CLAUSE 3.—(Conscientious Objectors.) (Hansard, 11 May 1939)

HC Deb 11 May 1939 vol 347 cc723-96 723

§ 4.0 p.m.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, after "he," to insert: furnishes the prescribed particulars about himself and. Under Clause I men who apply to be put on the military register must give particulars themselves. It is obviously necessary that the same procedure should apply to those who ask to be put on the register of conscientious objectors.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "he," to insert: furnishes such particulars as aforesaid and. This Amendment will extend the provisions that the Committee have just passed to those who fail to apply at the due date to be registered but who make application to be registered at a later date.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 24, after "period," insert "furnish such particulars as aforesaid and."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert: (5) An applicant for registration as a conscientious objector who is aggrieved by any order of a local tribunal, and the Minister, if he considers it necessary, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the appellate tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and the decision of the appellate tribunal shall be final: Provided that if the decision of the local tribunal with respect to any order made by them was unanimous, the applicant shall not be entitled to appeal to the appellate tribunal except with the leave of the local or the appellate tribunal. (6) The Minister or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to be heard on any application or appeal to a tribunal under this section. 724 This is merely a drafting Amendment which rearranges the Sub-sections of the Clause without altering their meaning.

§ 4.3 p.m.

§ Mr. Lansbury
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "tribunal" to insert: and any person who is aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military training register under the provisions of sub-section (6) of this section. The object of my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is that the person who is being dealt with shall as a matter of right be able to go to the appeal court. As the matter stands he has no such right, and in our view it is only elementary justice that a person under these conditions should have that rather elementary right. I cannot see how in equity or justice it is right for one side only 'to have the right of appeal. If a man has won his case before the tribunal and the Minister is not satisfied with the verdict of the tribunal, I am not questioning his right to take it to the appeal court, but I do think that it is rather a denial of justice to say that the map shall not also have that right. I could quote very many cases in which, if an appeal to an appeal court of this kind had been possible during the last War, a great deal of injustice would have been prevented.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies I would ask him whether an Amendment which appears on the Paper later, in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy, does not bear on this point. There is a suspicion in the mind of some of us that it has some relation to the matter under review.

§ 4.6 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
The hon. Member is quite correct. We appreciate the force of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and we have taken steps in an Amendment which will be moved later, to lines 33 and 34 in Sub-section (6), to meet the position that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined. It may be for the advantage of the Committee if I briefly recapitulate the exact position. The Amendment which I have moved merely alters the order of the Sub-sections of the Clause. A person claiming to be a conscientious objector may appeal to the appeal tribunal under the new Sub-section (5). The right hon. Member for Bow and 725 Bromley wants to add a provision to deal with the person aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military register. If, for example, someone has been conditionally registered and is brought to the notice of the tribunal as not fulfilling the conditions of that conditional registration, an appeal should lie before that individual conscientious objector has his name arbitrarily transferred to the military register. In fact, we propose to take steps to meet that situation. As the Bill now stands, should someone say to the tribunal that a man on the conditional register is not in fact fulfilling the conditions, then when the local tribunal reports this fact to the Minister, the Minister is obliged to transfer that man to the military register.
Under our proposed Amendment the man against whom this information has been lodged would be allowed to appeal to the local tribunal and the local tribunal would once more review the whole of his case. If the decision went against the applicant he would be able to appeal just as if it were an original application. If in fact, as a result of this appeal, the decision goes against the applicant and his name is transferred from the conscientious objector register to the military training register, it could only be transferred to the military training register for non-combatant duties. The view held, and rightly held, is that a man who has once made out his case to be a conscientious objector should not be asked to undertake military training except for non-combatant duties. We are advised that the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will be entirely met by our Amendment.

§ 4.9 p.m.

§ Mr. Lansbury
The man appears before the local tribunal and the local tribunal makes a decision in his favour. I understand that if the Minister is dissatisfied with that decision, the Minister can appeal to the appeal court, but that the man has no appeal against the decision. It is not a question of someone informing on him. It is the case of the man who has been found not to have a conscientious objection or who is being put to work of national importance or to non-combatant service. My Amendment is that when that decision is reached he shall have the same right of appeal as the Minister has if the Minister is dissatisfied with the local tribunal's decision. 726 Honestly I do not see how the Government Amendment applies to such a case.

§ Mr. Mabane
May we know what Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has moved? As I understand it, his argument is not relevant to the Amendment that has been called.

§ Mr. Lansbury
The Amendment to the proposed Amendment which I have moved is the first in my name on page 1072 of the Order Paper, in line 2, after "tribunal," to insert: and any person who is aggrieved by the transfer of his name to the military training register under the provisions of Sub-section (6) of this Section. I want those words to be inserted in the Government Amendment.

§ Mr. Mabane
That Amendment to the proposed Amendment does not do what the right hon. Gentleman is asking to be done, because it does not amend the words in lines 6, 7 and 8 of the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. Lansbury
That point is to be dealt with in another Amendment to be moved later.

§ The Chairman
The next Amendment to the proposed Amendment which appears on the Paper is to leave out lines 9 and 10. I understand that it should be to leave out lines 6 to 8.

§ 4.13 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
Whatever the intention of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) may be, the effect of carrying his Amendment to the proposed Amendment would really be as I have outlined it to the Committee; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point he has raised will be dealt with by a later Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy, relating to lines 33 and 34 on page 6 of the Bill. If the decision of a local tribunal is not unanimous, the applicant has a right of appeal, and if the decision is unanimous and the leave of the tribunal is given to appeal he also has the right of appeal. I am satisfied that there are perfectly adequate safeguards provided.

§ Mr. Lansbury
I want the applicant to have the full right of appeal, and I am very sorry not to be able to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

727

§ Mr. Garro Jones
Why is it that the Parliamentary Secretary should prefer to have an advantage over the conscientious objector in a case like this? Surely the decision of the local tribunal should be treated with uniform respect both by the Minister and the applicant. I cannot see any conceivable reason why, if a decision goes against the Minister, he should have the right of appeal, but that a conscientious objector should have no right of appeal if the decision of the tribunal is adverse to him. What is the reason for this? The Minister has given no justification whatever for this unfair and illogical principle. If he has the right to appeal, the same right should be conceded to the conscientious objector. The Minister takes a preferential right of appeal, and there is no reason why he should do so.

§ 4.16 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
In reply to the hon. Member, it is not the fact that the Minister is an interested party, but, as this is an impartial tribunal, he can bring forward an appeal in order to try and get a decision more in accordance with the desires of the applicant just as much as a decision contrary to the position of the applicant. It is rather confusing the issue to give the impression that in this matter there is some divergence of interest between the Minister and the applicant. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt had experience of the insurance law and will know quite well that in many cases, where an appeal is asked for by the insurance officer, it is in order to protect the interests of the appellant just as much as the interests of the State.

§ 4.17 p.m.

§ Mr. Aneurin Bevan
The last argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is really far too ingenious. If this is incorporated in the Bill in order to protect the applicant against what the Minister may conceive to be an unjust decision, the defence of the applicant can quite easily be preserved by giving him the same right as the Minister and allowing him to be the judge of his own interest. You are giving power to the Minister on the one hand, and taking away the power of the applicant on the other.

§ 4.18 p.m.

§ Mr. Silverman
I would like to examine the reason which the Parliamentary Secretary has given for this distinction be- 728 tween the rights of the Minister and the rights of the applicant. He is saying that the Minister has no part or interest in the application, that he is entirely impartial and that his right of appeal may be exercised as much in the interests of the applicant as against them. If a tribunal has admitted the applicant's contention and granted him exemption, the Minister, if not satisfied with it, can appeal to the appellant tribunal. I think that I am right so far. In that case, there would be a conflict of interests between the Minister and the applicant. That is beyond dispute, and where there is such a conflict the Minister may appeal. It may also be if I have understood him correctly, that the Minister can appeal in a case where the applicant's contention has been rejected by the tribunal. One cannot imagine that the Minister would want to interfere with a tribunal that had rejected the applicant's contention unless the applicant himself were dissatisfied. If the applicant accepts the rejection of his own application, one cannot imagine the Minister interfering and going to the appellate tribunal.
So it comes down to this, that the Minister might impartially take the appeal to the appellate tribunal in the man's own interest where the man himself objected. If that is so, I want the hon. Gentleman to tell me why there should be this intervening stage. If the Minister is to use his extra right to go to the appellate tribunal in order to assist an applicant whose application has been rejected by the tribunal, why not allow the man to go himself? Why bother with the Minister at all? That is the only reason he has given. The simplest thing would be, as my hon. Friend has said, to put the applicant, the Minister and everybody else on exactly the same terms, and either give them all the right to go to the appellate tribunal or no right. I hope that I have shown that the ground which the hon. Gentleman himself chose as justifying the additional right of the Minister is, when you examine it, quite without foundation. I do not think that a unanimously hostile tribunal is at all likely to give leave to appeal against its own decision to an appellate tribunal. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he wants justice to be done in these matters—to cut the knot and give the applicant an absolute right of appeal to the appellate tribunal.

729

§ 4.22 p.m.

§ Mr. Maxton
I support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). The process here is defended on the ground that it is parallel to the method of dealing with unemployed men who have grievances. All of us know of the many difficulties that have arisen there, but this is not a parallel to the position of the unemployed man, because the unemployed man has two safeguards which are not available here. His membership of a trade union gives his trade union the right to appeal on his behalf. Am I right in that? It is an outside body which is not part of the court that has condemned him or turned him down. Secondly he has a workers' representative secured to him on the court of referees from which an appeal may be made. But this man has no representative guaranteed in the lower court. There is only one person of whom we know the nature, and he is the sheriff, a judicially-minded person. The other persons may be anything. They may be poor persons representing the Army as far as this House knows. I will sit down while the Minister kindly explains the position.

§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)
The whole procedure under this Bill is that in regard to this civil tribunal the Minister is responsible both for appointing the tribunal and for seeing that its decisions are carried out.

§ Mr. Maxton
I accept that as an assurance from the Minister, completely and adequately, that the four persons, in addition to the chairman, will not be military persons. There is nothing about that in the Bill or in the Schedule, but we have now got it definitely defined by the assurance of the Minister given at that Despatch Box, and I am very glad to have it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not given it."] I take his word for it. I am assuming that the Minister, like other Ministers, will regard the statement he has made there as being binding. I take it that the assurance includes those who do not represent the local Territorial associations; that they will be civilian persons in the fullest sense of the term.

§ The Chairman
I am very anxious that we should have as full a discussion as possible on all the points arising on this Clause. It is clear that at the present 730 time the discussion is going beyond the actual Amendment to the Amendment. It is perhaps inevitable that it should do. The discussion covers questions relating to the second Amendment to the Amendment and also the Government Amendments at the top of page 1074 of the Amendment Paper, and if the Committee will agree, I suggest—I do not see that it is easy to do otherwise—that the discussion might range over both Amendments to the Amendment and also over the four Government Amendments at the top of page 1074. It should be understood that, when we come to the further Amendments, they will be put to the Committee without further discussion.

§ Mr. Arthur Greenwood
I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

§ Mr. Maxton
I hope you are not giving that Ruling, Sir Dennis, because I was getting too wide of the mark.

§ The Chairman
No, I was not giving a Ruling, but suggesting that, in the Committee's own interest, it might be better to adopt this course.

§ Mr. Maxton
I return to the specific Amendment which is at present before us, and I am asking that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to the proposed Amendment should be accepted. As I have pointed out, the men affected here have not the two safeguards which are presently available to the unemployed men. These men, as individuals, should have the same right of appeal to the higher tribunal as the Minister is claiming for himself.

§ 4.27 p.m.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
I would like to make one or two remarks on the actual form of these Amendments. The Minister has confused the Committee as to the exact position. As far as the new Subsection at the bottom of page 1071 of the Amendment Paper is concerned, applicants have exactly equal rights, and there is no question about the one having more right to appeal than the other. The difference in their right of appeal is introduced by the proviso where the Minister has the right of appeal when there is a unanimous decision against him and the applicant has not. That, I understand, is the subject dealt with by the Amendment to the Amendment. The first Amendment is intended to introduce the right of appeal 731 for quite another class of person altogether, namely, the person, who, under Sub-section (6) as it originally stood, would have been put automatically on to the military register because there had been a report to the local tribunal that he was not complying with the terms which entitled him to remain as a conscientious objector. That person has no right of appeal at all, as under the original Sub-section, and my right hon. Friend's intention in the first of his Amendments is to give that person the same right of appeal that the original applicant would have had.
The Minister has dealt with that position in the Amendment on page 1074 of the Paper where in Clause 3, page 6, line 33, such a person before being put on the military register is required to make a fresh application to the conscientious objectors' tribunal. He will then have exactly the same right of appeal as if he was the original applicant, so that by the Amendment now proposed by the Minister such a person gets exactly the same right of appeal as the original applicant, and the only difference between him and the Minister in that case is that, if the decision is unanimous against him, he will not have the right of appeal, but the Minister will. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's objection has been cured on the first Amendment by what the Minister has proposed, and that it is only on the second Amendment that he has not been met.

§ 4.31 p.m.

