though the service that is rendered by those people in 49 weeks in the year is not something that we ought to be proud of, as being to the advantage of ourselves. It is for your advantage that they have to work all the year round, and they need not express any thanks to this or any other Government for the opportunity. Why is the Attorney-General making this Bill so unequal and so unjust? Lawyers and doctors are not being placed in the same position as other civil servants. They are people, I suppose, of whom it can be stated that they have a primary object other than influencing the rate of remuneration; they are placed in a different category to other civil servants, who are supposed to give the whole of their time, energies and capacities to the service of the State. I can quite understand why the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, who is a member of the legal profession, and other lawyers in this House are favourable to this Measure. They see in it not only preference and favour, hut also that there are going to be few unemployed in the legal profession in the years to come because of the work which will have to be done in the Courts.
1979 This Bill not only protects the blackleg but is an endeavour to deal with any unemployment which may exist in the legal profession at the present time. The hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) was very unctuous when he was telling us of the loyal servants in the Post Office. Everyone who agrees with the hon. Member for Moss Side is a loyalist, and everyone who disagrees with him is disloyal. Those individuals who are running to him with information, behind the back of their fellow-members, are not the type which can be trusted for a moment. Why are the Government treating the Civil Service differently to the men in the Army, the Navy and Air Service? Why are they restricting civil servants in their association with trade unions, and not restricting the soldier, the sailor, and the airman? They have their various unions throughout the country. They are members of trade unions affiliated to the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party, many of them with 20 and 30 years' membership. I suppose the Government are not afraid of the soldier, sailor and airman associating with his fellows outside, but it is a strange notion on the part of the Government that they should place civil servants in quite a different category to that of the fighting Services.
A great deal has been said about the general stoppage of last year. Those who are making use of that particular instance, as a justification for this Clause, are stretching the point a very great deal. I look upon it as being hypocritical to suggest that that is the reason for dealing with the Civil Service. The fact of the matter is that the representatives of the Treasury, who may be within hearing at the moment, know full well that the association of the Civil Service with other trade unions, with those who can voice their opinions and demands, who can put a great deal more, pressure on the Government and Government Departments, has had the effect of doing something to the advantage of the Civil Service. That is the reason for this Clause. I am surprised that the Government has stopped where it has, and that it has not decided that civil servants must not receive letters of the kind to which the hon. Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has referred. Why do you not suggest that people who join the Civil Service should 1980 be placed in barracks and kept segregated from the rest of the community? If by association with the rest of their fellows they are going to be dangerous to the State, do not let them associate with us at all. This Clause is a discredit and a disgrace. It is restrictive of any opportunity to organise in order to secure better conditions for the people in the War Office, the Admiralty, and the other Government Departments. It prevents real organisation, and I hope the civil servants, many of whom I know, are going to be real men and women and fight this even after it is on the Statute Book.
§ Lieut.-Colonel JAMES
I should not have intervened at this point but for certain statements that have been made. Previous speakers have alluded to a meeting held upstairs, and I should like to say that when this Bill was first introduced deputations of civil servants from my own constituency asked if they might see me. I interviewed them. They told me their views. I pointed out that this Clauses hinges first and last on the public interest, and on that alone. They put their case with ability, reasonably, and with considerable zeal. I told them that I would hear both sides, and I have endeavoured to do so. I went to the meeting upstairs alluded to by previous speakers, and I listened to the remarks of Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowen, and, having heard what they had to say, I was absolutely convinced, not only that this Clause was desirable, but that it was absolutely imperative it should be introduced in the public interest.
Let me amplify that point. Mr. Brown and Mr. Bowen seemed to think that Parliament should be prostituted by the appointment by sectional interests of Parliamentary representatives. When Parliament consists of an aggregation of sectional interests, disregarding national interests, it will be an evil day for Parliament. For one particular section of the community to appoint Members nominally to look after the interests of the civil servants, and whilst they are looking after the interests of the civil servants they deal freely with those subjects which the Civil Service has to treat with in its ordinary day's work, it may be China, the Army, the Navy, and the Reserve Forces, is utterly improper. I conceive that nothing could be worse 1981 than allowing things to drag on as they have dragged on hitherto. The ancient traditions of the Civil Service must be preserved. Under recent organisations and manœuvres, of the card vote in particular, a great deal has been thrown away. This Bill, and particularly this Clause, I trust, will restore some measure of security to the civil servant in his employment. With regard to the question of wages and conditions, I fail to see how the Clause will in any way affect the future of civil servants. The last speaker alluded to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Surely he knows that neither the Army nor the Navy nor the Air Force has any political voice. Individuals can vote at elections and do vote at elections.
