§ 11.14 a.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)
I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, to leave out from "himself," to the second "and," in line 19, and to insert:at such place and time (not earlier than the fourteenth day after the date of the service of the notice).This Amendment is partly drafting, but it does include a change of some substance. It is drafting in that the reference to "day" is being left out and a reference to "time" substituted. In Clauses 1(1) and 4(1) there is a reference to "time," and it is thought desirable to bring the different descriptions into relation with one another. It is also an Amendment involving a change of some substance in that we have altered the period of 10 days required before a man is called up for military training after notice is served on him to a period of 14 days, as we consider this to more fair to the man in the circumstances.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 11.15 a.m.
§ Mr. Turton
I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:Provided that a military training notice shall not be served upon a person engaged in agriculture requiring him to present himself for service before the first day of October in any year, and.The object of the Amendment is to make it obligatory that persons engaged in agriculture shall be called up for the special course of training only in the period from 1st October until the end of March and not at any other period of the year. Probably the first question which the Committee will ask me is, why this special arrangement should be sought in the case of agriculture. I assure the Committee that those engaged in the agricultural industry have no desire, on their 874 own account, to escape from the provisions of the Bill, and I put forward this Amendment, not so much on account of the worker or the farmer, as in the national interest. In 1921 the number of persons under the age of 21 engaged in agriculture in this country was 184,000. Last year the corresponding number was 96,000. We have almost halved the number of persons under 21 engaged in agriculture. I understand that the effect of the Bill will be to remove for this special course of training about 26,000 of those 96,000 every year. I suggest to the Committee, for that reason, that agriculture is in a special position in relation to the question of the defence of the country and training for defence.
Agriculture is partly a seasonal industry. I do not wish the Committee to think that no agricultural work is done in the winter time. Such is very far from being the case, but, indoubtedly, the heaviest burden of labour falls upon the industry during the summer months. During the period of the hay harvest and the corn harvest special arrangements have to be made, and if during that period many of these young men were to be taken away for this special course of training, the work of the hay harvest and the corn harvest would be seriously imperilled. I may be asked why I propose to fix 1st October and not 1st November as the appropriate date in connection with this proposal. My reason is that a six months' period beginning on 1st October would end on 31st March. If the date were 1st November, the period would end in April, and April is frequently one of the most important months in the year for the agricultural industry. We had an example of that in the present year. Those who have knowledge of agricultural conditions are aware that this year men of the agricultural industry were working under full pressure during the whole of April because they had been held off the land until April. Owing to the conditions, heavy land could not be worked, and when April came it was necessary to get in all the spring corn and to prepare the ground for potatoes. If men had been taken away from the agricultural industry during that month, we could scarcely have got in the corn from which the harvest is to come.
Last week the Minister of Agriculture appealed to the agricultural districts to plough up worn-out grasslands for the 875 period ending on 30th September. That is an added burden on agricultural labour. The men who will carry out that work are tractor drivers, a high proportion of whom are under 21. If, this year, any of these men are to undergo a special course of training before 1st October, I fear that the appeal by the Minister of Agriculture will meet with but a poor response, because it will be outside the power of those engaged in agriculture to carry out his wishes. There is one line of argument which I may anticipate. Hon. Members may say "Why move this Amendment in Clause 5, when there are provisions relating to special grounds of hardship in Clause 1?" This, however, is not what I would call a hardship case. I freely admit that there are hardship cases in agriculture, such as the cases of the family farm and of the young farmer under 20, and these will require careful attention under the provisions of Clause 1. But this is a matter which affects the nation, and not the individual. It is because everybody who is engaged in agriculture must be on the land during these summer months, that we move this Amendment. Therefore, I claim that its proper place is in Clause 5, and not in Clause 1.
Let me remind the Committee of one or two of the lessons which are to be learned from Europe to-day. What is happening in Germany in relation to agriculture? There is a grave shortage of agricultural labour there and during the summer months, the German authorities draft men from the Army on to the land. Men whom they put under their so-called protection in Czecho-Slovakia, are being drafted on to the land in Germany. That is a lesson which we ought not to neglect. This land question is of vital importance. It is part of the defence of the country. To keep these men on the land during the summer months is as essential to our defence as any of the other arms of defence under the control of the Service Departments. The House of Commons is far too apt to forget that one of the weapons of war is defence against starvation. I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.