§ Mr. Barr
As my name is attached to the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I would take the liberty of addressing a few words to the Committee upon it. There is some mistake in the print, and the Amendment should be to leave out lines 6 to 8, that is to say, to leave out the words of the proviso as to the case where the tribunal was unanimous. By leaving out those words, we should secure that the fact that the tribunal, either local or appellate, had been unanimous would not debar the applicant from appealing. I attach very great importance to this Amendment, because a unanimous tribunal might still do great injustice. I should like to recall the kind of cases that came up during the War in this very connection, and to point out that, so far as the then regulations were concerned, they seemed on 732 paper to be very fair. For example, in the official circulars of the Local Government Board, issued at that time, it was stated: The functions of the Local Tribunal will be of a judicial nature; persons should therefore be appointed who will consider the cases impartially. How far that was from being done and what great injustices were committed against applicants, even by unanimous courts, I would take the liberty of illustrating. I gathered these cases myself during the late War, and in many cases they were unanimous decisions. This is from Camberwell Tribunal: You ought to be hanged. You ought to be shot. This is from the Oldbury Tribunal: It seems to me that there are two things you possess—cowardice and insolence.
From Aldershot: You are qualifying for a lunatic asylum. At Gower the military representative asked an applicant if he had ever been in a lunatic asylum, and he told another applicant that he was a traitor and Only fit to be put on the point of a German bayonet. I trust that if, unfortunately, these tribunals are to be set up again, a different spirit will prevail. I have no complaint against the spirit in which the Prime Minister made his statement, or against the regulations so far as they have been indicated to us, but I would point out that to some of these applicants it was a most serious affair. Some of the tribunals went the length of taking steps to deprive an applicant of his employment, and I will give two instances of that. The chairman at Gower, Swansea, remarked that he could not understand why the education authority should appoint such teachers as the applicant. At St. Helens—and this was a unanimous tribunal—the chairman said: All the members of this tribunal will agree with me that the education committee at St. Helens should take into serious consideration whether a gentleman who has such views in regard to honouring his King is a proper person to teach the young people of St. Helens. We shall forward this decision to the St. Helens Education Authority. When tribunals exercise their powers in this way, we should take every precaution that there shall at least be an appeal, even if a decision is unanimous. I do no press the matter further than that, 733 but to me it seems obvious that the position of an applicant is not sufficiently safeguarded in lines 6 to 8, and that by excising those lines we should give him the same right of appeal as belongs to the tribunal if the tribunal is not unanimous. That is my whole point, and I trust the Minister will give us some assurance in this matter.

§ 4.37 p.m.

§ Mr. Greenwood
The Government have gone some way to meet the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and it is clear now that there will be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, recourse to the procedure which he went through before. To that extent, therefore, my right hon. Friend's point is met, but the other point of the proviso is, I think, important. Yesterday there was a similar proviso in a Government Amendment to Clause I, dealing with the hardship tribunal, and I handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out that proviso. Unfortunately, owing to the pressure of debate, that Amendment of the Government's was not reached, and it was carried automatically, so that I had no opportunity to move my Amendment to it. I think I was right on Clause I in asking that that proviso should have been withdrawn, but if there was a case for it there, the case for it here is a hundred times stronger, and if the Government are not prepared to go much further at least I hope they will delete their proviso. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) has referred to unanimous decisions made in the heat of war of a most unfair kind, and I see no practical reason why, if a local tribunal is unanimous, it is proved to be right. I see no reason why, because of the unfortunate character of a tribunal, a man who may be as conscientious as another man who appeared before a more reasonable tribunal should be deprived of any kind of redress. I do not suppose the Government will go the whole way—they have not shown much sense of reasonableness up to now in Committee—but although I admit that they have gone some way towards meeting my right hon. Friend, if not so far as he would wish, I think it would be right for them to withdraw this proviso in their Amendment, and then retrospectively to withdraw too the similar proviso in Clause 1.

734

§ 4.40 p.m.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison)
We are very much obliged to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who have contributed to this discussion, because it is our earnest desire to make these provisions with regard to conscientious objectors as fair as they can be made. With regard to the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I think, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, the main point of his Amendment is covered by the Amendment of the Government which comes later on; and I think the Committee is much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol for the clarity which he shed upon the position. One thing that I would say about this matter is that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, we were discussing only this single Amendment, and it was only when you, Sir Dennis, very properly suggested that we might debate the whole question that the larger aspect of the matter was opened. Now that it has been opened, it appears that the only thing which is now between the Government and hon. Members opposite is this particular question of whether the right of both parties, the Minister and the applicant, to appeal shall be differentiated in any degree. As it stands, the proviso to the Amendment to which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has drawn attention and which is sought to be deleted by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) gives, in terms, the right to the applicant to appeal only when the decision of the tribunal against him is not unanimous.
I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I, having listened to the discussion, feel that there is very great substance in what has been said in favour of making the right of appeal of the parties equal in both cases. The Minister in charge of this matter will have an overriding responsibility to see that the Act is fairly and equitably administered, and consequently it was our intention to give him the right to appeal and intervene on behalf of applicants as well as against them if a proper case occurred. There are certain administrative points in connection with this matter that we want to discuss, and if I say that I accept, on behalf of the 735 Government, the principle that the applicant and the Minister should be given the same status as regards the right to appeal to the appellate tribunal, I hope that the Committee will accept that assurance and that the Amendment will be withdrawn on the assurance that we will introduce appropriate words on the Report stage to make that principle effective. The only reason why I do not accept the particular words at this moment is that, having read this Amendment, I am not quite certain whether this is the most appropriate way of doing what we desire to do. It is merely a matter of wording, and there is no point of principle between us. We desire to make the conditions as fair as they can be made, and we shall welcome the assistance of hon. Members in any part of the Committee in doing so. Though we may have a difference of opinion as to the best way of doing it, there is no difference between us in what we desire to do.

§ 4.44 p.m.

§ Mr. Greenwood
Do I understand now that the Government have accepted the principle that all people shall be treated alike, whatever kind of tribunal they come before? Has the principle been accepted? We are working under very great difficulties, because we have only one day for the report and Third Reading stage, and we must, therefore, be quite clear what undertaking is being given by His Majesty's Government. Is it in effect the withdrawal of the proviso? If not, it does not satisfy us. If it is that the proviso will be withdrawn, and that the appropriate words to meet the point will be moved, I will advise my right hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, while reserving his right on the Report stage; and in the interval I would suggest that there might be consultation as to the form of words to be inserted. We must be perfectly clear where we stand before we withdraw the Amendment.

§ 4.45 p.m.

§ Mr. Silverman
There are two ways in which the applicant and the Minister could be put on an equality. One would be to give both of them an absolute right of appeal. One way would be to give neither of them an absolute right of appeal, but when the right hon. Gentleman says that he accepts the principle 736 of this Amendment, I take it that what he means is that there should be an absolute right of appeal, both to the applicant and the Minister, and not that there should be only a qualified right of appeal for both.

§ 4.45 p.m.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
My desire is to place the Committee in possession of the facts. I do not think there is any difference between us which would justify a prolongation of the discussion upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has drawn attention to the proviso, the effect of which is to limit the right of the applicant to appeal, whereas, on the other hand the right of the Minister to appeal is not so limited. It is our desire that the applicant shall have the same right of appeal as the Minister. I would, at first blush, say that the proper way to do it, would be to remove the restrictions on the applicant's right of appeal, by providing that, even if the tribunal were unanimous, he should have the right of appeal. I only ask the Committee to give us an opportunity to consider the matter further and to consult, if necessary, with hon. Members opposite, so as to get the most appropriate form of words. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the Committee and that we may be allowed to proceed, as hon. Members desire to discuss other very important matters on this very important Clause.

§ 4.47 p.m.

§ Mr. McGovern
The Minister has gone a long way to meet the wishes and objections of hon. Members in connection with these tribunals. He gave an assurance earlier that the personnel of the tribunals would not consist of military people, but I would point out these words in the proposed addition to the Clause: The Minister or any person authorised by him shall be entitled to be heard on any application or appeal to a tribunal. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that those who represent the Minister at these tribunals, will not be military people? It is true that during the last War a person appearing before a tribunal had the same right of appeal as the military. Yet at these tribunals one always found military gentlemen who completely dominated the proceedings and most of the local busy-bodies who 737 sat on these courts were terrified to oppose the will of these military gentlemen. I ask that there should be no repetition of what happened then. Some of these military men were very insulting in their manner and treated the persons who appeared before them as if they were already in the Army.
I went before a tribunal in Glasgow, and the first thing said to me by the military gentleman was, "Take your hands out of your pockets." I had to remind him that my hands were in my own pockets. Then, he told me that I would not be allowed to appear before a military tribunal in that manner, and I said I was not likely to appear before a military tribunal. The insults offered to people in these tribunals were humiliating to many a man who would not assert himself, as I could upon such occasions. Military people ought not to be allowed to appear on behalf of the Minister. If the Ministry selected a legal gentleman who knew how to conduct himself, I would have no objection but the "brass hats" should not be employed at these tribunals. The tribunals should be free from military influence of any kind because, wherever they are, the assumption of these military gentlemen is that they must rule the roost. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us an assurance that there will be no military men, either on the bench or appearing for the Minister.

§ 4.51 p.m.

§ Mr. Dingle Foot
I welcome the decision of the Minister, and as his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is here, may I express the hope that this admirable principle which has been advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and accepted by the Minister, will be applied when next we consider the system of appeals by unemployed men from courts of referees to the umpire.

§ Mr. Lansbury
There is a saying to the effect that a lady convinced against her will is of the same opinion still. [HON. MEMBERS: "A man."] I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) but I propose to take right hon. Gentlemen opposite at their word. I assume they mean what they say and that on the Report stage, after consultation, they will bring forward a proposal to deal with this 738 matter satisfactorily. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Barr
In view of the assurance which has been given, I do not propose to move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in my name.

§ Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ 4.54 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, after "section," to insert or the appellate tribunal if satisfied on appeal. The object of the Amendment is to give the appellant tribunal power to make the same kind of orders as the local tribunal.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 4.55 p.m.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
I do so in order to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the clearest explanation possible of what is meant by this paragraph and how it will work out in practice. The paragraph states that a local tribunal shall by order direct that the applicant shall be conditionally registered the condition being that he must engage in, and perform, some work designated in the order as being, in the opinion of the tribunal, of national importance; What is the Government's interpretation of the words "work of national importance"? Apparently, the tribunal will be in a position to determine that any kind of work is work of national importance, whether it is of real national importance or not. What guidance will the tribunals receive regarding the interpretation of these words? Is "work of national importance" to be confined to munitions work, coal-mining, agriculture, engineering and shipbuilding, or what limitations are to be placed upon this term? Further, once the tribunal have determined that certain work is of national importance, are they to direct the applicant to secure work in a particular industry or service? Who is to find the work for him? Will it be the duty of the tribunal to direct the applicant to a certain occupation, and, if so, 739 how is that to be done without injuring the employment of other people in that occupation? In a district where a number of such persons have to be found work, is it possible that some of those already engaged will be dismissed, in order to make room for the newcomers?
May I also ask whether it is the intention, once a tribunal has directed a person to engage in work of national importance, that he is to receive the wages normally paid in that industry or occupation? Is he to receive the recognised trade union rate of wages, or will the tribunals be directed to notify such persons that the payment which they will receive for this work of national importance, whether in factory, field or mine, will be comparable with the payment which is to be made to the Militiaman? If they are to receive the smaller sum, is the employer to derive the benefit of the difference between a Militiaman's pay and the trade union rate of wages? We have been told by various Ministers that this Bill was prepared very hurriedly and that there was not time to think out many vital details. I regard this as one of the most vital details. If a later Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman is accepted, a person who is set to work of national importance will have to remain there for 12 months. Is such a person to remain on a particular farm or in a particular factory during the whole of that period?
Here is a series of questions which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer. Assuming a person has gone to the tribunal and is designated to a kind of work which is supposed to be of national importance. Assuming that he is a munition worker, will he be permitted to go back to his own job in his own factory, or will the tribunal have the power to send away a skilled munition worker from the factory where he has been regularly engaged, to some other factory? I assume the right hon. Gentleman has in mind what directions the tribunal will be able to give. Suppose an individual happens to be an agricultural labourer. He appears before a tribunal and they allocate him to work of national importance. Will they be obliged, under directions, to allow him to remain in agriculture and, if so, would they be permitted to allow him to return 740 to the farm where he was originally engaged? If the applicant happens to be a coal miner, and he must do work of national importance, will it be the desire of the Government that in such a case he should be allowed to remain in coal mining, since coal mining is generally regarded as work of national importance?
Who will determine what is work of national importance? When I look around the country I find hundreds of occupations and services that are all of national importance. Indeed, it is difficult to find a large number of occupations or services that are not of national importance. I remember during the last War that the master of one hunt was able, on application to a tribunal, to secure the release of every individual engaged by that hunt. Would the right hon. Gentleman regard a street sweeper as a person engaged in work of national importance? I should think that a street sweeper in keeping the streets clean helps to free us of epidemics, so that we do not need doctors. Some people would suggest that doctoring was a work of national importance but that a street sweeper's job was of no importance at all. Has the right hon. Gentleman any advice on the point as to what is or is not work of national importance? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman had a tribunal at Timbuctoo and there appeared before the tribunal a postman, who was entitled to be designated to work of national importance. Is it in the mind of the Minister that that particular individual, working for the State, will be able to remain in his own occupation because, presumably it is work of national importance, or is it conceivable that some of the spirit engendered during the last War may prevail on some of the tribunals, and the postman might be sent to work in agriculture, as being work of national importance, and the postman's job would have to be taken over by a skilled agricultural labourer? We saw ludicrous situations like that occurring regularly during the last War.
I "should like to ask one fundamental question, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply. Will the person called up for work of national importance, at the conclusion of his 12 months work—

§ Mr. E. Brown
There is not an obligation for 12 months but for six months.