§ Lieut.-Colonel JAMES
I should say that, the exceptions quoted by the hon. Member are excessively rare, and that the serving soldier, the serving sailor and the serving airman do not belong to the unions to which the hon. Member alludes. You may find people in the Government workshops, in the Air Force factories at Farnborough, in the rifle factory at Enfield Lock, and so on, who are members, but I repeat that the serving soldier, sailor or airman is not a member of a trade union. Long may that continue to be! In these circumstances I shall do all I can to support the passage of this Clause.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
We understand from the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, that with a perfectly open mind on this question he went to a meeting in a Committee room upstairs, and was convinced by Messrs. Brown and Bowen, quite against his natural inclination, to support the Government of the day.
§ Lieut.-Colonel JAMES
Messrs. Brown and Bowen saw fit to threaten. Perhaps they might not threaten openly. Our thoughts were given to us to be expressed in words, sometimes freely, sometimes to veil, and sometimes to conceal. The veil was torn and that was sufficient.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
The veil was torn, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the first, time in his life saw the light, and decided to vote Conservative. It is a most remarkable performance by Messrs. Brown and Bowen, in converting the hon. and gallant Gentleman to vote for the Government of the day. They performed a most remarkable feat. I am sorry if my few observations have caused any discomfort to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as I see he is leaving the House. Let me now turn to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), who, I understand, is the only begetter of this Bill. Surely he does not disclaim that proud title? He informed us that he was quite convinced that the civil servants were not against this Measure, because at a meeting organised by the Union of Post Office Workers, to which he was invited, he found only some 20 people present. To me that proves only one thing, that even an organisation so powerful as the Union of Post Office Workers cannot succeed in securing an audience for the hon. and learned Member in his own Division.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
I said there were about 70 present. The hon. Member does scant justice to the Members of his own party. The nephew of an hon. Member opposite—I forget his constituency—who is associated with a ginger weekly paper, was the chief speaker at the meeting.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member was only a secondary speaker at that meeting, and I am sorry if I underrated his drawing power if actually he secured an audience not of 20 but of 70 in his own Division. But really the size of his audience on that occasion is no very clear indication of the amount of feeling in the Civil Service on the subject. If the hon. and learned Member wants to see meetings against this Bill, he ought to accompany hon. Members from these benches to some parts of the country, Where he will see audiences nearer 20,000 than 20 in some places.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
No doubt the hon. Member who interrupts will take advantage of this offer, and I am sure, he will be enlightened and will entertain an audience in ways which he perhaps does 1983 not expect. Then the hon. and learned Member for Norwood went on to say that he had held public meetings in his own Division, political meetings presumably, such as in the ordinary way every Member of Parliament or candidate holds in his own Division, and he stated that no civil servants turned up at these meetings to make a protest.
§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
I said that the civil servants who were present, and a great many were, when given the opportunity evinced no opposition to this Bill but in fact evinced support of it.
§ Mr. MOSLEY
According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if at a public political meeting they supported a political Measure they were guilty, under the existing law, of a most improper act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us of that fact on the Committee stage of this very Clause. When the hon. and learned Member for Norwood suggests that civil servants should get up at his public meetings and make violent protests against this Bill, he must know that they would be liable to dismissal under the existing law for doing anything of the kind. The civil servant is not permitted to take part in political demonstrations, and a man who was thrown out for disorderly interruption during a meeting of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood, would have very scant chance of remaining a member of the Civil Service. I once sat for a Division which held a great many civil servants, and I noticed that they never were able without impunity to take part in political affairs, unless they were members of the Conservative party and the Conservative party happened to be in power at that time. Perhaps that was merely a personal experience.