§ 11.23 a.m.
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison)
There is no doubt that the object which my 876 hon. Friend desires to achieve is a worthy one. But the position of agricultural workers in relation to the obligations imposed by this Bill is part of a larger problem, the problem of so working the Bill by administrative action, as to cause the minimum of inconvenience to every section of the population affected by it. The keynote of the policy of the Bill is that there are no exemptions and no special provision for any particular industry or class of persons, but the Bill is framed so that men may be called up in a way which will effect the least dislocation and cause the least loss of national productive activity. I think my hon. Friend realises the force of that consideration, which is the reason why we do not desire to mention any one particular industry or class. If we mention one, it will be found that there are numbers of others who may have claims to consideration equally well founded.
There is another reason why I shall ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. I believe that it would be better for the cause which he has at heart to proceed by administrative action rather than impose this rigid time-table which he suggests on the issue of the calling-up notices. It is, in general, the case that the effect of withdrawing men from agricultural work is most severe on the production side of the industry if that withdrawal takes place during the summer months, but it is not the case that this proposed time-table could be rigidly applied in every district of the country. There are other forms of agriculture in other parts of the country where, I understand, it is the view that the winter months are very important and dislocation can be caused if men are taken up at certain times during that season.
I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but I give him the assurance that in working this Bill there will be close co-operation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Ministry of Mines?"]—and the Ministry of Mines, certainly, with regard to other matters, but in regard to this particular agricultural aspect with which we are now dealing, between the two Ministries I have mentioned, and that the least possible dislocation will be caused to agricultural operations. In so far as agricultural conditions vary from district to district, that fact will be borne in mind. 877 The position of the smallholder having only one farm worker of liable age will also be specially considered; and when you have cases of staffs on farms consisting mainly or only of persons of 20 to 21, every endeavour will be made to avoid calling them up in such numbers together as to dislocate the work of the farm unduly.
§ Mr. Turton
On that important point, if there is only one man on a farm—a one-man farm—how are you going to avoid calling them all up together?
§ Mr. Morrison
Where there is only one worker on a farm, that case will be specially considered, and what arrangements can be made will be made to avoid hardship. The last point with which I wish to deal is the reference which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made to the effect of these proposals on the ploughing-up campaign recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Government attach great importance to that campaign, and the repercussions of this question upon it will certainly be borne in mind. I hope that on the assurance that, in the case of agriculture as with other industries, this Bill will be worked to cause the very least dislocation possible, my hon. Friend will not press for this special Amendment for one industry.
§ 11.28 a.m.
§ Mr. York
I rise to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We thank the Minister for his very good assurance; nevertheless, I want to press the point that last year, when there was no question of any Measure such as this taking men off the land, we were extremely short of labour. I may tell the Committee that in my own district I saw field after field of hay rotting because there was not enough labour, in the short date which good Dame Nature allowed us, to get it in. Also I saw fields of barley in November still in the stook. If, therefore, there is to be any dislocation whatever, if the calling-up by the Minister of Labour is going in any way to affect one or two men, it will be very serious indeed.
The Minister said he wanted the ploughing-up scheme of the Minister of Agriculture to go through well, but may I point out that every weed which grows in a 878 field during the months of July and August will mean so much less food grown when the crops come to be harvested. The last point that I would like to make, and upon which I should like an assurance from the Minister, is in regard to the hardship committees before which certain cases will come. We shall not have another opportunity of making this point, and I would like to ask whether the hardship committees will be so placed in particular areas that there is not a great deal of time wasted by the men coming off the land, having to leave their work and their homes, and going to these hardship committees to present their case. With such an assurance from the Minister, and with the assurance of special consideration which he said will be given to these particular instances, I feel that my hon. Friends will be satisfied.