741

§ Mr. Williams
The Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy says: In page 6, line 12, after "register," insert: for the period of one year beginning with the date on which he is so registered. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will explain that Amendment when we reach it. However, six months will suit my argument just the same. Are we to understand that after the person has been engaged on work of national importance, whether for six months or 12 months, he will enjoy the same rights and privileges under Clause 6 as the person who enters the Service and performs his six months' training? Will he be entitled to claim the right of reinstatement in his previous occupation, and if he is not reinstated, will the same fines and penalties against the employer apply in his case as would apply to the person who does his six months' military training?
I can recall many horrible experiences during the last War of conscientious objectors who were buffeted about all over the place. I can recall a personal instance, which it would not be out of place to mention, as a warning to the Minister, if the spirit of what the Prime Minister said the other day is to be fully carried out by the tribunals to be set up. For my sins, during the last War I had to appear before a county tribunal, and when I arrived there I discovered that the chairman was one of the largest coal royalty owners in the area. It was well known to me that the Coal Owners' Association and the royalty owners were not overhead in love with me. They would have done anything to remove me from the colliery where I was engaged as workers' representative. I knew the moment I entered the town hall that unless I had a 22-carat case I should not have a chance in life. It did not matter to the chairman of the tribunal that I had four brothers and three brothers-in-law in the War, and that I had a widowed mother. What concerned them was inflicting hardship upon the individual who came before them in certain circumstances. I want to see the spirit of the Prime Minister's words faithfully observed by the tribunals who are to determine these cases.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the right of reinstatement in employment of the person now under discussion will be equal in every particular to the rights and privileges of any 742 other person. Can he say what is regarded as work of national importance, what kind of industries a person or persons may be sent to in certain sets of circumstances, and whether they will be permitted to remain in their own industry, workshop or mine, or whether they can be moved about from town to town merely because that subjects them to the maximum discomfort, and discouragement, because they are pursuing their own conscience? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy us that appropriate guidance will be given to these tribunals to ensure that the applicants will be fairly and squarely dealt with, and that now we are providing facilities for conscientious objection the Government will do it thoroughly and not leave any nasty taste in the mouths of people in the country.

§ 5.11 p.m.

§ Mr. Sandys
I rise to oppose the Amendment. In my view it should have been paragraph (a) which the hon. Member moved to delete. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour or the Chancellor of the Duchy to explain, as the hon. Member has asked them to explain, what is in their mind as to the nature of the work of national importance which those who come under paragraph (b) will be asked to undertake? In Sub-section (2) three grounds, (a), (b) and (c) are enumerated on which a person may claim to be registered as a conscientious objector and to obtain exemption from the necessity of undergoing military training, and under Sub-section (5, b) he may be required to undertake work of national importance. I should like my right hon. Friend to state specifically, if he can, what is this work of national importance. The first of the three grounds is that the man conscientiously objects to being registered in the military training register. Clearly, he is not being registered in the military training register, and therefore in that case the requirement to undertake work of national importance does not affect that conscientious objection. The second ground is that he conscientiously objects to undergoing military training. Again, to undertake work of national importance should not conflict with his conscientious objection to undergoing military training. Then we come to the third ground, that he conscientiously objects to performing combatant duties. Again, his conscientious objection to performing com- 743 batant duties should not conflict with the requirement that he should undertake work of national importance.

§ Mr. Stephen
On a point of Order. Are we not discussing the leaving out of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5)? Evidently, the hon. Member is discussing leaving out the whole of the paragraphs.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member was going a little wide, but I think he was in Order.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I said that we were moving to delete the paragraph in order to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Stephen
I put an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out the whole of the paragraphs, but it has not been called. Therefore, I object that my Amendment should be discussed on another Amendment in this way.

§ Mr. Sandys
I am in the same unhappy position as the hon. Member. I had an Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5) but I find that, without straying from the rules of Order, I am able to say all that I wished to say on my Amendment. I am not straining the rules of Order in any way. I wish to learn from my might hon. Friend precisely what is the nature of the work of national importance which a tribunal can impose upon conscientious objectors under paragraph (b), which the hon. Member has moved to delete. That is the purpose of my remarks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will make it clear how this paragraph (b) applies to the three grounds mentioned in Sub-section (2), and whether all the people coming under these three categories could not without conflicting with their conscience undertake work of national importance under paragraph (b).

§ 5.16 p.m.

§ Mr. Messer
I do not see how the Minister is going to show that occupations will be considered of national importance if the paragraph is left as it is. One of my objections to the paragraph is that the local tribunal is itself to decide, for the words are "in the opinion of the tribunal." One well remembers during the last War some really exaggerated instances of what was considered to be work of national importance. If these tribunals 744 are to be regarded by the people most concerned as giving justice, it will be because there is a recognition of the fact that they are working on the same lines, and that one tribunal will not consider the work of a hunt as of national importance and another tribunal consider the scaring of crows as of national importance. As a matter of fact, the tribunal will regard as work of national importance that which relates most closely to the area with which they are concerned. I shall be glad to hear whether there is any intention of putting a schedule of occupations before them which are to be considered as occupations of national importance to which the tribunals can work.

§ 5.18 p.m.

§ Mr. Crossley
There are two points I should like to put to the Minister about paragraph (b). It occurs to me that the words are very vague, and perhaps they have been purposely left vague in order to allow the tribunal discretion in various cases. I should like to know whether these men will be employed in groups or in corps. It seems to me it will be a far more satisfactory method, where it is possible, to employ these men on some form of national service in definite corps for a definite number of months. Many hon. Members of this House will be very concerned if these men in time of war are out of danger to a much greater extent than the militiaman. It is the concern of hon. Members that these men should not be better off than the men who are to be conscripted as militiamen. The other point I want to raise is this: What is going to be the position of these men in regard to wages? There, again, I hope that by taking up this attitude and by claiming exemption under this paragraph they will not be better off from a monetary point of view than men who are conscripted as militiamen. Many of us are anxious on these points. As I understand most of the Amendments are out of order, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the position clear.

§ 5.20 p.m.

§ Mr. McGovern
I am rather amazed at the desire for social equality which I find among a section of Tory Members. They are desirous that men who are placed on work of national importance should not be better off than a militiaman. To begin with, that is a reflection on the condition in which militiamen are placed.

745

§ Mr. Crossley
They are very definitely going to be on work of national importance.

§ Mr. McGovern
But why should the hon. Member be better off than a militiaman? This is a desire for cheap labour. The idea in the mind of some hon. Members is to shepherd these men in the same way as Dr. Ley shepherds them in Germany in labour camps. Behind all this agitation are a number of hon. Members of this House who have very large stakes in the country. Behind the names of eight hon. Members who subscribe to doctrines of this kind 67 companies in this country are represented and they are anxious to place the workers who have a conscientious objection to war in a position where the heel of oppression and poverty can be placed upon them. It is typical of the attitude of some hon. Members. We start by giving pledges to treat conscientious objectors in a decent manner, but now these hon. Members are looking for every opportunity of penalising them, of humiliating them and treating them in the most contemptible manner possible. Let me show from an extract the holding of some people who want to place these men in this position. The right hon. Member who is largely behind the Bill is the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and he is a director of 14 companies, including the South-West Africa Company, the Southern Railway Company, Camel Laird, Marks and Spencers, and others, representing a capital of £170,000,000.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is breaking one of the rules of order. References in regard to the interests of any hon. Member when there is no question of that kind involved on the issue before the Committee are out of order.

§ Mr. Bevan
Is it out of order for an hon. Member to point out the commercial undertakings with which hon. Members are associated?

§ The Chairman
I can only express the hope that hon. Members will not waste time. There is no question about it that under the present Amendment these references are not in order. I do not want to argue as to the circumstances in which it may be permissible to do something of this kind, but it certainly is not permissible on this particular Amendment.

746

§ Mr. Bevan
In the absence of any information from the Government as to the nature of the work these men are to do, surely it is open to us to point out that these men may be put in the employ of persons who are hon. Members of this House or in commercial undertakings with which hon. Members are associated, and that in that case hon. Members expose themselves to the charge of recruiting cheap labour under the guise of dealing with conscientious objectors.

§ The Chairman
The whole question which the hon. Member has in mind can, I think, be discussed without any personal references.

§ Mr. McGovern
I am not clear as to your ruling on this matter. I heard Lord Runciman's holding mentioned in the House, and I should like to know whether your ruling means that I am not permitted to cite the holdings of people behind this Bill and to show the general desire for cheap labour.

§ The Chairman
I do not think the hon. Member can do that. The phrase "people who are behind this Bill" is a little vague.

§ Mr. Stephen
If there are hon. Members who are supporting the proposal that these men shall be put on work of national importance at a rate of remuneration which shall not be greater than that of militiamen, is it not relevant for us to object to these conscientious objectors being employed in the workshops and factories of these people?

§ The Chairman
No doubt that is so, but the hon. Member is putting a hypothetical case. My point is that although these matters might be raised in certain cases and in certain circumstances, there is nothing to justify them being raised on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Stephen
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was suggesting that the Minister should accept the Amendment so that it will not be possible for hon. Members in this House to get cheap labour as a result of paragraph (b), and he was pointing out hon. Members who would get cheap labour as a result of its retention.

§ The Chairman
I would suggest, in the interests of hon. Members who are criticising the Bill, that they should not waste 747 time on hypothetical points of order but should allow the hon. Member who is speaking to continue. In this case I must ask the hon. Member to accept my quite definite ruling that he is out of order in giving the names of particular hon. Members of the House and stating what he considers to be their interests in any particular concern.

§ Mr. McGovern
If that is your definite Ruling, Sir Dennis, I will, of course, accept it.

§ Sir Arnold Wilson
Thank you very much.

§ Mr. McGovern
If the hon. Member becomes insulting, I also can become insulting. I know he has no greater desire than to put the workers of this country under the military heel and the Hitler heel. He has shown that by the way he has associated with Franco, along with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.

§ The Chairman
I am obliged to the hon. Member for his ready acceptance of my Ruling. I wish it to be understood that it was a Ruling especially on this particular case.

§ Mr. McGovern
I accept that, Sir Dennis, but because of an impertinent remark that was addressed to me by an hon. Member, I am claiming the right to reply to that impertinent remark in an impertinent way. I hope no accusation will be made against me that I want to shorten the discussion of this Bill. I do not want to do so, and the only short thing I would like to do would be to destroy the Bill altogether.
With regard to the Amendment, I submit that there is a desire on the part of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and other hon. Members that there should be some methods of penalising conscientious objectors in connection with work of national importance. The point has been stressed that they should not be placed in a position superior to that of Militia men from the financial point of view. My answer to that is that there is a desire on the part of a large number of hon. Members to place not only conscientious objectors, but the mass of the workers, under a Hitler system in this country, and that these hon. Members are more in sympathy with the 748 methods of Hitler and Dr. Ley than they are concerned with dealing with conscientious objectors in a really decent manner.
If the pledges that have been given in this respect in the House are to be taken at their real value, and if it is the intention to treat conscientious objectors in a proper way, then we say that they should not be made the victims of the spleen of a section in the country and should not be placed at the disposal of employers who might be looking for cheap labour either on farms or in industrial undertakings. Hon. Members may desire not to place conscientious objectors in a preferential position, but at least do not place them in a position in which they will put other members of society in a preferential position by reason of the fact that they will get cheap labour. [Interruption.] Does the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) dissent?

Viscountess Astor
May I say that we had conscientious objectors on our farm during the War, and they got the same wages as other people? People did not take advantage of them, and could not do so.

§ Mr. McGovern
The Noble Lady says that during the War they had conscientious objectors on their farm, and the conscientious objectors were paid ordinary wages and given ordinary conditions. That is just the thing which hon. Members behind her are trying to prevent. They want these men as slave labour, as a sort of chain gang. I am glad to see the Noble Lady back from her victories of yesterday at the Unionist Conference. I may say, in passing, that if it were a question of placing a young man before a military tribunal, I think it might be preferable that he should be there rather than in the hands of the women in that association. I would rather tackle the jungle. At the same time, the whole of my sympathy is with the Noble Lady.
I hope this Amendment will be accepted and that there will be no desire to penalise these men in any way. I could understand the objective of hon. Members if they were attempting to place everybody in the country on the standards of the militia men. There might then be some argument for this. The best way of dealing both with military service and with 749 war would be to place every person on the same footing as the militia men; we should then have less talk about dealing with conscientious objectors in this way. I hope that this Hitler method of dealing with conscientious objectors will not be accepted in this country, although I know that a large number of hard-hearted and brass-faced Members would like to do so.

§ 5.38 p.m.

§ Captain Sir Derrick Gunston
I hope the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discussion of the antics of my Noble Friend.

§ Mr. McGovern
One would think she was a performing animal.

§ Sir D. Gunston
I want to refer to an important point raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), which I think the Committee has to consider. I assume that the conscientious objector is a man of great moral courage, and that if he found himself in an air raid or in hostilities, his physical courage would be equal to his moral courage. I think it must be admitted that in this Clause we are treating the conscientious objector in quite a different manner from the way in which we are treating any other section of the community—I am not objecting to that—and we are giving him a greater chance of not serving than we are giving to any other section of the community.
I do not believe that the conscientious objector who does not go as far as is foreseen in Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (5) wants to avoid serving. What he wants to avoid is military service. I am sure he does not want to be placed in a position of financial advantage as compared with ordinary militia men. I think we have to be very careful, or we may put the militia man at a disadvantage. Let me give an illustration. Suppose there were two young men who had both started a poultry farm next to each other. Under this Clause, the man who had a conscientious objection to military service but not to national service might be allowed to continue as a poultry farmer, whereas the man next door who had no conscientious objection would not be allowed to do so, if we assume that work on a poultry farm in this case is not of national importance. The man who was called up would feel himself aggrieved. 750 There might be a danger of creating great suspicion between one section of the community and another. I hope that the Minister will give some answer on this point.
There is another point I would like to put to my right hon. Friend. As we are allowing a differentiation between work of national importance and military work, I think the differentiation should be as wide as possible. If it is clear that the work of national importance is very far from being work of any military character, and cannot be connected in any way with military matters, there will be more people ready to do work of national importance and fewer people likely to claim exemption under paragraph (a). The points I have raised are important ones, and I think that this is one of the most important discussions on the Bill.