Let me turn to the rather more germane observations—but still not altogether germane, because they were made by a member of the Conservative party—of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) He came to the very heart of the Debate upon this Clause in raising again that specific instance in his support, the old question of divided allegiance. The hon. and learned Member quoted a circular sent by the Union of Post Office Workers to its members at the time of the general strike. In that circular, in the words of the hon. and 1984 learned Member, a statement was made that the organisation had pledged loyalty to the Trades Union Council, and he took that to mean that they had pledged their loyalty to the Trades Union Council in some action that was disloyal to the State. As I understand it, it was nothing of the kind. They renewed their pledge of loyalty to their obligation to the Trades Union Council, and that obligation was in no way in conflict with their obligations to the State. Their obligation to the Trades Union Council was not to come out on strike against the State, and in fact they did not come out on strike against the State—nothing of the kind.
Here we have two obligations in the divided allegiance of which the hon. and learned Member talked—obligations which are in no way conflicting. Their obligation to the State is to perform the duties which they were engaged to perform—no more and no less. Their obligation to the Trade Union Congress was not to perform any duty other than those which they were engaged to perform. Where is the conflict? Their loyalty to the Trade Union Congress was in not accepting blackleg jobs outside the work which they were engaged to perform and which they pledged themselves to the State to perform in accepting that employment. That was their obligation to the Trade Union Congress, and that in no way conflicts with the loyal discharge of the duties which they were engaged by the State to perform, and which they did in fact perform. This question of divided allegiance at no point arises. There is nothing in the relationship between the Trade Union Congress and the Civil Service organisations which can call upon those organisations to violate their obligations or their duty to the State, and, at no time, on no occasion, has the Trade Union Congress called upon the Civil Service organisations to undertake any such action whatever.
When the hon. and learned Member says that by these organisations the loyalty of the Civil Service is being undermined and sapped, he knows perfectly well, he must surely realise, that he is making a statement which is preposterous. What indication, what proof, is there of that undermining and sapping? Every time, on every occasion on which it has been put to the test, it has 1985 been proved up to the hilt that the loyalty of the Civil Service to the State is maintained at as high a rate as it ever stood at in the history of this country and, in fact, throughout the discussions on this Clause, we have had both from the Front Bench and the back Benches opposite, the most fulsome praise of the loyalty and integrity of the Civil Service. Surely, before the hon. and learned Member and his friends place this stigma upon the Civil Service they should demonstrate wherein their confidence in the Civil Service has been forfeited. They can produce no case, no instance of any kind, to support the charge that these organisations have, in any way, undermined the loyalty of the Civil Service or prevented the discharge of the duties of civil servants to the State.
Even if it were proved that some degree of divided allegiance did arise in this matter, is that anything very remarkable in this country? It is true that if divided allegiance did arise—which I deny—a logical case might be made out for this Clause. But the whole British Constitution exists on the very reverse of this proposal and some of the highest officers of State demonstrate in their own persons the possibility of divided allegiance. Chief among these living demonstrations of this possibility is the Attorney-General who speaks here for the Government. The Attorney-General has two quite distinct functions—the political partisan and the judicial interpreter of the action which the State will take in every kind of civil and criminal matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman often has to decide, in his legal and judicial capacity, whether he will prosecute a political opponent and he is supposed to take that action, not as a politician, not as a partisan, but as a Judge, fairly and properly interpreting the law. A still more striking example of divided allegiance of that kind, is the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor may be a most violent political partisan. Lord Birkenhead was once Lord Chancellor and he moved with freedom from the public platform, where he might have made a violent political speech, to the Bench in the highest Court of the land where he administered justice as a Judge. There, again, a complete division of allegiance arises, but it has always been held 1986 in this country and under our Constitution that it is possible for an honourable man to divorce his politics from his honourable obligations and his public duty towards the State in another function and in another capacity. That division of allegiance has been held possible in £10,000 a year jobs, why then is it impossible in £3 a week jobs?