§ 11.31 a.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I am sure hon. Members opposite will not object to hon. Members on this side having a few words on this Amendment, because they will recollect that when their party was in office they themselves spoke very freely under a Guillotine that was then in operation. On the whole, I am in favour of the principle of this Amendment, but I think it is too rigid. In some places our harvests are very late and continue well into October, so that I hope the Minister will be able to have a flexible calling-up of the men according to the season, and that when there is a late season he will be able to have machinery to allow the calling-up to be a little later than it would otherwise be. I realise that many different classes of agriculture require people to be called up at different times, and, therefore, an Amendment like this, with fixed times, would cause some hardship in certain cases. I therefore ask the Minister to make the machinery of calling-up as flexible as possible.
§ 11.32 a.m.
§ Mr. Maxton
I would not have intervened but for the fact that the view seems to be held that there is only one man to be considered in this connection, and that is the farmer. I merely want to put 879 this view to the Minister of Agriculture, that the young men concerned should also be considered as an element in this business. It may be that farm labourers are not prepared to do their military training in the uncongenial months from October to March. I know that if I had to choose when I would do my military training, I would not choose the hardest winter months, and I hope it will be remembered that there is the farm labourer as well as the farmer to be considered.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 11.33 a.m.
§ Mr. A. V. Alexander
I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert:Provided also that the Minister shall not exercise his power to serve military training notices unless he is satisfied that there will be available at the places specified in the notices accommodation for the persons concerned on a basis of floor space and air space equal to that prescribed for the standard peace time accommodation of members of His Majesty's regular forces at home stations.The fact that we shall be brief on this Amendment is not to be taken as meaning that we do not feel very strongly upon it. We are most concerned that the calling-up of these boys should not be done in such a fashion and with such lack of preparation that immediately their health will be severely threatened. I want to remind the Committee of the report which was issued in 1920—Special Reports, Series No. 50—by the Medical Research Council which inquired into the enormous number of deaths, so numerous that it became a public scandal, among the young men who were called up in this country during the last Great War—the enormous mortality among the boys because over and over again they were put into hutments and barracks and other places in which there was continuous overcrowding. Whoever was responsible for the inquiry carried out by the Medical Research Council deserves public thanks for the results which have been laid before the public in this report. It seems that again and again the minimum square footage or cubic space laid down for the ordinary troops was not observed and that the carrier rate for the diseases often went 880 up rapidly from about 11 per cent. to as high as 40 per cent., and in some cases even 73 per cent.
The fact is that while we were most in need of men in 1916–17 we were carrying to the graveyard in this country hundreds of our young lives who would never have been brought to the position of mortality if they had been properly looked after under healthy and hygienic conditions. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friends to secure a statutory provision that in calling up men, as the War Office will call them up, 20,000 to 40,000 at a time, they shall not do it until they can guarantee that there is proper space and air for them. I will quote to the Secretary of State a much older authority than this Important Medical Research Medical Council Report. It is from the Royal Commission of 1861, which reported on the scandals of the Crimean War. They said:Before the soldier can be assured of having the amount of space required for health, there must be a distinct recognition that the amount given by regulation (i.e., 600 cubic feet and 3 feet between beds) is on no account to be tampered with. No increase of regimental strength, no want of store rooms, libraries, or reading rooms, should for an instance be permitted to interfere with it. It would never be pleaded, as a reason for reducing the soldier's ration of bread and meat, that a larger number of men had joined the regiment than the commissariat could provide for. Why should the soldier's air ration, which is equally important for his health and efficiency, be differently dealt with? In any case overcrowding should utterly be put an end to. They have not been aware that, if above a certain number of men are placed in a given cubic space, the lives of some of these men and the health of others are certain to be sacrificed.I should think it ought to be regarded as a public duty by Members in every part of the House to insist that the Executive shall not summon to the colours one man who cannot be guaranteed, before he is called up to do his service, at least the minimum space required by the regulations for health and strength in his training.
§ 11.37 a.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender)
I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he is seeking. We are well aware of the report from which he has quoted, but I am sure nobody would imagine that the conditions of the militiamen would in any way approach those 881 that existed at the time of the War. I do not think it will be necessary to include in the terms of the Bill any conditions such as those provided by the Amendment. Under the machinery of the Bill military training notices will only be served on men by the Ministry of Labour as the War Office makes demands for them, and we shall not make demands for men for whom we have no accommodation. [Interruption.] That stands to reason. We do not want the men unless we can accommodate them. These men will be accommodated on exactly the same scale as that which has been laid down for the Regular soldier, that is, a minimum of 60 square feet per man. The extra accommodation which will have to be built in some cases in order to accommodate the men will be built upon that basis.