§ 5.42 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
This Amendment raises issues of far-reaching importance, not only from the point of view of the terms of the Amendment itself, but from the point of view of other issues, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). I will do my best to answer the many questions that have been asked. It must be clearly understood that, from the very structure of the Clause, this issue raises practical difficulties of a formidable character. It is for that reason that the Clause is drawn in a vague way, and the duty is placed on the tribunal, and not upon the Minister, of settling what is work of national importance. I cannot undertake to give a long schedule of what I think is or is not work of national importance. One hon. Member said that it might be munition work, but I will say straight away that I cannot imagine that is the kind of work which a man who has been judged by a tribunal to be a conscientious objector could be asked to do as work of national importance.

§ Mr. Stephen
They did in the last War.

§ Mr. Brown
The hon. Member refers to the last time. I will try to explain that this Bill and the situation now are different from the position last time. As I said in reply to an interruption by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) on another Amendment, the structure of this Bill is entirely different from the operations last time. The Bill 751 falls into two parts. The first is entirely civil, and the second is military. The civil part of the Bill is concerned with the civil Ministers, and has to do with a series of civil tribunals, medical examinations, conscientious objection, and calling up. It is not until that has happened that the military part comes up. The structure of this Clause is based on our experience of dealing with the very difficult, subtle and complicated problems of conscience, and we have tried to learn some lessons from the past. Great hardship was experienced by many in working out in war time how to deal with men who had a conscience. This Bill, and particularly this Clause, attempts to deal with the main lesson which was learned then. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood asked some specific questions. The answers are to be found in the Bill, and they were also given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in the Second Reading Debate. It was found that there were three main classes of men coming within the realm of conscientious objectors. First, there were those who had a conscience so strong that they not only objected to military service, but objected to having anything to do with the military machine in any way. That very strong conviction, held with great fervour, in many cases, though not in all, on religious grounds, raised in the Army impossible problems for all concerned. We had, I hoped, learned that lesson.

§ Mr. Stephen
On a point of Order. This Amendment refers simply to paragraph (b), but the Minister of Labour is discussing the whole position. I am raising this point of Order because I had an Amendment on the Paper which was not called and which dealt with the whole question. I think it ought to have been called, and I raise this point of Order in order to make my protest.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. Stephen
I raise the question with you whether the Minister of Labour is in order in dealing not only with paragraph (b), but also with paragraph (c) and all the sections of conscientious objectors?

§ Mr. Brown
All I was doing was to try and show the meaning of paragraph (b) with reference to the other paragraphs. 752 It is impossible for any Member of the Committee to understand the meaning of (b) without having regard to (a) and (c).

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Minister is correct. The hon. Member must not challenge the way the Amendments are selected. We selected this Amendment in order that the matter might be discussed in its fullest aspect.

§ Mr. Maxton
Do I understand that your Ruling is that on an Amendment to delete paragraph (b) we can discuss the whole issues involved in this Clause?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Certainly not.

§ Mr. Brown
Referring again to paragraph (b), the second class were those with conscientious objections to taking life but no objection to serving in the Forces in order to save life. Those who had objections to military service in any form felt a double urge. The first was the urge of public opinion. Public opinion was very strong that those who had conscientious objections ought not to be at an advantage compared with those who served in war-time. The second urge was that of the man in that position who felt he would like to do work of national importance if it was not of a military character. That was the experience of war-time.
I do not disguise from the Committee nor from myself that paragraph (b) will raise in peace-time even more difficulties than were raised in war-time. There is a much greater number of jobs of national importance in war-time than in peace-time for the local tribunals to decide upon, and then there are the formidable industrial reactions of any action that may be taken under this Clause. Nevertheless, I felt that, balancing these two urges, we ought to make the effort. That is why we have drawn the Clause in the vague way in which it has been drawn and have laid down general directions to the local tribunals in deciding what is or is not work of national importance, with, of course, the right of appeal for the applicant if he thinks he is aggrieved. If the question of wages is mentioned, I cannot imagine that in peace-time, however people may think about it, it will be possible to put a man in industry or agriculture on a different rate of wages from the normal wages for the industry.
753 In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), who raised the issue as between one man and another, his illustration will show the wisdom of leaving it to the local tribunals to determine what is work of national importance. I am afraid that when we are dealing with a question of this kind, as, indeed, in most affairs in human life, it is not always possible to give absolute justice, but I think that we have drawn this Clause to meet the real experience of the last War and to make this Bill what I think the Committee would like to make it, conscription without persecution. While I have no doubt that formidable industrial problems will arise, we may, by our usual practical methods, be able to solve them as the cases arise in the course of the experience of the next few months.

§ Mr. T. Williams
May I ask two questions to which the right hon. Gentleman failed to reply? After a tribunal has despatched a person to work of national importance, must the person find a job or does the tribunal undertake to help him to find the job? Does the person referred to enjoy the same rights and privileges as the militiaman does under Clause 6?

§ Mr. Brown
The answer is "No." The conscientious objector is enjoying a special liberty which is not enjoyed by the bulk of those in the class affected by the Bill, and we feel that this is a burden which he will really have to bear him-Self. With regard to the jobs, it might work out both ways, but the duty is certainly on the tribunal to help.

§ Mr. Williams
Will the right hon. Gentleman give guidance to the tribunals where a person appears before them and they set him on work of national importance, that if he happens to be engaged on a form of work that is of some national importance they will be discouraged from sending him away from his own occupation if he is not to enjoy the rights and privileges under Clause 6?

§ Mr. Brown
I think that will be the common sense of it. Apart from munitions work, there are a number of persons in the 60,000 of 20 to 21 in the schedule of reserved occupations who are already doing jobs which, though not of a war character, might very well be regarded as work of national importance.

754

§ Mr. Sandys
Did I understand my right hon. Friend correctly that a tribunal would be able to fulfil paragraph (b) by merely telling the man to go on at his own job on full pay?

§ Mr. Brown
It might be in the national interest for that to be done.

§ Mr. Crossley
The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question whether in any circumstances he envisages the employment of these men in bodies?

§ Mr. Brown
I did not omit that question because I failed to appreciate the point, but because I thought my answer covered it. It is not within my province.

§ 5.55 P.m.

§ Mr. Bevan
The Minister seems to have made a genuine attempt to answer some of the questions that have been raised, but he has not fully appreciated the situation which is likely to arise in his efforts to be fair to the militiaman while at the same time trying to be fair to the conscientious objector, and vice versa. We are not now dealing with war, but with an anticipation of war, because although it is military training which is proposed under the Bill, the Clause about conscientious objectors has war in mind. What the Government have done is to import into a military training Measure categories that are applicable to war conditions because they have imported into it work of national importance. It is easy to describe work of national importance in war time, but not very easy to describe it in peace time. At least, it is far more difficult to do so because in peace-time a vast variety of work is of national importance, whereas under wartime conditions it would be restricted considerably.
There are certain categories of men in which it is easy to see what will be done by the tribunals. There is the man who is a conscientious objector to participation in the military machine in any way. He is easy to deal with. There is the man, on the other hand, who was anticipated in the Prime Minister's speech, who is prepared to be identified with the military machine and even with fighting, provided it is the care of the wounded and things of that sort. That category of conscientious objectors will have to be trained for that work and there will be no difficulty in their going to camp and in proper instruction being provided for them 755 in order that when war breaks out they will be able to do that class of work. It is not the full combatant's work, but it is, nevertheless, work for which training is required. There is another class who object to being so closely associated with the actual fighting, but who are prepared to take part in Civil Defence. For that work they will require training also. There is another class who will not fall into either of these categories, but who are prepared to undertake in war-time work of national importance in which at the moment they are not engaged. They are also easy to deal with because they will be trained in a particular industry which in time of war will fall under that category.
We have, therefore, three classes of conscientious objectors who will have to be trained for the class of work to which they have no conscientious objection. There is the other class, the general class of conscientious objector, who provides the major difficulty; but it seems to me that it is rather foolish to disturb a man from his occupation because he is a conscientious objector merely in order to make him put up with exactly the same hardships as the man who has no conscientious objection at all. If a man working as an engineer or an electrician has a conscientious objection, is he to be disturbed from his occupation merely because his friend working at the same bench has not a conscientious objection? If we do that it seems to be carrying the disturbance of civil life unnecessarily far, merely in order that one man may suffer the same hardships as the other.
I should have thought the best thing would be to leave the man at his occupation unless it can be shown that there is work of immediate national importance for which there is such an overwhelming shortage of labour that he ought to be asked to undertake it. As to the position taken up by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) such a man, unless he is under some special State Department, must have exactly the same rates of wages as other people, and if he is to be paid the same rate of wages obviously the hardship inflicted upon him is less than that inflicted upon the man who is undergoing military training. But that is inevitable in the circumstances of the case. There would be far more objection from these benches if the Government 756 exposed itself to the charge of recruiting cheap labour. It would be folly for hon. Members to expose themselves to a charge of that sort merely because they want to be punitive and to give the conscientious objector the same burden of hardship as the man who has no conscientious objection. So it seems to me that we are trying to import premature difficulties into the Bill. These difficulties will occur in war, but then they can be resolved far more easily.
There is one other point on which I should like information. The Bill says that the conscientious objector must engage in work of "national importance." That might give a tribunal the power to indicate that he must work for a particular employer. Would it not be desirable to speak of "a class of work of national importance," so that the tribunal would be estopped from indicating a particular job or a particular employer, only saying to the man, "You must find work in that class of employment"? That would save the court from exposing itself to the charge of recruiting labour for a particular employer. It might be possible on Report for us to get an Amendment of that sort included. I believe that many of the difficulties are arising because we are trying to swallow the Clause as a whole without realising that there are many categories with whom the tribunals would find it comparatively easy to deal, and I hope that the tribunals will not take it from this Debate that they are always to disturb the conscientious objector merely in order that he should be put into the same category as the man who has to undergo military training.

§ 6.6 p.m.

§ Sir. A. Wilson
The defenders in this House of conscientious objectors are going much further than the Peace Pledge Union. In its publication of 19th November, 1938, the Peace Pledge Union gave the following advice to its members: There is a vast field of socially necessary-work in peace time, certain to be disregarded in war in which the pacifist will find ample scope for service on behalf of the people he lives among—the cultivation of neglected land, the repair of country roads, and houses, reafforestation, solace for the aged and the sick and the despairing. If we are to do justice both to the conscientious objector and the militiamen, if we are to prevent bitter ill-feeling and jealousy arising between man and man in 757 the same village we ought to be careful to see that the conscientious objector does not profit in pocket by his conscientious scruples. No genuine ones will desire to do so. Many conscientious objectors are anxious to have this made clear to the world. They wish the honesty of their conscientious objections to be apparent. They will greatly prefer, at least in war, and possibly in peace, a system which will guarantee that they would not be better off than the militiaman. If we accept that view then the ideal course, if practicable, would be to provide public works service corps camps in which they would do the very things proposed by the Peace Pledge Union.

§ Mr. Lansbury
I think the hon. Member has not really done justice to the Peace Pledge Union. They wanted all that work undertaken voluntarily apart from any State control.

§ Sir A. Wilson
I cannot answer for the Peace Pledge Union although I read its publications.

§ Mr. Lansbury
But if the hon. Member quotes he should quote it all through.

§ Sir A. Wilson
I could quote it at great length. A Peace Pledge Union manifesto is a lengthy document. I accept without question the right hon. Gentleman's caveat: he is a high authority on the subject; but I want to revert to my point that the ideal system, if practicable would be to have public works service camps, controlled by conscientious objection officers so that there could be no possibility of victimisation.

§ Mr. Bevan
What sort of public works are they to undertake?

§ Sir A. Wilson
Works of drainage, of afforestation—work for the State and for the State alone, for whatever wages is paid to the militiamen.

§ Mr. Collindridge
Would not a better alternative be to make up the pay of the militiamen to the equivalent of the pay of the conscientious objector in industry engaged on works such as the hon. Member mentioned?

§ Sir A. Wilson
I do not think I need follow that line of argument. I have said that genuine conscientious objectors do not wish to be in a more favourable position than militiamen. Let us look abroad to see how the conscientious objector is dealt with there. In Russia 758 they are required to serve in hospitals for infectious diseases and in the more awkward and unpleasant forms of civil work. That would not be resented by a genuine conscientious objector. It is here that in my submission the Bill has gone wrong. It should not speak of works of national importance but of works that are socially necessary. We perhaps rather over-estimate the numbers involved. In the last War there were only 22,000 conscientious objectors of all kinds and in all categories—

§ Dr. Edith Summerskill
What is the authority of the hon. Member for making that statement about Russia, because I visited hospitals for infectious diseases in Russia and did not find one conscientious objector?

§ Sir A. Wilson
It may be that by the time the hon. Lady visited Russia the conscientious objectors had decided not to maintain their scruples. I should be glad to give the hon. Lady my authority for my statement. I have it in black and white in a book printed by, I think, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace a few years ago, I think in 1929 or 1930.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I was there in 1932.

§ Sir A. Wilson
By that time conscientious objection had, presumably, been liquidated. Of some 22,000 conscientious objectors in the last War only 1,200 refused any form of national service and went to gaol as a result. I think we are over-estimating the likelihood of any large number of persons appearing who have absolute conscientious scruples. In Canada in 1917 they did better by giving statutory exemption only to persons with religious scruples. I saw with regret in the "Times" to-day a statement by some representatives of the Free Churches which seemed to regard the conscientious objector to any form of service to the State, however far removed from military service, as a sort of heroic figure. Conscience is not the monopoly of the conscientious objector. There are great numbers of men whose consciences lead them to fight in defence of what they believe to be right and there are great numbers of Christian men who hold this belief and have the tradition of 18 centures behind them—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member is getting very far away from the Amendment.