This discrimination can be defended on no constitutional grounds and on no grounds of equity. These anomalies already exist in our Constitution and this proposal can only be defended on grounds of class distinction and discrimination. Do hon. Members opposite really wish to introduce principles of this character into their treatment of the Civil Service? Civil servants are already denied a great many of the liberties, and even of the human pleasures, of ordinary people. To a certain extent one always imagines as written over the portals of the Civil Service, "Abandon most human feeling all ye who enter here." But if you go beyond that, if you not only deny them the ordinary right of humanity to participate actively in the political affairs which concern their native land, but say that they may not have economic contact with similar categories of workers, you are in danger of overstepping the bounds of fair treatment. We cannot escape the fact that in practically every wage dispute affecting the Civil Service, the wages of similar workers, outside the Civil Service, are quoted against civil servants, and the wages of outside workers in similar employment, if they are low, are a millstone round the neck of the Civil Service in their struggle for higher positions.
For the hon. and learned Member for Norwood to state that they can rely upon public opinion to secure redress of their grievances is stretching the matter rather far. When and where has public opinion ever intervened in favour of raising the industrial conditions, if the working class had not industrial organisation? When and where has it ever happened? In the first place, unless you have a vocal and powerful organisation, public opinion cannot be informed as to the merits of the dispute. How can public opinion even begin to operate or function when the entire Press of the land is in the hands of the enemy? There is not 1987 the slightest chance of public opinion in tervening to redress the conditions of the Civil Service unless you have organisation and unless pressure is exerted to inform public opinion as to the wrongs and the evils from which the Civil Service may be suffering. If you segregate your civil servants and deny them the legitimate expression of their grievances, then you are aggravating that risk which runs throughout this Measure of driving discontent underground into subversive and improper channels. There are many countries where this right of association with similar bodies of workers has been denied to the Civil Service, and I have yet to learn that, in those countries, Governments have received a better or more loyal service than the Government of this country.
Some years ago that right was denied in America and America's example has been held up in this Debate as an example to be avoided by this country. In America, and in similar countries, legitimate rights have been denied to the Civil Service. Grievances have been forced underground. Standards have been forced down to a ridiculous extent compared with the wealth of the community and then, at once, with a discontented Civil Service, with a Civil Service labouring under a sense of grievance, you have the temptation to adopt precisely that system which, at all costs, we want to avoid in this country, and which we have so triumphantly avoided throughout the ages. In place of a Clause like this, a mean and restrictive Clause upon the activities of a body of men to whom this country owes so much, I would ask the Government of the day to give the Civil Service that trust and that confidence which they deserve, and to recollect well that no man who cannot trust is ever well served.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALL
The hon. Member who has just spoken has attempted to draw an analogy upon the matter which is now before the House. He has endeavoured to show that certain high officers of the State, although they owe full allegiance to the State, at the same time act in such a manner that there may be some sort of dual allegiance. I entirely fail to follow him in that. He has overlooked this one fundamental fact, that while indeed there may be 1988 some difference between the different functions which high officers of State are called upon to perform, in fact they have never yet held office in a manner which may be regarded as being in opposition to the Government of the day. When he falls back upon the argument that the Civil Service in the last emergency was loyal to the best interest of the State, he entirely forgets what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) referred to. The circular to which he drew attention was issued by certain officials of the organisation, and it was certainly not the fault of the officials of the organisation, or the circular they issued, that in fact the main body of civil servants were loyal to the State, and fulfilled their duty loyally to the State in spite of the efforts made to seduce them from that loyalty. It is when facts which are beyond dispute are distorted in the manner in which they were just now by the hon. Gentleman that one realises how subtle and how mischievous are the influences to which the servants of the community are liable to be subjected, and why it is necessary that this Clause should stand part of the Bill.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I do not propose this evening to re-discuss the general merits of the Clause. It has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee already, but I do propose to answer one or two of the points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) began by saying that he agreed with me that all that is being done by this Clause could quite well have been effected by regulation without coming to Parliament. So far, we find ourselves in agreement, but he drew what, I think, was a most remarkable deduction from that premise, then he said that that fact proved that the Government were vindictive to the Civil Service. What is really true is that, having the power to act by ourselves without reference to Parliament, we thought it right, before embarking upon this policy, to submit it to the judgment of the House of Commons, and I have no doubt, having regard to what has already happened in the Committee stage of this Bill, as to what that judgment will be. The hon. Member went on to say that this Clause had no relation to the events of last year. I think that that 1989 suggestion has been very amply and very completely answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Moss-side Division of Manchester (Mr. G. Hurst), when he read out the actual circulars isued by various Civil Service organisations at that time. When the hon. Member for North Camberwell so anxiously disclaims having done anything on the side of the strikers during that strike, he is adopting a very different attitude from that which he and his organ adopted in 1926, because I have in my hand the issue of the "Post," which, I understand, is their official newspaper, dated the 22nd May, 1926, in which they reveal their various activities and the writer winds up:We were not directly involved in the strike, but I am sure that the Union of Post Office Workers rendered good service to the common cause.I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman prefers the attitude of saying that they took no part at all in, and had nothing to do with, the strike, or whether he prefers the position which he took up twelve months ago, before the Bill, which his action and the action of those associated with him twelve months ago has directly brought about, when they boasted of the good service which trey rendered to the common cause.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
