HC Deb 21 June 1939 vol 348 cc2238-43
Mr. Benn

May I ask the Prime Minister what the procedure on the Orders-in-Council under the Military Training Act will be, in view of the statement made yesterday by the Lord Chancellor that these Orders are ambiguous and require amendment?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman put a question to me yesterday upon this subject which came upon me rather unexpectedly, and I was not in a position to give a considered answer at the moment. I have thought about it since, and it seems to me that the first thing to which the House ought to direct its attention is the position of the men who either have been called up, or will very shortly be called up. The right hon. Gentleman himself has called our attention to the difficulty of the position of these men, if they do not know where they stand with regard to their civil obligaions and where their families and dependants will stand. Therefore, it does not seem to me, in those circumstances, that it would be in their interest that these Orders should be referred to a Select Committee, the proceedings of which might delay the actual settlement for some considerable time. I think that would be very undesirable and, therefore, I hope the House will proceed to the consideration of the Orders and will pass them to-day. I recognise that we are embarking upon a rather elaborate code of regulations concerning these obligations of which we have had, up to now, no experience. No doubt the matter will be debated in the House this afternoon and hon. Members will put points of difficulty which have occurred to them, but I think we must see by experience whether any doubts which are expressed are, in fact, justified. I can tell the House that certainly the greatest attention is being given to this matter, and if experience does show that the regulations are defective in any respect, then undoubtedly we will be prepared to reconsider them. If it is thought a good plan, in those circumstances, to refer the matter to a Select Committee, I certainly would not say "No" in that case, but I think we must have experience of the working of the regulations before we decide.

Mr. Benn

I do not know whether the Prime Minister realises that what he has just said is an argument in favour of this matter being considered rapidly by a businesslike Select Committee. May I ask him further, whether, if it is intended in view of the Lord Chancellor's statement, to introduce amended Orders the state of the first batch of militiamen who are called up, will not be worse than the state of the other batches who will be called up subsequently under improved Orders?

Mr. Boothby

Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask him whether in view of the statement of the Lord Chancellor that these Orders are ambiguous and will require to be amended, he would not consider withdrawing them for one week in order to have urgent consultations with a view to the production of a better set of Regulations, say, in a week's time?

The Prime Minister

I still think that in the first instance the Orders should be debated to-day in the interests of the men. My hon. Friend anticipates that it would be possible in a short time to come to an arrangement which might or might not be more favourable to the men than the present arrangement, but there is no certainty that that will be so. I think the best thing we can do is to pass these Orders as they have been passed in another place, and then pay the closest attention to their working. We shall have much better information then as to whether they want amending and, if so, in what respect.

Mr. Greenwood

May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the haste with which these Orders in Council have been prepared and in view of the definite know- ledge of Members of this House that articles in the Orders in Council are bound to cause serious hardship, if the right hon. Gentleman insists on forcing them through the House to-day, whether he will not, without waiting for any further experience, proceed to have the articles in the Orders in Council examined by a Select Committee? Would he not agree, if the course of the Debate to-day shows a good deal of apprehensiveness on the part of Members of this House as to the operation of the Orders, later in the day make a statement that there shall be set up forthwith a Select Committee of Members of this House with knowledge of the matter to go into the position, so as to ensure that at the earliest possible date no injustice shall be done to the militiamen?

The Prime Minister

I recognise the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in wanting to get these Orders as accurate as possible, but surely he will agree that if, after having passed them, you are going to refer them to a Select Committee, you will throw the whole community into confusion again, and it would make people wonder what their position really was. I submit that the best thing to do is to await practical experience in the matter.

Mr. Greenwood

Would it not be the case that if the Orders in Council were passed to-night, they would begin to operate immediately, and is it not also the case that if the Orders were allowed to stand as they are, with the knowledge of certain Members of this House that they are defective and that there will be injustice done to militiamen, the position of those men might be improved if, immediately after the passage of the Orders in Council, a Select Committee was set up to examine the matter? Is it not also the case —I am bound to come back to this, because yesterday I might have thought differently —that a prominent member of His Majesty's Government has already admitted that the Orders in Council are unsatisfactory and vague and do stand in need of revision; and that he said he did not know how; and is it not the case that I am trying to help the Prime Minister to find a way out of the difficulty?