759

§ Sir A. Wilson
I readily bow to your Ruling. The result of the omission of this paragraph would be that conscientious objectors would remain in their civil occupations. That would inevitably arouse fierce jealousies and resentments. The object of the Bill is to get men for a particular service. We do not want further to encourage the conscientious objector. I trust that the Government will consider seriously establishing public works camps to which all conscientious objectors will go unless they can show very good reasons to the contrary.

§ Mr. T. Williams
Although I do not feel that the Minister's explanation was altogether satisfactory, I think it was the only reply he could give in the circumstances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ 6.15 p.m.

§ Mr. Stephen
I object. I want to say a few words because I think it is as well that it should be made plain that this discussion shows that conscientious objectors are to be treated most unfairly. In his reply the Minister said that this time would be different from the last time, and that they had learned by experience. My impression is that the retention of this paragraph and similar paragraphs shows that the Government do not realise the lessons that were to be learnt from the last time. That has been made plain also by the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I believe that the tribunals to be set up to deal with this matter and to decide upon work of national importance will be no more tolerant or broad-minded than hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion from the other side of the Committee.
The hon. Member who preceded me said he was greatly concerned about the case of two poultry farmers, one who was 20 years of age and had no conscientious objection to military training and the other a conscientious objector. The hon. Member feared lest one man might be allowed to remain upon his poultry farm and said it would be very unfair to the man who went. I would put another analogy to the hon. Member. Suppose he himself were a poultry farmer next door to the man of 20 who went as a militia man for is a day. Would this man not feel aggrieved that the hon. Member had been allowed to remain on the poultry farm and take advantage of the 760 other man having to leave? His grievance would be just as great if, instead of the hon. Member, a young fellow like himself were left in that position. Hon. Members opposite say: "We are anxious to deal justly by conscientious objectors, but there will be a fearful outcry among others who have had to go." My experience during the last War was that the men who had the most consideration for the conscientious objectors were those of the rank and file at the front. Again and again the jingo patriots at home, and the sort of people who handed out the white feathers and all the rest of it, made trouble at our meetings, but when members of the rank and file came along there were always some who were willing to take part and run the meeting, asserting themselves against the jingoism which has been characteristic of this Debate. I lay down the proposition that members of the tribunals which the Government are setting up will be no more broad-minded or clear-minded than the hon. Members who are opposite to me.
I see upon the Order Paper an Amendment suggesting that conscientious objectors shall be registered in an agricultural training register and shall be employed upon farms, taking the place of persons called out for special courses of military training and at no greater remuneration than if they had been registered in the military training register. How can I expect that tribunals, in spite of what the Minister of Labour has said to-day, will give the generous decisions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? It is as well that the Committee should realise this position, and also that the proposal to set up camps for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in which to put men who are to do work of national importance, paying them only the same as the militiamen, is the German system. [Interruption.] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asks, "Why not?" The answer is that the people who normally work on the land at the present time will play old Harry if you start to introduce cheap labour of that sort in competition with them, and to do afforestation. The foresters of this country would have a very great deal to say about any scheme for reducing their standard of life by the introduction of cheap conscientious-objector labour.
761 These suggestions show clearly the mind of hon. Members opposite and their desire to use the present emergency to get cheap labour for their various concerns. I cannot discuss paragraph (c), because that will come afterwards, but what has been said about paragraph (b) applies to it. I very much regret that I have not had the opportunity of discussing the wider questions involved, because I believe they have fateful consequences, and that all these things are helping to fasten industrial conscription upon the workers of this country.

§ 6.23 p.m.

§ Mr. Turton
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) spoke as though paragraph (b) were drafted on the lines of the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has referred and we were registering persons to undergo training—the paragraph is concerned with peace time—and training the conscientious objectors for the work that they will have to do in war time. If that is so, there should be some reference in the paragraph to training rather than to work of national importance. I do not share the rather curious views of the hon. Member who spoke for the Independent Labour party that certain men should have a higher remuneration in their training than others, because I believe that the principle of equity among these boys of 20–21 years of age is of very great importance. I can see that there is an issue between the Independent Labour parry and the rest of the Committee on this matter. I do not want to go further into the point at the moment, but I join issue with the hon. Member upon it.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider paragraph (b) between now and the Report stage. If he thinks he can draft these conscientious objectors into agriculture so that without any training they can be of value to the community the right hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. If you want to keep a conscientious objector at his job I cannot see why he should not be dealt with under paragraph (a). The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked a great deal about the inequity of moving a man from his work, but the tribunals can always register a man under paragraph (a). If you want to fit a man to do agricultural work, you must give him six months' training. It is unjust that while he is under- 762 going that training he should be paid at a higher rate of remuneration than others who are undergoing training of a different kind. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that you would be giving the employer an advantage; if that is so, there is nothing to stop an employer from making a contribution to the proper Department for that purpose, but for the first month or so of the training the advantage to the employer would not be very great.
If the hon. Member for Camlachie and I went on to agricultural work, of which I have some experience, he would probably not be of very great value for the first six months, but after the first six months he might be. I would like him to take up this challenge. I would like him to go into agriculture and to train. Up to six months he would not be of much value.

§ Mr. Maxton
What are you doing yourself?

§ Mr. Turton
It is of vital importance to the agricultural industry how paragraph (b) is worded. We are not at all satisfied with the present wording and hope that it will be improved at a later stage.

§ 6.27 p.m.

§ Mr. E. J. Williams
The discussion has been not quite satisfactory because the Minister has been unable to tell us what is work of national importance. It would be far more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us exactly what that work would be. He has left it to the tribunal, but they are likely to import a great deal of prejudice into the matter. I would emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). One can appreciate precisely what will occur in the mining industry. During the last War persons engaged in the industry had exemption cards. Hon. Members will remember what happened. At the commencement of the War a large number of miners volunteered for service, and for some time the output of coal fell very rapidly. Ultimately, coal mining was scheduled as work of national importance and all those who were working therein were given exemption cards.
I had some experience of the work at that time, and I can appreciate what it would be like again. A person engaged 763 in the mining industry may have a conscientious objection, and if it is left to persons on the tribunal to deal with him you may find a certain amount of local prejudice. He may have been engaged in propaganda for the Peace Society or the League of Nations, and it is possible that the tribunal might come to a decision that the individual should be moved from what is, in fact, work of national importance and sent to agricultural training for 12 months. After that training it seems that he is expected to revert to his normal occupation. We are dealing with peace time and not with war time, but it seems rather absurd that an individual should be called up and sent to another kind of industry to learn what that industry is, when he is already a skilled man, a man of craft, in another industry. In the Civil Defence Bill certain reserved occupations have been defined, apparently because they are occupations of national importance, and I suggest that attached to the present Bill there ought to be a list of certain reserved occupations defined to be work of national importance. If such a schedule were drafted by the Minister of Labour and supplied to the tribunal, the tribunal would know whether an individual came within a given category of reserved occupation, and might decide that it would be better to leave him in his present occupation.
An unemployed person between the ages of 20 and 21, listening to this Debate, might regard it as rather singular. It would seem that, the moment he begins to register his conscientious objection to military service, work of national importance can be found for him. It is rather extraordinary that this stage has to be reached in order to find out precisely the kind of job that such an unemployed person can do. In discussing the deletion of paragraph (b), we are discovering that, in the minds of certain hon. Members opposite, it is not difficult at any time to find work of national importance if people are prepared to work for a certain wage. Apparently it would be quite easy, with the help of the Minister of Labour, to absorb all these young men in industry provided it can be done at the rate that is to be paid to the militiamen. I trust that the Minister will reconsider the whole matter, and that the Department will decide what is work of national importance and prepare a schedule of reserved 764 occupations, so that the tribunal may take the list as a guide when individuals come along with a conscientious objection to military service, and, if they are in an industry that is essential to the State in peace as well as in war, they will not be unduly disturbed.

§ 6.33 p.m.

§ Mr. Mainwaring
It seems to me that underlying this discussion there is the question whether the possession of a conscience is an honourable or a dishonourable matter, but most Members opposite appear to be much more concerned about reducing this question of a conscience to safe limits. Presumably even those who drafted the Bill recognise the existence of a conscience in some persons in the community, but they also recognise that it is undesirable to multiply the number of such persons. This seems to me to be a remarkable thing in Christian England. The House opens its business every day with prayer, and we regard this country as a Christian country, but we are afraid that people will develop a religious conscience. I ask the Minister how he would deal with those Welsh religious denominations which lay it down as a denominational principle that they must conscientiously object to war. If the possession of a conscience is a dishonourable matter, and one to be penalised, that would involve penalising the whole religious denomination and telling them that they are wrong in being Christians and in developing this point of view, and that all members of the Welsh denominations of the age of 20 who are now in the mining industry must be removed from that industry. The right hon. Gentleman will be asked to penalise the members of his own denomination in Wales, to tell them that they have no right to a conscience of this kind and that they are to be penalised by being shifted out of the mining industry, because the possession of a conscience by a poor miner disqualifies him from being a soldier and from being a miner. What, then, is this member of a Christian denomination now going to be?

§ Mr. Ede
Minister of Labour.

§ Mr. Mainwaring
I am afraid I should have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because the possession of a conscience would disqualify him absolutely as Minister of Labour. No conscientious 765 objector can possibly qualify for that office. If you regard any person as honourably possessing a conscience, you cannot honourably proceed to devise ways and means of penalising him. If conscience is an honourable thing, it is dishonourable to penalise anyone for having it. I should say to any young man in this country, "If this Government or any power on earth asks you to do something that you disagree with, develop a conscience as quickly as you can; and let it be a Number One conscience, a hundred per cent. conscience that you will not do what other people try to dictate to you."

§ 6.40 p.m.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
May I express my disappointment at the Minister's absolute refusal to answer the question which was put to him from every conceivable angle by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment? What we wanted the Minister to tell us, and what we ought to know, and further, what I am absolutely certain the Minister knows, is the meaning of the phrase "work of national importance." The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to believe that he and his advisers have not given a great deal of thought to this phrase, because, but for this phrase, there is very little in the paragraph that is of importance to the conscientious objector. The Minister must not blame me if I assume the right, because I have been forced to do so, to tell the Committee that we know very well what he has in his mind. He need not have rambled over certain experiences that we had in the last War, because in post-war years he has had a great deal of experience in the Department that he represents in the House as to the meaning of work of national importance. Obviously what he has in mind and proposes to model on the basis of this phrase is just what he has been practising within his own Department. There we have had work being done at militia men's wages, and I repeat that the reason why the Minister has not taken the Committee into his confidence this afternoon is that he dared not tell us what he has in his mind regarding this phrase.
More than once we have had to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of laying down, in his reconditioning camps, the doing of work of national importance as the foundation for an extension of that work in time of war, or of comparative war. The work in these reconditioning camps 766 would be regarded as work of national importance, and, as I have said, the remuneration paid is roughly equal to, or perhaps a little less than, what will be paid to the conscript soldier. It includes such work as has already been referred to by supporters of the Government and of the idea of conscription of labour, namely, public works, afforestation, the making of roads, sewerage and drainage schemes, and water supply. That is largely the line along which the Minister of Labour is developing the camps he has established in different parts of the country. The Minister tells us that these conscientious objectors will not be put to work at less wages than are paid in industry, but his refusal to tell the House the definition that he and his advisers have in mind drives us to the conclusion that his intention is to place the conscientious objectors in enlarged camps, to ostracise them from the general industrial life of the country, and to get them, as he already has done, to work for the most reactionary local authorities in the country—Tory local authorities—on work of tremendous national and social importance. We must protect them. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this Amendment, because what is in the mind of the Minister is well known to us, and he has been acting upon it while he has been Minister of Labour.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Has the hon. Member the leave of the Committee to withdraw?

Hon. Members
No.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ 6.44 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "register" to insert: for the period of one year beginning with the date on which he is so registered. The object of this Amendment is to answer the question how long the man who has been conditionally registered must be subject to an obligation to perform this work. The answer to that question is that the obligation will continue for one year from the date of registration. This requirement does not appear to us to be unreasonable. Two obligations are required of the militiaman. The first is to undergo six months' training, and the 767 second, when that training is over, is to remain a member of the Territorial Army or of the Reserve for 3½ years. When my right hon. Friend made some reference to the time for which a man conditionally registered is obliged to perform work of national importance, one or two hon. Members may have thought that he meant to suggest that the period was only six months; but what he was anxious to suggest was that just as the militiaman has an obligation to do a first period of six months' training, so the man conditionally registered has also the obligation to do six months' work of national importance. After that six months is over the man conditionally registered is also obliged to do another six months work, or something approaching that, which appears to be the fair equivalent to the three years and six months' service in the Territorials or the Reserve to which the militiaman will be subject.

§ Mr. John Morgan
Does that finally discharge him?

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
There is a Government Amendment on the Paper, to come up very shortly, which will deal with that.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 6.46 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, after "must," to insert "during that period."

§ This Amendment is consequential.

§ Mr. Lees-Smith
I understand that during the first six months the conscientious objector will be doing work of national importance. During the second six months is it laid down that he shall be working, or is there merely power to put him to work for part or the whole of that period?

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
The obligation is to do work of national importance for one year.

§ Sir S. Cripps
The words are that he must during that period "engage and perform." Suppose he is told that he must get agricultural work or some other class of work, and that he cannot obtain it; what happens to him then? Can he get a certificate that he has done his best, or will he be penalised?

768

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I think that this would be most unlikely to arise, but if it did there is an Amendment providing for his case to be reviewed.

§ Sir S. Cripps
If the man cannot get employment at the work designated, should it not be possible to change the designation?

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
We will bear in mind the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

§ Mr. Sorensen
When the tribunal gives its judgment that the man must do work for 12 months, does the work date from the time of the judgment?