This is what the article says. It gives a long list of activities, and I see that one immediately above the passage I quoted is the part allotted by the General Council to Mr. Bowen in having, with Mr. E. L. Poulton, to look after the Press and publicity. I could find a number of others, but, at any rate, feeding the Press is not quite the same thing as feeding women and children. Certain questions have been put by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell said that this Clause might at least have left out of its scope the unestablished men, and he went on to paint a lurid picture of how, if the mines and the railways were nationalised, every miner and every railwayman would come within the scope of the Clause. He demanded to know whether it was the fact that everybody employed by the British Broadcasting Company was not affected by the Clause. The hon. Gentleman 1990 surely knows, because he at least has read the Bill, that this Bill has no relation at all to people as long as they are unestablished workers.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The hon. Member seems to be confusing two wholly different things. The question was raised as to the condition under which unestablished men, when they became established, might retain their membership of trade unions. That has nothing in the wide world to do with the question whether unestablished men who have not become established are within or without the Clause. If hon. Members opposite really have not yet found out that the Bill deals with established persons only, it accounts for a good many of the misrepresentations that have been put out. The very third line of the Clause refers to the Regulations as to the conditions of service in His Majesty's civil establishments, and states thatthere shall be included Regulations prohibiting established civil servants from being members, delegates, or representatives,and so on. Surely the hon. Member opposite at least has read the first three lines of the Clause.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I will read it:The expression 'established civil servant' means a person serving in an established capacity in the permanent service of the Crown, and includes any person who, having been granted a certificato by the Civil Service Commissioners, is serving a probationary period preliminary to establishment.Surely the hon. Gentleman, who has been acquainted with the Civil Service for as many years as I have been at the Bar, I suppose, does not imagine that every unestablished man who is a civil servant is a person who is serving a probationary period preliminary to establishment 1991 after the grant of a certificate. This relates to those who have passed the necessary examinations, who have net yet got on to the establishment, but are serving the necessary probationary period, and to say that because these persons are included there is ground for supposing that all unestablished men are within a Clause which deals only with established men seems to be a misconception of which I did not think even the hon. Gentleman and those on the opposite side of the House could really have been guilty. No wonder we get the misrepresentations in regard to this Clause which I find in the only paragraph relating to it in the little pamphlet which I had the pleasure of reading to the House a day or two ago. It is in the same pamphlet, "Fettering the Workers," but a different part of it, and I would like to read the only paragraph which describes what this part of the. Bill does:The Civil Service staff associations will not be allowed to circularise or approach M.P.'s, although Civil Service wages and conditions are decided by Parliament. This includes postal, dockyard, and other industrial workers, and would also include the mines and railways if they were taken over by the State.This Clause has been read by most hon. Members in this House, and I challenge any hon. Member in this House to point out a single word in this Clause which has anything whatever to do with the right of any association to circularise or approach a Member of Parliament, yet that is put out in this pamphlet as being the effect of the present Bill. It is an untruth. It is what the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clones) would prefer to describe as mendacity, and What I would like to call, on the part of whoever issues this pamphlet, a deliberate mendacity designed to mislead. I pass to other matters. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) raised a question which it is desirable to get cleared up. He suggested that under this Bill the retired civil servant would, equally with the actual civil servant, be prohibited from becoming a member of any outside organisation.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
If it be a fact—I do not think it is—that makes 1992 the statement even more untrue, because, if they are already in existence, how false it is to suggest that they are brought into existence by the Bill. I was answering a misconception which was raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, I think, when he suggested that the retired civil servant was affected by this Bill equally with other civil servants in the sense that, after retirement he remained unable to take part in outside organisations on pain, as I think he suggested, of forfeiting his pension. That, of course, is not the effect of the Bill. The statement which I think the hon. Member misunderstood was a statement made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster) to the effect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept the Amendment to give retired civil servants the right to remain full active members of Civil Service trade union organisations, which is, of coarse, an exactly opposite point from that which he gathered.