Sir A. Sinclair

Surely, from the point of view of the men, if there is a doubt raised on no less an authority than that of the Lord Chancellor, who has said that these Orders must be amended, and before very long —that was his phrase — from that point of view, is it not better, if we pass the Orders to-day, that the Select Committee should be set up at once to consider the Amendments, which are immediately necessary, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor himself?

The Prime Minister

My Noble Friend was no doubt expressing his own personal opinion, but I do not think I could accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there will be unanimity in this House as to what changes are required.

Mr. Greenwood

All that I said was that there might be a fairly widespread opinion on all sides as to the unsatisfactory nature of the Orders.

The Prime Minister

I think the right hon. Gentleman said that certain Members of this House knew that there were particular provisions which were unsatisfactory. There may be hon. Members who may think they know that, but there may be other hon. Members who think they are mistaken. Until one has heard the Debate, I think it is impossible to accept the view that there is any general or universal view that any particular Order is unsatisfactory in character. I still maintain that the best way of proceeding is to pass these Orders and to see how they work in practice, and then, if the right hon. Gentleman and the House think a Select Committee is the best way of examining the results of that experience, I shall be quite willing to accept that view.

Mr. Buchanan

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these Orders come into force, the experience under them will show only when this House has adjourned, during the months of August, September, and October, that any serious hardship that would arise could not, therefore, be amended until the House had met, and that you would inflict great hardships? Is there not, therefore, some necessity for the right hon. Gentleman to revise his opinion? Secondly, is it not a fact that in to-day's Debate Members in all parts will show obvious wrongs in these regulations, and would it not be better for this House, in order to see that no hardship that can be avoided will be inflicted on these men, should alter them now, rather than wait until the hardships have been inflicted; and will the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to see that a committee is set up forthwith to investigate the whole matter?

The Prime Minister

I think the hon. Member is assuming that all the wrongs are to the detriment of the men concerned, but if I may judge by what I have seen in the Press and elsewhere, there is a view that there are wrongs on the other side also, and that the regulations are too favourable to the militiamen. If we are going to start reviewing them, we cannot pick out one or two things and revise them, but we must do the whole thing. I do not myself anticipate that it will be impossible to see whether the hardships have arisen even before the end of the sitting.

Miss Ward

While appreciating the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, might I ask him whether, if in the future there is an alteration of the regulations, we can have an assurance that the position of the original militiamen will be protected? I would ask my light hon. Friend to refer to the difficulties which arose when there was an alteration in the Unemployment Assistance Board Regulations, when the original people had, so to speak, a rough deal, whereas the people who came in after the original lot got the benefit of the improved regulations. I think it would be a great satisfaction to all of us if it were possible to protect the original militiamen during the experimental stage. Could I have that assurance?

The Prime Minister

I quite appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I certainly will give the assurance that every consideration will be given to it, but I would not like to give any complete and binding assurance because, as I have already pointed out, alterations might be of various kinds and not affect only the men.

Mr. Buchanan

If some hon. Member to-day puts forward a case showing an obvious wrong, some matter that should be put right, will the Minister for War, who, I understand, is to be in charge, have any power to amend the Orders to be passed to-day?

The Prime Minister

No. The hon. Member knows that that cannot be done.

Mr. Buchanan

Then am I to understand that even although hon. Members put forward an obvious wrong, which even the Minister cannot answer, no steps will be taken to remedy that wrong?

The Prime Minister

It cannot be amended to-day, but it can be withdrawn and a new one introduced.

Mr. Mander

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Lord Chancellor, speaking on behalf of the Government in an important Debate in another place, was expressing only his personal view? Is it not obvious that he was, in accordance with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, speaking for the Government when he said that these regulations would require amendment, and at an early date; and in view of that fact, is it not very important that a Select Committee should be appointed without delay?

Mr. Benn

I ask the Prime Minister what Ministers will be present to-day. There are 10 Departments involved. In particular, will the Minister of Labour, who led the House to believe that monetary assistance would be forthcoming for civil liabilities, be present?

The Prime Minister

All Ministers necessary will be present.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We had better pass on to the business on the Order Paper.