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
From the date of registration.

§ Mr. T. Williams
Assuming that some person is directed to obtain some work of national importance and finds it extremely difficult, should he not be able to go back to the tribunal? Can the Measure be amended to provide for that?

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
No tribunal would order the man to obtain work which was non-existent.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 6.49 p.m.

§ Mr. T. Williams
I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "some," to insert "class of."
This is a manuscript Amendment, which I handed in a short time ago. The object is that a man may be ordered to perform "some class of work," instead of "some work." This would give power, for example, to order a man to undertake coal mining, but not to specify the colliery at which he should work.

§ Mr. W. S. Morrison
As the hon. Member has indicated, we have not had much time to study this Amendment. I see no prima facie objection to accepting it, but I hope the hon. Member will allow us to consider the matter more fully between now and the Report stage.

§ Mr. Williams
Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, but intends to re-examine it?

§ Mr. Morrison
Yes, Sir. I recommend the Committee to accept the words and insert them now, but I reserve the right 769 to bring up the matter again on the Report stage if any objection is discovered.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). We have had a long discussion on this matter. Does he still wish to move?

§ 6.51 p.m.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "work" to insert: of a civil character and under civilian control. I will be very brief, because I feel the shadow of the guillotine already falling on me. A great deal has been said concerning the exact placing of conscientious objectors on work of national importance. In every community or State this difficulty is bound to arise in some way or another. As the Clause stands now, it is not clearly defined that, in fact, work of national importance should be of a civil character under civilian control. I would point out that, under the existing Subsection it is quite possible for a tribunal to give work of national importance to an applicant, but in fact to make it of a military character.

§ 6.55 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
The Amendment conforms to our intention, and I will accept it in principle; but the Committee will understand that, when we look at it again, we may find it necessary to make some drafting alterations, while preserving the intention.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 6.56 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "importance" to insert and shall then, without condition be finally registered in that register. This meets the point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan). When the year's obligation is over, the man is transferred to the register of conscientious objectors.

§ Mr. J. Morgan
In the event of war breaking out, is the calling up of that individual finally disposed of?

770

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
So far as this Bill is concerned. I could not go further than that.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after "shall," to insert: require him to make a fresh application to a local tribunal, and upon any such application that tribunal may deal with him in like manner as on an original application, but if he fails to make such a fresh application when required by the Minister, the Minister shall. It was agreed some time ago that this Amendment and the next should be taken without Debate.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, after "register," insert: as a person liable to be employed only in non-combatant duties."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, at the end, to insert: (7) If while a person is conditionally registered in the register of conscientious objectors any change occurs in the particulars furnished by him in accordance with Subsection (1) of this Section he shall forthwith notify the change to the Minister in the prescribed manner, and if he fails to do so shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and the Minister may transfer the name of any person found guilty of an offence under this Subsection to the military training register as a person liable to be employed only in non-combatant duties nowtithstanding that lie was conditionally registered or that he has attained the age of twenty-one years. The object of this Amendment is to oblige conscientious objectors to notify any change in the particulars they are required to give. It is the same obligation as is imposed in Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Clause 1, save that if a conscientious objector is found guilty of failing to comply and is transferred to the military register, he is transferred only to undertake work of a non-combatant character.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 4, leave out Sub-sections (8) and (9).—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, to leave out from "the," to "may," in line 21, and to insert: 771 regulations made under this Act regulating the procedure of such tribunals as aforesaid shall make provision for the appellate tribunal to sit in two divisions, of which one shall sit for Scotland and. This Amendment provides for the setting up of an independent tribunal in Scotland. If it were not carried, the appeals from local tribunals in Scotland would have to be heard in England.

§ 6.59 p.m.

§ Mr. Maxton
We are getting on very rapidly, and I am afraid I have not grasped the significance of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. They had something to do with Scotland. I gather that an opportunity is being given to set up an appeal tribunal in Scotland. What is the significance of the Amendment? I understood that that was arranged for in the Bill as originally drawn.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
No, if it were not for this Amendment there would be only one appeal tribunal. It was thought desirable that there should be a separate division of this tribunal to hear appeals from local tribunals in Scotland. Were it not for this Amendment many people in the division the hon. Member represents who felt themselves aggrieved would either have to travel to London in order to appeal, or the appeal court would have to travel to the hon. Member's division.

§ Mr. Maxton
Then this is just an error in the drafting of the Bill which is being put right? It is provided in the Schedule that there shall be a tribunal in Scotland.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
It is not provided that there shall be two divisions. There would have been an appeal tribunal but there would not be separate divisions, so there would be no provision that appeals in Scotland should go to a division of the appeal court in Scotland. This puts it beyond question that appeals from Scottish local tribunals may be heard by the Scottish division of the appeal tribunal.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
Does the omission of Wales imply that we shall have to take the law into our own hands?

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out "may empower," and to insert "shall require."
772 I think it is necessary to put in these stronger words in place of the permissive words in the Bill as it stands.

§ 7.2 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I think on reflection, if he thinks out the effect of the Amendment, the hon. Member will agree with me that we ought not to accept it. In the particularly subtle problems which have to be dealt with in matters of conscience it is best to have the atmosphere of the tribunals as informal as possible. A good deal of the evidence may be given by men who are honest and sincere which they would not give on oath, though it would be their conviction that their evidence was true. I want the Committee to understand exactly what is in our minds. I am convinced that the permissive way is the better way. To compel every single witness to give evidence on oath would not conduce to the advantage of the conscientious objector nor to the work of the tribunals. It is best to leave the experienced people who will be chairmen of the tribunals to judge whether or not the evidence is of the kind which requires to be given on oath or whether the cause of justice will not be best served if the atmosphere is less formal.

§ Mr. Mander
Is it contemplated that the proceedings of these tribunals will be held in public or not as a general rule?

§ Mr. Messer
I did not quite gather the full import of what the Minister said. I should like to know whether it means that the Regulations may empower, or whether they shall give the tribunal the right of administering the oath or not.

§ Mr. Brown
The Bill is drafted so as to leave it to the discretion of the tribunals whether any particular evidence shall be required to be given on oath or not. The Amendment would make it obligatory to hear all witnesses on oath.

§ Mr. Messer
This deals with the Regulations. When they are drafted, either they will or will not give power to the tribunals to call for evidence on oath. Is it that the Regulations may empower? Why should it not be that the Regulations will give the tribunal power to call for evidence on oath?

§ Mr. Brown
That is exactly what we have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] It is permissive. If you put it the other way, the effect will be exactly what I 773 have explained would be undesirable, namely, that all evidence would be taken on oath.

§ Mr. Attlee
The right hon. Gentleman has not got the point. As it reads, such Regulation may empower the tribunals to take evidence on oath. Therefore, it may empower them not to take evidence on oath.

§ Mr. Brown
I have stated it as I understand it. If there is a point to be met, I will look into it.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
The Minister said he would like to inform the Committee what was in his mind. Could he tell us what sort of evidence he has in mind which would be taken on oath and what sort would not? I am asking out of curiosity. I should like to know. I think he is quite right in leaving the matter optional, but, in order that he may do what he has set out to do, would he answer my question?

§ Mr. Brown
Evidence on a question of fact might be appropriate to be taken on oath, but questions of opinion might fall into the category of evidence which would not be taken on oath.

§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). He has to make Regulations. The Regulations "may empower." That is to say, they may not empower. That is to say that the tribunals may not take evidence on oath at all. They may have no power to take evidence on oath. The Minister has made no attempt to deal with that point. It is customary for draft Regulations to be laid alongside the Bill. Are there such Regulations in draft?

§ Mr. Brown
The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. I have tried to meet the point and have shown what is in my mind and I have promised to consider it.

§ 7.9 p.m.

§ Lieut.-Commander Fletcher
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation leaves me with a feeling of considerable uneasiness. As far as I understood him he said that there were men and women who would come before the tribunals and give evidence on these extremely important 774 matters which they would not be prepared to repeat on oath. That is a very serious matter indeed because, if I recollect some of the proceedings about conscientious objectors during the War, statements were made which those who made them would certainly hesitate to repeat on oath. It seems a very serious position indeed if the tribunal, in deciding these important matters, is to be guided by statements which those who make them would not be prepared to repeat on oath. It seems to raise a very serious position indeed for conscientious objectors and I hope we may have some further explanation.

§ 7.10 p.m.

§ Mr. Ede
I share my hon. Friend's misgivings. I imagine that the Minister wants to give effect to the fine phrase that he used on a previous Amendment, when he hoped we should be able to get conscription without persecution. He and I are both Nonconformists and I know he has a great regard for the history of Nonconformity. We are now dealing with matters on which in general principle I am sure we are in complete agreement. Presumably these tribunals will be privileged places and there will be persons, especially after what he has said on an earlier Amendment, who will feel very aggrieved that their sons or relatives are going to be militiamen on a shilling a day while conscientious objectors, if they succeed in their conscientious objection, will be able to draw the ordinary civil pay. [Interruption.] That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say might be the case. I can see jealous female relatives, who will not be very strong on reason when their susceptibilities are aroused, making the most slanderous statements. They undoubtedly were made on the last occasion. They cannot be prosecuted for perjury unless they are put on oath, and there is no guarantee in the answer the Minister has given that they will be put on oath. No action for slander would lie unless malice could be proved, and great difficulties would be placed on the conscientious objector in clearing his character from the kinds of statements that might be made. If the person was on oath and the statement was material, a prosecution for perjury could be instituted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to consider the matter in the light of all the 775 circumstances. He has met us well on a good many points and I ask him not to close his mind finally on this.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I do not want to close my mind, but my objection still stands. It is not a difference between "may" and "shall" but between "may empower" and "shall require." A conscientious objector should be able to call witnesses to give evidence not merely on matters of fact. A Minister of religion might be called to give evidence on his behalf, and it might be the kind of evidence which is not susceptible of being interpreted in terms of oath. It would be wise in the interests of the conscientious objector himself to leave the atmosphere of the tribunals as informal as possible.

§ Mr. Attlee
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an instance of the kind of thing which cannot be sworn on oath? I find it difficult to grasp it. I cannot see the difficulty.

§ Mr. Brown
I would like to oblige the right hon. Gentleman if I could, but I am thinking of the whole experience of the last time. I know how differently some tribunals would be affected, from what I have heard about them, if it were possible for witnesses appearing on behalf of the applicants on the ground of conscience to give their evidence under such strict terms as the Amendment would desire.

§ 7.16 p.m.

§ Mr. Maxton
May I support the view that in the regulations that are drafted governing these people great care will be taken not to bring too much of the atmosphere of the law courts into the matter, and not to make it appear that a conscientious objector is a criminal who is appearing before judges, instead of a citizen taking a different view on a matter of national importance from that of the majority of the citizens? The relationship should not be the law court relationship. I admit—and I think that the statement of the Minister would cover the point—that there might be circumstances, as visualised by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), where there was spiteful evidence being brought before the court. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) will correct me if I am wrong, but 776 I think that the whole of his quotations were from courts-martial and not from either local or appeal tribunals.

§ Mr. Barr
Tribunals attended by military representatives.

§ Mr. Maxton
A person might not be a civilian witness, but a military representative. If a witness is allowed to go into one of these courts and say, "I know that this man did so-and-so and that therefore he is not genuine in his protestations at all," it ought to be possible for the sheriff in Scotland, or the county court judge in this country to say to such a person, "These are serious statements and I must put you on oath." That would be the proper and correct procedure, but I hope that it will not normally be the atmosphere in which these proceedings will take place.

§ 7.18 p.m.

§ Mr. Messer
I believe that the Minister has got the idea of what is in my own mind, which appears to be rather different from that which has been expressed. If the Amendment is accepted it gives the Minister no option but to insist that the tribunal shall take evidence on oath. If he will use the word "shall" instead of the word "may," the regulations will contain reference to the tribunals and will empower them to call evidence on oath. That is desirable but it is quite undesirable to have the atmosphere of the police court and to let the conscientious objector go there with the idea that he is a prisoner and that evidence on oath has to be obtained and the result has to be in the nature of punishment or he is going to get off There are conditions and circumstances which one can easily foresee where it is essential that because of certain statements evidence shall be taken on oath.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I do not think there was ever any difference between the hon. Member and me. I know exactly what is in his mind. I agreed to look and see whether there was any other form of words, and that is why I said that I would consider the matter, in order to make sure that it is the intention in certain circumstances that the tribunal "shall."

§ Mr. Sorensen
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

777

§ 7.20 p.m.

§ Mr. David Grenfell
I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
The Sub-section would then read, and shall provide for enabling parties to proceedings before such tribunals to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or agent. I hope that the Minister will find it as easy to agree to this Amendment as he did to the principle of the former one. It is desirable to replace a permissive word by a definite obligation on the tribunal. The Minister nods his head. If I am to take that as a sign of acquiescence, I need not prolong the Debate, as there are other Amendments that need to be discussed.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I have considered this Amendment, and I find that it covers the points in question, and I have pleasure in accepting it.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, leave out "such," and insert "the."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

§ 7.21 p.m.