Then there was a suggestion—again I only mention it in order to get rid of it—made, I think, by the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne East (Mr. Connolly) that there was some ambiguity in Subsection (2), because the expression used was "the said" Regulations, and he did not know which Regulations were meant. If the House will look at the Bill they will see that it relates to Regulations as to the conditions of service and states that there shall be included Regulations which do certain things. Then there is a provision that the Regulations made in furtherance of the provisions of this Section shall not prevent certain things happening. Finally, there is a Regulation that if any established civil servant knowingly contravenes any of the provisions of "the said Regulations" he shall be disqualified from remaining a member of the Civil Service. Quite obviously, "the said Regulations" are the Regulations which are prescribed by the Bill and are to deal with matters to which the Bill refers. I do not think there is any possible ambiguity in the expression.
Some hon. Member asked me who decides whether a civil servant shall be dismissed. Quite obviously, before any civil servant is dismissed from the service of the Crown, the responsible head of the Department under which he is 1993 serving has to be satisfied that he has committed an offence which justifies dismissal. That is the position now, and that will remain the position after this Bill becomes law. I think those were all the relevant questions which were put to me. As I have said, I do not desire to recapitulate the arguments in favour of the Clause, both because they have been stated in Committee and because they have been conclusively and convincingly stated by my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate, and because I think that from every reason of common sense, expediency and justice, it is right that the Civil Service should be set free from the shackles of political association.
§ Mr. CONNOLLY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us a definition of "permanent service, which was the third point I put to him?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The expression "established civil servant" is defined in Sub-section (3) (a) in exactly the same language as is used for the definition of the same phrase in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, I think, and one or two other Acts of Parliament. It is the recognised phrase for defining a person who is on the establishment, and I do not think anybody who is in the Civil Service has any doubt as to who is an established or unestablished man. We have used exactly the same language to define exactly the same thing.
§ Mr. TOWNEND
On the point of clarity following the explanation of the Attorney-General as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir H. Foster), do we now understand that a retired civil servant is free to exercise his citizenship like any other member of the community, entirely eliminating the question of his connection with the Civil Service before his retirement?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Certainly when he has retired, he ceases to be a member of the Civil Service, and he only enjoys rights which his previous service entitle him to enjoy.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken any steps to withdraw the 5,000,000 Conservative 1994 pamphlets which, having regard to the alterations which have been made, are row wholly inaccurate?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I do not know which particular pamphlets the hon. and gallant Member refers to, but may I say that the alterations which have been made in the Bill have been alterations designed in every case to ensure that the Bill carries out the four principles which were originally laid down. If in all the pamphlets those four principles have been expounded, then the alterations I have since made will make those pamphlets even more accurate.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so satisfied with those pamphlets, will he take steps to see that they bear the imprint of the Conservative Association?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask if the hon. and gallant Member can speak again on this Bill.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I have a liberty which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has not, because I have not addressed the House before on this question. As this subject has been raised particularly in reference to the Civil Service, will the Attorney-General make sure that in future all leaflets issued by the Conservative Association, for which he has some responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, do bear the imprint of the Conservative Association? I have had recent experience of some leaflets which I have strong reason to believe were printed by the Conservative Association, but which came from another party altogether, and they stated that I supported a party entirely at variance with the Conservative party.