§ Mr. Grenfell
I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "agent," and to insert "by a representative of any trade union to which they belong."
I realise that we have got to a matter of far more importance than almost anything we have hitherto discussed under the Bill. Last night we had an opportunity of discussing an Amendment containing this principle, and I would urge the Minister and the Committee to consider the great importance that we attach to this Amendment. We are now dealing with men who will be required to attend and give an account of their conscientious scruples in the matter of military service. These people will be placed by the very circumstances of the tribunal in a position very difficult to maintain. They will be men who hold different views from the great majority of their contemporaries and associates, and they will be under a kind of public disapproval, which it will be very difficult for them to overcome. They will be required to have taken certain preliminary steps before they get to this stage. The conscientious objector will have made his application and, if it is denied, he will make his appeal to the tribunal. The circumstances may be 778 entirely weighted against his appeal, so that he will require to have the utmost consideration, sympathy and assistance if he is to prove the validity and genuineness of his objection.
Some of us are old enough to remember the operation of conscientious objectors' tribunals during the Great War, and I have very vivid recollections indeed of some of the circumstances of the hearings which I attended and in which I sometimes took part. I remember how sensitive and very intelligent and deeply conscious people found themselves almost unable to state their case because of the atmosphere and the environment of the court itself. I remember the way in which military representatives pressed their claims for the bodies and souls of the young men who appeared before these tribunals. I remember how very domineering, and indeed sometimes objectionable, was the behaviour of some of these military representatives. Unless a person has a very strong personality he cannot do himself justice. I remember that in some of the courts the very statement of a case brought derisive laughter and condemnation from the court itself, and in view of that experience I feel most strongly that the appellant should be entitled to take with him somebody who is competent and has a detailed knowledge of the conditions and limitations of the tribunal itself and is accustomed to act on behalf of men in negotiations and discussions of this kind.
I do not know of any body in this country that can place at the disposal of an appellant in these circumstances more useful assistance than the trade union to which the man belongs. In our large trade unions we have in every locality men familiar with this kind of proceeding who are used to attending the county court on behalf of their members as well as conducting negotiations during trade disputes. I propose in the Amendment that there should be an obligation upon the tribunal to afford the opportunity for all parties to be represented by a trade union representative in order that the appellant may be given full justice in the appeal that he makes.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
Does not "agent" include "trade union representative"?

§ Mr. Grenfell
A trade union representative is not legally an agent. We want 779 to have it specifically stated that a representative of a trade union shall be entitled to represent an appellant. We want to be quite sure that an appellant does not surfer from lack of proper representation. We want to make certain in the Bill that the appellant shall have the right to call a representative of his trade union on his behalf without any cost. I do not know what the view of the Minister is on this matter, but I shall never forget one particular example of a man who appeared before one of these courts. He had rather a strong prejudice against being exposed in that way and he was far too sensitive to be able to make a full defence of his position. I remember the whole circumstances so well. When the opportunity was given to this man to state his conscientious objection, I remember the offensive way in which the case was dismissed. This sort of thing should be avoided.
These are cases in which decency should be observed from beginning to end. We are giving these people the right of conscience, and if this nation does not recognise that conscience should be dealt with in a reasonable and decent way, we shall suffer very much indeed. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, and so make it possible to do away with many of the objections which existed during the previous War period. There is this difference on this occasion. We are not at war but at peace, and this is an additional reason why we should be very careful what we do. There is no excuse for the high feeling that was sometimes displayed during the last War, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, or at least the principle of it, so as to make sure that an appellant who is a member of a trade union shall have the right to have his trade union representative by his side to advise and to speak for him.

§ 7.30 p.m.

§ Mr. Stephen
I desire to support the Amendment. I take it that the Bill as it stands, where it has the word "agent" refers to a law agent, who is a Scottish solicitor, and I think the Amendment would materially improve the Bill. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that if the word "agent" had been taken, not in its legal sense in Scotland, it 780 would have been better still. I would like to see a term that would allow, for instance, a minister of religion who knows an applicant very well, and who knows that he has a religious objection, to appear. I think "agent" is a term wide enough to include a friend if it is made quite clear in the definition Clause that it is not merely the Scottish term "law agent." All that I think is necessary is to make it clear that it is not a law agent who is intended. A trade union representative would be an appropriate man in many cases, and in other cases it could be another individual.

§ 7.31 p.m.

§ Sir Ralph Glyn
What we are trying to achieve is to allow any man to have his best friend, as it is called in the Navy, to appear for him if he is in trouble. It is a well known expression. I do not see why you should cut out the word "agent," because in Scotland it means something definite, and if the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would agree not to take out the word "agent," but to keep it in and to add "or best friend," it seems to me that that would cover the whole case. You would, I think, get into trouble if you differentiated between who was and who was not your friend. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) felt that the point would be met by the word "agent" in its wider sense, but it also has in Scotland a particular sense, and I think that ought to be retained.

§ Mr. Stephen
The term that the hon. Member is proposing has also a legal sense, and it would be better simply to put in the word "friend."

§ Sir R. Glyn
I do not mind putting in "friend" instead of "best friend," but I do not like to specify a particular person whose occupation is laid down, because it might confuse the issue.

§ 7.33 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I am bound to say that I listened with great sympathy to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), and I am prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. When we looked at the Amendment, we thought that it was not necessary to add it here, because it was covered by the term "agent." I do not know what "agent" means, and 781 nobody does. I am not prepared, therefore, to put in a word of that kind which I do not understand and which has in law no meaning in this Bill. When we put it in the Bill, we thought it meant a law agent. I am not prepared to put that word in in a wider form than that, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I realise that it will give great confidence to the tribunals to have responsible people acting as friends for those who go to give evidence before them.

§ Mr. Collindridge
In consequence of the acceptance of the Amendment, I am prepared to withhold any remarks that I was going to make upon it.

§ 7.34 p.m.

§ Lieut.-Commander Agnew
I have no objection whatever to good trade unionists who value the social services which their trade unions perform for them employing the services of trade union representatives when attending these tribunals; but what will be the position of many workers in this country who do not belong to a trade union? If this Amendment is carried, they will be penalised, because they will not be in a position to invite any friend or agent in the ordinary common-law sense to appear for them. The Minister of Labour has said that when the Bill was drafted the term "agent" meant a Scottish law agent, but, of course, when the courts come to interpret and administer the Act, they will not worry about what the Minister of Labour said it was thought to mean. They will say, "What is an agent?" And they will say, "An agent is a man who is appointed to act for another in any capacity." Therefore, if the Committee consent to cutting out the word "agent," they will be depriving people who never could have a trade union of the valuable assistance which an ordinary friend of theirs, who knows them well, might be able to give them. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will reconsider his decision.

§ Mr. Buchanan
I am thinking about university students, who obviously have no trade union. What is to be their position? They will have to go unrepresented, according to the present position.

§ 7.37 p.m.

§ Mr. Silverman
I understand that when the right hon. Gentleman put the word "agent" into the Bill, he meant it in 782 the narrow sense of a law agent in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) said the courts would probably put another interpretation on it, but with that I do not agree. What worries me is this: If you are proposing to take out the word "agent," what will be the position of an applicant from Scotland who wants to be represented by a lawyer?

§ Mr. E. Brown
His case would be covered by the Clause as it stands.

§ Mr. Silverman
I understand then that that point is covered. But suppose a man in any country, England or Scotland, does not desire to be represented by a lawyer and has not a trade union representative. He will be in the position, as I understand it, of having to go alone, and I do not think that that can be right. There are a great many unemployed people in this country, who, through no fault of their own, have fallen out of trade union benefit and are not, therefore, in a union or entitled to call on the services of a trade union representative. There are other people too, such as university students, who are not in a trade union; and, remember, we are dealing with people between the ages of 20 and 21, and what you might say at a later age with regard to the duty of a worker to join a trade union and about its being a correct penalty for him to suffer if he chooses not to join a union, cannot be right to say of a young man of 20 or 21. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman will be making a mistake unless the Clause, as it finally appears, does not provide, first, for representation by lawyers, then for representation by trade union representatives, where that form of representation is appropriate, and finally, what is not provided for, representation by anybody at all whom the applicant may prefer.

§ 7.41 p.m.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb
I do not object to the Minister accepting the Amendment, but what I do object to is taking out the word "agent." This Bill has an application very much wider than is covered by trade unions, and a man who is not a member of a trade union would have to be represented by a solicitor. There is no other representation that he could have, and I object to that. I had experience in the last War as a representative, and there were occasions when I had to say that I would refuse to appear for a 783 person if he employed a lawyer, because the lawyer made big charges and did nothing except ask me to represent him. Consequently, from, my own experience, I say that the Minister should leave in the word "agent" or some other word, like "representative."

§ 7.42 p.m.

§ Mr. Graham White
I welcome at once the acceptance of the Amendment in so far as it recognises the position of the trade union representatives and defines their position under the Bill, but I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave the matter there. It seems to me that the Sub-section as it now stands imposes a limitation of a very wide1 character. There can hardly be any Member of this Committee who in the last week or so has not had some experience of difficult cases among the student class—and I have already had them in the legal class—who would, under this Subsection, have no right of representation whatever; and I appeal to the Minister not to leave the matter as it is now proposed to leave it.

§ 7.43 p.m.

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey
I would like to add my appeal to the appeals that have come from all quarters of the Committee to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised, very rightly, the importance of the sittings of the tribunal being informal, and he used that argument against making insistence upon the use of judicial oaths compulsory on all occasions. On the same ground, it is very desirable that an applicant should be able to be represented by a friend, whether the term be "a friend" or "other representative"—it might be a relation, an uncle, or a father, or some older friend, or a companion of like age. In any case, an informal representative would be for many people of the greatest help. It is from no hostility to the insertion of words ensuring the rights of the representatives of trade unions that I am speaking, but I would beg the Minister to reconsider his decision with a view to making an addition in the sense that has been suggested.

§ 7.44 p.m.

§ Mr. Batey
I am glad the Minister has decided to accept the Amendment, and I think he has been very wise in doing it, but I feel, with others, that he should 784 give some consideration to the question of bringing in any other person whom an applicant might want to represent him. I have here a letter from a man in my division whose son is at college. This lad was 20 years of age in last January and he cannot be a member of a trade union. If he had to go before a tribunal, his father would want to go with him. Why should he not be allowed to go with him?

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Or his mother.

§ Mr. Batey
I think the Minister ought to reconsider this matter before the Report stage with a view to providing a form of words which would allow any other person besides a representative of a trade union to attend.

§ 7.46 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I cannot undertake this evening to make any further concession but I have, as I always do, listened with profound interest to this discussion, and a point which has had great weight with me, is the plea about the attendance of relatives or friends. I cannot, however, undertake to go any further at the moment. The way of a Minister who makes concessions is always a hard one, because directly he makes one concession others are demanded. I promise the Committee, however, that I will consider very carefully what has been said and especially what has been said about relatives and friends, but I cannot say any more than that.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Do not grow tired of well-doing.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 7.48 p.m.

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, after "tribunals," to insert: and to any witnesses whose attendance is certified by any such tribunal to have been necessary. The object of the Amendment is to enable travelling and subsistence allowances to be paid to witnesses who attend a tribunal. As the Bill is drawn, these allowances can be made to applicants but they cannot be made to witnesses, and it is proposed that, where the attendance of witnesses is certified by the tribunal to be necessary, these allowances should be paid.

785

§ Mr. Maxton
While not opposing this Amendment which, I think, makes a useful concession, I wish to enter a caveat about certification by the tribunal. There was a case recently in which an ordinary prisoner came up against this problem. He asked for the attendance of some ten witnesses and the sheriff certified for three hostile witnesses but refused to certify for seven friendly witnesses. I should like to know from the Minister what will be the basis of this certification. Am I right in assuming that after a preliminary hearing, the appellant may claim that certain witnesses should be heard and that the court will then consider whether those witnesses are necessary or not? Is it the case that only if the court certifies that the witnesses are necessary can they be summoned and have their expenses paid? It seems to me to be an awkward principle in legal procedure that an appellant should have as witnesses only those people of whom the court approves.

§ Mr. E. Brown
The hon. Member and all those who are acquainted with procedure in Scotland, know that all kinds of preliminaries are necessary in Scotland. What is intended here is to simplify procedure and to provide that any witnesses whose attendance is certified by the tribunal to be necessary, after the usual preliminaries, shall have their expenses paid.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ 7.52 p.m.

§ Mr. James Griffiths
I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, after "allowances," to insert: including compensation for loss of remunerative time. The Minister said that one effect of making a concession was that it induced the people to ask for more, and while I admit that he has made one or two very good concessions on this part of the Bill, I hope he will not refuse the further concession for which I now ask. Had we been able to do so last night I would have moved a similar Amendment in relation to the hardship committees, and I hope the Minister will take this request into account as regards both the hardship committees and the tribunals to deal with conscientious objections. I would point out that the provision which I propose to insert already applies to the courts 786 of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. It appears to me that the structure of the tribunals has been borrowed very largely from the structure of the courts of referees. Indeed the Minister proposes to draw the membership of the hardship committees from the panel which already exists of workers and employers in connection with the courts of referees. Why not, then, include this provision as well and allow everyone who suffers loss of remunerative time, that is loss of wages, by appearing before any of these tribunals, to be compensated? That will preclude any suggestion that anyone is being penalised or handicapped by having to appear before a tribunal.

§ 7.55 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I would ask the hon. Member not to press the parallel between this Measure and the Unemployment Insurance Acts too far. There is, I would point out, a distinction between the case of those who have to go before medical boards and those who will appear before the hardship committees or the tribunals to deal with conscientious objections. The Government say to a man after he has registered, "You shall go to a medical board," and therefore there is a statutory duty to see that the man's travelling expenses and subsistence allowances are paid and also any loss he may suffer in wages. But the position is not the same in the other cases, where a man goes of his own volition, to plead hardship or to plead that he has a conscientious objection. In those cases, we pay travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, but I do not think that we would be justified in going any further than that. On broad general grounds of principle, I do not think that those who seek to make use of the machinery of Clause 3 can consider themselves ungenerously treated if they receive travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, and I must advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any scale which will form the basis of the remuneration of the persons concerned?

§ Mr. Brown
We have in mind scales somewhat similar to those under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

§ 7.58 p.m.

§ Mr. Benn
We are passing this Bill under extraordinary conditions. It is 787 necessary for external reasons to get it through at once, but it cannot be made operative without regulations and scales. Has the Minister those regulations and scales ready? If not then obviously it is no good rushing the Bill through with this indecent haste. If they are ready, why not lay them before the House? I put this specific question to the right hon. Gentleman. When does he propose to lay these regulations before the House?

§ Mr. Brown
The answer is that I will do my statutory duty under the Bill and as required by Parliament, as expeditiously as the circumstances permit.

§ Mr. Benn
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by doing his statutory duty? It is just nonsense. His statutory duty, his Parliamentary duty, is to inform us of the regulations which are to govern the operation of this Measure. I suggest that he has not got any regulations any more than the Government have got arms for the men whom they are calling up to be trained. All they want is to get the Bill through, and that is why we are being driven into passing it in such a hurry. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a straightforward answer. He must know whether or not, as this thing is so urgent, he has draft regulations ready. Can he give an answer without any of the trappings of the overflow meeting, and tell us when the regulations will be laid before the House of Commons.

§ Mr. E. Brown
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that I have sufficient drawing power to attract an overflow meeting. I am surprised that so good a democrat should appear to belittle great democratic institutions. He knows very well that if I did produce draft regulations before the Bill had received the Royal Assent he would accuse me at once of overrunning my powers, on the ground that I had no power to issue any regulations until Parliament had decided the matter.

§ 8.1 p.m.

§ Mr. Silverman
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has the power of attracting overflow meetings, particularly at the Employment Exchanges. We all recognise, too, that the overflow at the exchanges is growing day by day. In the 788 distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to draw he has done something which I think the whole Committee has been trying very hard not to do. He has drawn a distinction, on merit, as it were, between those who apply for examination on conscientious grounds and those who appear before the medical board without making any such claim. Although the matter may appear to him to be a small one, I think the principle is a big one. The distinction is sought to be drawn for the first time, when, up to this point, the whole Committee has cooperated to remove any kind of stigma in regard to the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's distinction is a false one. He said that in the case of a medical examination the man was compelled by law to attend, whereas in the case of the tribunal he was there voluntarily and could choose whether he would go or not. That is not true. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. I cannot see anything humorous about the matter. Perhaps he will acquaint us with the nature of the joke.

§ Mr. E. Brown
The last thing I should desire to do would be to show discourtesy to the hon. Member. He must not think that I was not attending to what he was saying. There are times when a Minister may think and may show by his demeanour that he may be able to add to the knowledge of the Committee by giving information relevant to the subject.

§ Mr. Silverman
If the right hon. Gentleman would like to contribute something to the knowledge of the Committee, in order to save time, then I should be only too glad to give way to him. He must not, however, blame me if I am sensitive and if I have not that considerable degree of intelligence which enables me to determine, when the right hon. Gentleman is laughing, what is the information which is in his mind and which he desires to convey by his laugh. What I was trying to say was that it is fallacious for the right hon. Gentleman to assert that when a man attends before a medical tribunal he is compelled, and that when he seeks to establish his conscientious objection before another tribunal, he is not compelled. There is no such distinction. He is compelled in both cases. The only result of the conscientious objector not attending before the tribunal is that he is 789 put on the military register, a place where by law, if the Bill becomes an Act, he ought not to be. His presence before the tribunal is just as much a duty imposed op on him by this Bill as is the presence of any other applicant before a medical tribunal. It is not possible that in one case attendance is voluntary and in the other case it is compulsory.
If that be so and there is no such distinction as the right hon. Gentleman has sougth to establish, then I think he might reconsider the matter and treat both applicants who appear before both kinds of tribunals exactly in the same way, and either pay for loss of remunerative time or pay nothing in both cases. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to draw a distinction between the two, or do anything which will have the effect of imposing a stigma upon one applicant and not upon the other. That is exactly what we have all been trying to avoid.

§ 8.6 p.m.

§ Mr. Grenfell
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will reconsider the term "subsistence," and when he comes to determine the scale of allowances have regard to the fact that a large number of people may be compelled to lose working time and to suffer pecuniary loss, because of their interest in these proceedings. It may be that they are an acquaintance or a relative of the applicant, and that they can testify to certain habits or conduct of the appellant, which evidence may be required in order that justice may be done. There is no reason why that man should be out of pocket and should suffer pecuniary loss because he is present at the public proceedings which have to determine the issue. That is quite different from the case of the person who goes to plead his own case before the court of referees. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and if he can give us that promise we will not press the Amendment. Will he consider that a witness who goes to court may lose a substantial sum out of his week's income and only get bare expenses of travelling to the place where the hearing is held. I hope he will give an undertaking to reconsider the point and so arrange the scale of allowances that where a man loses, say, a day's wage, some compensation should be given to him for that loss.

790

§ 8.8. p.m.

§ Mr. McEntee
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from the standpoint of the distance a man may be called upon to travel in order to attend the tribunal. He may lose a couple of days' work, or even more in some cases, because of the very long distance he may have to travel. The point has been made that there is really no such thing as voluntarily attending before the tribunal. The whole Bill is compulsory, and these people have to attend. Having made it compulsory that a man must attend one kind of tribunal, either the medical board for examination, so that he may be certified whether he shall or shall not go into the Army, or the tribunal which hears his appeal as a conscientious objector—in both cases the provisions of the Bill are compulsory. In view of the compulsory character of the Bill and the very long distance that a man may be compelled to travel if he is desirous of giving evidence on behalf of a friend or, it may be, a relative, his claim ought to receive the favourable consideration for which we ask. In both cases the applicant should be treated the same. I hope the Minister will at least give us a promise that he will reconsider the matter.

§ 8.10 p.m.

§ Mr. Ede
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not seen his way to accept the Amendment, and if I base my argument on the supposition that he is not going to accept it, that does not mean that I think he ought not to accept it. Inasmuch as he is not prepared to pay for loss of remunerative time, will he see that included in the instructions to the chairmen of the various tribunals there shall be a statement saying that as far as possible they should arrange to hold their meetings at times reasonably convenient for the people, who may be deprived of the privilege that is given to them by this Clause if the time of meeting is fixed at inconvenient hours. That is clearly a concession that ought to be made. I would pay tribute to the way in which the Board of Education holds its inquiries at which parents are entitled to be present, in the evening so that parents can be there. There may be some districts where it would be the most helpful to hold the meeting of the tribunal in the evening, and in other places it might be the more convenient to hold it in 791 the morning or the afternoon. I do hope that this matter will be brought to the notice of the chairmen of the tribunals.

§ 8.12 p.m.

§ Mr. E. Brown
The suggestion of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has my entire sympathy, and we will do our best to see that it is carried out. On the major point that has been raised, I always regret saying "No" to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr.

792

§ Grenfell), who always puts his case so reasonably and with such force, but we discussed this matter carefully before we decided to make this distinction, and I think we are justified in the distinction. Therefore, I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 244.

793

Division No. 113.]	AYES.	[8.13 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Parker, J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Parkinson, J. A.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)	Hardie, Agnes	Pearson, A.
Adamson, W. M.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)	Pethick-Lawrenes, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Hayday, A.	Poole, C. C.
Ammon, C. G.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Price, M. P.
Anderson, F. (Whitehavan)	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Banfield, J. W.	Hicks, E. G.	Ridley, G.
Barr, J.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Riley, B.
Batey, J.	Hollins, A.	Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J.	Hopkin, D.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Benson, G.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Sexton, T. M.
Bevan, A.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Shinwell, E.
Bromfield, W.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Silkin, L.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Silverman, S. S.
Burke, W. A.	Kirby, B. V.	Simpson, F. B.
Charleton, H. C.	Kirkwood, D.	Sloan, A.
Chater, D.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S.	Lathan, G.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Lawson, J. J.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cocks, F. S.	Leach, W.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Collindridge, F.	Leonard, W.	Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G.	Leslie, J. R.	Stephen, C.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Logan, D. G.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G.	Lunn, W.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dalton, H.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Thorns, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	McEntee, V. La T.	Thurtle, E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	McGhee, H. G.	Tinker, J. J.
Day, H.	MacLaren, A.	Tomlinson, G.
Dobbie, W.	MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)	Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Watkins, F. C.
Ede, J. C.	Marshall, F.	Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Maxton, J.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Frankel, D.	Messer, F.	Welsh, J. C.
Gallacher, W.	Milner, Major J.	Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W.	Montague, F.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)	Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Muff, G.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Grenfell, D. R.	Naylor, T. E.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Oliver, G. H.
Groves, T. E.	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Beechman, N. A.	Butcher, H. W.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Bernays, R. H.	Cartland, J. R. H.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Blair, Sir R.	Carver, Major W. H.
Albery, Sir Irving	Boothby, R. J. G.	Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)	Bossom, A. C.	Channon, H.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Boulten, W. W.	Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Boyce, H. Leslie	Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Apsley, Lord	Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Aske, Sir R. W.	Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)	Colfox, Major W. P.
Assheton, R.	Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.	Broadbridge, Sir G. T.	Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Brocklebank, Sir Edmund	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanat)	Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)	Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Baxter, A. Beverley	Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Cox, H. B. Trevor
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Cranborne, Viscount
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B (Portsm'h)	Bull, B. B.	Critchley, A.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.	Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Jarvis, Sir J. J.	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Cross, R. H.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Crossley, A. C.	Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Crowder, J. F. E.	Keeling, E. H.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Cruddas, Col. B.	Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	Rosbotham, Sir T.
Culverwell, C. T.	Kimball, L.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
De la Bere, R.	Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.	Rowlands, G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Denville, Alfred	Lancaster, Captain C. G.	Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Latham, Sir P.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Doland, G. F.	Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)	Salt. E. W.
Donner, P. W.	Leech, Sir J. W.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.	Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Duncan, J. A. L.	Levy, T.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Eastwood, J. F.	Lewis, O.	Selley, H. R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Liddall, W. S.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Ellis, Sir G.	Lipson, D. L.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.	Little, Sir E. Graham-	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Emery, J. F.	Llewellin, Colonel J. J.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.	Snadden, W. McN.
Errington, E.	Loftus, P. C.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Lyons, A. M.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)	Spans, W. P.
Findlay, Sir E.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Fleming, E. L.	McKie, J. H.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Foot, D. M.	Maitland, Sir Adam	Storey, S.
Fox, Sir G. W G.	Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Furness, S. N.	Mander, G. le M.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Fyfe, D. P. M.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gluckstein, L. H.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Medlicott, F.	Sutcliffe, H.
Goldie, N. B.	Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Gower, Sir R. V.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Tate, Mavis C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Titchfield, Marquess of
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)	Touche, G. G.
Grimston, R. V.	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Munro, P.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)	Nall, Sir J.	Turton, R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Wakefield, W. W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hambro, A. V.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Hammersley, S. S.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Warrender, Sir V.
Hannah, I. C.	Peaks, O.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Wayland, Sir W. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Wells, Sir Sydney
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Petherick, M.	White, H. Graham
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)	Pilkington, R.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Higgs, W. F.	Porritt, R. W.	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Holmes, J. S.	Procter, Major H. A.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hopkinson, A.	Purbrick, R.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Horsbrugh, Florence	Radford, E. A.	Wragg, H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.	Ramsbotham, H.	York, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Rankin, Sir R.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hunter, T.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt and Captain McEwen.
Hutchinson, G. C.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

§ Amendment made: In page 7, line 33, leave out "he," and insert "the Minister."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ 8.23 p.m.

§ Mr. Stephen
I am glad of an opportunity of saying a word on this Clause. I regret that the Amendments I had on the Order Paper were not taken. I should 794 like to have had an opportunity of discussing the question whether there should simply be a notification by people who had a conscientious objection to military service and training, or whether there should be the elaborate machinery proposed in this Clause. In my opinion there is no need for all the elaborate machinery which is set up. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) has said that during the last War there were only 22,000 conscientious objectors, and that 795 about 7,000 suffered penalties because their conscientious objection was not recognised. Those being the numbers out of the millions who were called up, I wonder whether it would not be a saner proposition for this Committee to recognise plainly and bluntly that there is such a thing as a conscientious objection to military service and training, and having recognised that there is a conscientious objection which is to be respected, the Committee ought not to arrogate to itself the right to try to provide ways and means of judging another man's conscience. It simply cannot be done. It is not possible to devise any machinery by which this can be decided.
In the last War, there were those 7,000 men who suffered, many of them receiving sentences merely because they affirmed their conscientious objection; and after the War was over, there was practically universal agreement that those men had been acting truly in accordance with their conscience. It always will be a stigma upon the fair name of this country that those people were penalised unjustly, for they were penalised unjustly if they had a genuine conscientious objection to military service and yet had to suffer penalties because they were not able to get through the tribunals that were set up. The Minister said that we are learning from the past and seeking to avoid the mistakes that were made in connection with those people during the War. On the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, there are hon. Members who have shown that their attitude of mind on this question is precisely the same as the attitude of mind which meant that these people had to suffer during the last struggle.
The Minister showed that he had a somewhat broader mind and a more generous appreciation of the problem than many of his own supporters; yet I think that on the last Amendment he himself showed that he did not fully appreciate the problem. There was in his mind the idea that in this Clause we are conferring some favour upon the men who have a conscientious objection to war. We are not giving them any favours, but only seeking to act justly towards them. I wish that the Minister had tried out the simple method of preparing a register of those people who have a conscientious 796 objection to military service, and of providing no other machinery than the register. By this means they would intimate their objection, their objection would be recognised, and they would not be called upon to serve. If this were done, the number of those who objected might be small or it might be large. If it were a small number, there would be no need for anything further; and if it were a large number, and the Government thought that people were sheltering under this objection who really had no conscientious objection, then would be the time to deal with the question by attempting to devise machinery. I ask the Minister even now to reconsider the whole problem in that way. I believe that when the Military Training Bill reaches the Statute Book, the overwhelming majority of the people in some parts of the country will be willing to abide by the law in that respect—

§ It being Half-past Eight of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.