§ Sir G. HOHLER
On a point of Order. I would like to ask if all this is relevant to the subject matter of the Bill before the House?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am referring to one of the four points which the Attorney-General alluded to as being principles carried out by this Bill. I think it is only reasonable, as this 1995 matter has been raised upon the Treasury Bench, that the Conservative organisation should, in common fairness, always put their name to any pamphlets they issue. They will then find that there will be no necessity to use terminological inexactitudes——
§ It being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the1996
§ Order of the House of the 16th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 38, stand part of the Bill,"
§ The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 1281997
|Division No. 197.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Drewe, C.||Jacob, A. E.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Duckworth, John||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Alnsworth, Major Charles||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Albery, Irving James||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Ellis, R. G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Applln, Colonel R. V. K.||Elveden, Viscount||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Apsley, Lord||England, Colonel A.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Balniel, Lord||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Fermoy, Lord||Long, Major Eric|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Fielden, E. B.||Lougher, Lewis|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Finburgh, S.||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Berry, Sir George||Ford, Sir P. J.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Bethel, A.||Forrest, W.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Foster, Sir Henry S.||Lumley, L. R.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Fraser, Captain Ian||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Galbraith, J. F. W.||MacDonald, R, (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Ganzoni, Sir John||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Gates, Percy||Macintyre, I.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Goff, Sir Park||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Margesson, Capt. D.|
|Burman, J. B.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Grotrian, H. Brent||Meller, R. J.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)||Merriman, F. B.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hanbury, C.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Nelson Sir Frank|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Harland, A.||Neville', Sir Reginald J.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Newton Sir D. G. C (Cambridge)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Haslam, Henry C.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hawke, John Anthony||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Charterls, Brigadier-General J.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Oakley, T.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Owen, Major G.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hilton, Cecil||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Couper, J. B.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Perkins Colonel E. K.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Holt, Captain H. P.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Preston, William|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Radford, E. A.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hurst, Gerald B.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Ramsden, E.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Remer, J. R.|
|Remnant, Sir James||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Storry-Deans, R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Strauss, E. A.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Ropner, Major L.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Rye, F. G||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Salmon, Major I.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Withers, John James|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Savery, S. S.||Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)|
|Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W.)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.||Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)|
|Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Warrender, Sir Victor||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Watts, Dr. T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wells, S. R.||Major Cope and Captain Lord|
|Smithers, Waldron||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.||Stanley.|
|Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Half, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardie, George D.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sexton, James|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Baker, Walter||Hayes, John Henry||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.||Smillie, Robert|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kelly, W. T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy, T.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)|
|Clowes, S.||Lansbury, George||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawrence, Susan||Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawson, John James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Connolly, M.||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lowth, T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||MacLaren, Andrew||Varley, Frank B.|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Viant, S. P.|
|Duncan, C.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Dunnico, H.||March, S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edge, Sir William||Maxton, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Mosley, Oswald||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Fenby, T. D.||Murnin, H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, J. P.||Naylor, T. E.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Oliver, George Harold||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gosling, Harry||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Greenall, T.||Potts, John S.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Windsor, Walter|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Riley, Ben|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grundy, T. W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)||Whiteley.|
§ Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.1998
Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 39, at the beginning, to insert the words,
any person who is at the commencement of this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 263: Noes, 1272001
|Division No. 198.]||AYES.||[10.40 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fielden, E. B.||Margesson, Capt. D.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Finburgh, S.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Ford, Sir P. J.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Albery, Irving James||Forrest, W.||Meller, R. J.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Applln, Colonel R. V. K.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Apsley, Lord||Fraser, Captain Ian||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Balniel, Lord||Gates, Percy||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Goff, Sir Park||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Berry, Sir George||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Oakley, T.|
|Bethel, A.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Grotrian, H. Brent||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Owen, Major G.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hanbury, C.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Harland, A.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C(Berks. Newb'y)||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Preston, William|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Haslam, Henry C.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hawke, John Anthony||Radford, E. A.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Ran sden, E.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Remer, J. R.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hilton, Cecil||Rhys, Hon C. A. U.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Holt, Captain H. P.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rye, F. G.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hurst, Gerald B.||Savory, S. S.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cent,)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Couper, J. B.||Jacob, A. E.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Jephcott, A. R.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Strauss, E. A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Knox, Sir Alfred||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir I. H.||Lamb, J. Q.||Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C,|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Loder, J. de V.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Long, Major Eric||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lougher, Lewis||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Dixon, captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Drewe, C.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Duckworth, John||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lumley, L. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Ellis, R. G.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Eivedon, Viscount||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|England, Colonel A.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Macintyre, Ian||Watson, Rt. Hon. W, (Carlisle)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univer.)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Watts. Dr. T.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Wells, S. R.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Malone, Major P. B.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Wiggins, William Martin||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)||Wise, Sir Fredric||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)||Withers, John James||Young, Ht. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.|
|Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)||Major Cope and Captain Lord|
|Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).||Stanley.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)||Hardie, George D.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James|
|Baker, Walter||Hayes, John Henry||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smillie, Robert|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Briant, Frank||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)|
|Broad, F. A.||John, William (Rnondda, West)||Snell, Harry|
|Bromfield, William||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J (St. Rollox)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Clowes, S.||Kirkwood, D.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lansbury, George||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawrence, Susan||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Lawson, John James.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lee, F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lowth, T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dennison, R.||MacLaren, Andrew||Varley, Frank B.|
|Duncan, C.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Viant, S. P.|
|Dunnico, H.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Edge, Sir William||March S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maxtor, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Mosley, Oswald||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gardner, J. P.||Murnin, H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Naylor, T. E.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Westwood, J|
|Gosling, Harry||Palin, John Henry||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John S.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves, T.||Riley, Ben||Windsor, Walter|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ritson, J.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.|
Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 7, at the end, to insert the words,
(b) any person employed at the commencement of this Act by or under the Crown who thereafter becomes an established civil servant from remaining, so long as he is not appointed to a position of supervision or management, a member of any trade union or organisation, not composed wholly or mainly of persons employed by or under the Crown, of which he is a member at the date when he so becomes an
§ established civil servant, if under the rules thereof there has at that date accrued, or begun to accrue, to him a right to any future payment during incapacity, or by way of superannuation, or on the death of himself or his wife, or as provision for his children: or."—[The Attorney-General.]
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 117.2005
|Division No. 199.]||AYES.||[10. 50 p.m.,|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Balniel, Lord||Blundell, F. N.|
|Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Boothby, R. J. G.|
|Alnsworth, Major Charles||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Albery, Irving James||Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Brass, Captain W.|
|Apsley, Lord||Berry, Sir George||Brassey, Sir Leonard|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bethel, A.||Briant, Frank|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Briscoe, Richard George|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hanbury, C.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perring, Sir William George|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Harland, A.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Burman, J. B.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harris, Percy A.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Haslam, Henry C.||Preston, William|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hawke, John Anthony||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Radford, E. A.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Cassels, J. D.||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Ramsden, E.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Remer, J. R.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hilton, Cecil||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Rye, F. G.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Cope, Major William||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Couper, J. B.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Savery, S. S.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||Jacob, A. E.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Jephcott, A. R.||Smith Carington, Neville W.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Davies, Maj, Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovll)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Strauss, E. A.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lamb, J. Q.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Drewe, C.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Duckworth, John||Loder, J. de V.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Long, Major Eric||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Lougher, Lewis||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Ellis, R. G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Thomson, Trevelvan (Middlesbro. w.)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|England, Colonel A.||Lumley, L. R.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Fenby, T. D.||Macintyre, Ian||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Macmillan, Captain H.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Finburgh, S.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Wells, S. R.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Malone, Major P. B.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Forrest, W.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Margesson, Captain D.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Meller, R. J.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Merriman, F. B.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Meyer, Sir Frank||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Gates, Percy||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Withers, John James|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Womersley, W. J.|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Nelson, Sir Frank||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wood, Sir Kingsley(Woolwich W.)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf ld.)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Oakley, T.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Owen, Major G.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hardle, George D.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Rose, Frank H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sexton, James|
|Baker, Walter||Hirst, G. H.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barnes, A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Snell, Harry|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromfield, William||Kelly, W. T.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Bromley, J.||Kennedy, T.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirkwood, D||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, George||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clowes, S.||Lawrence, Susan||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lee, F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Connolly, M.||Lowth, T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lunn, William||Varley, Frank B.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||MacLaren, Andrew||Viant, S. P.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Dennison, R.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||March, S.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnico, H.||Maxton, James||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mosley, Oswald||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, J. P.||Murnin, H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gillett, George M.||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Gosling, Harry||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Greenall, T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Groves, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Windsor, Walter|
|Grundy, T. W.||Riley, Ben|
|Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.|