It is true that to begin with it may be necessary to put some of these men into tents, but they will be put in tents upon the most generous scale which we can afford, namely, eight men per tent. It will be only for a short time until hut accommodation is ready and they will have the same space per man as is arranged for the Regular soldier. Hon. Members who have visited any of the new barracks which the War Office are building will realise that the modern accommodation provided for a Regular soldier is very different from that which existed a short time ago. The programme of rebuilding which we have under way at the present time is a very extensive one. It has been accelerated, and we are getting on with it as fast as the buildings can be put up. It really cannot be suggested, and I hope it will not be suggested, that the living conditions for the modern soldier are anything but exemplary. If hon. Members think that the floor space or cubic air space which we allot to the Regulars is insufficient, let me refer to the incidence of cerebro-spinal fever in the Army during recent years. There has been no epidemic of this disease in the Army since the War. During the last five years the number of cases has averaged about 33 for the Army as a whole.
It might be expected that in the Army where the average age is young, the incidence of this disease, which is most prevalent among young adults, would be higher than in civil life. That cannot 882 be substantiated. It shows that the precautions which we take with regard to the health of the men are such that the serious infectious diseases are not those to which the soldier is unduly exposed. We take the greatest precautions to prevent their being exposed to them. In the case of the Militiamen, I can assure the Committee that we are determined to make their life in the Army hygienic in every way.
This Amendment does not deal with existing accommodation for the existing soldier. It is intended to make some provision so that the present high standard will be available for the young Militiamen when they are called up.
§ Sir V. Warrender
I was saying that the Militiaman will be accommodated under the same standards and the same regulations as the Regular soldier. I have pointed out that the accommodation we provide is such as to prevent the spread and incidence of infectious disease, and that we are satisfied that the floor space which we allot to men is more than sufficient to give them immunity from this disease. The Amendment seeks to insert in the Bill some statutory provision, but I am giving the Committee an assurance that the Militiamen will be dealt with in the same way as the Regulars. Since the incidence of disease among Regulars is as low as it is, hon. Members need have no fear with regard to the conditions of the militiamen.
§ 11.43 a.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to apprehend the purpose and meaning of the Amendment. We are asking that these men shall not be called up until accommodation is available. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that accommodation of the kind that is specified in the Amendment will not be available when they are called up. It is useless for the Undersecretary of State for Air to shake his head, because the hon. Gentleman has just told the Committee that it will be necessary to accommodate many of the men in tents. That implies that there is not sufficient barrack room accommodation of the right kind. While my hon. Friends will be ready to agree that there are occasions when it is proper to accommodate men in tents, it will be highly improper, and indeed injurious, to the 883 men concerned to accommodate them in tents immediately upon being called up. That is not what happens in the case of Regular soldiers. They are not sent to tents when they enlist, but to barracks, and if barrack-room accommodation is not by any means perfect—although I am ready to admit there has been considerable improvement in recent years—it does afford an opportunity of breaking the men in by giving them accommodation not unlike that to which they have been accustomed.
To put 5,000 or 10,000 men into tents, in all sorts of weather, possibly in the winter season, when they have not been accustomed to accommodation of that kind, is going a little too far. What does all this demonstrate? That the Government are imposing on the country this compulsory system, and will be calling up large bodies of men, without having planned their accommodation and equipment. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the men will be accommodated in tents holding eight men. We ought to have rather fuller information on that point. What sort of tents are they to be? [HON. MEMBERS: "Bell tents."] I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Members opposite would care to be accommodated in tents, eight together, and on 1s. a day, when they join the Army for the first time.
I think the hon. Member had better be allowed to make his speech without so many interruptions. He has not much time, and interruptions do take up time.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I am much obliged, but I am not very much embarrassed by interruptions. I was about to observe, that while it might be quite legitimate to do this in war-time, it is quite unreasonable in times of peace, and I think we are entitled not merely to an assurance from the hon. Gentleman but to a specific provision in the Bill to ensure that before men are called up there will be ample accommodation of the kind that he has told us is available for the ordinary soldier.
§ 11.48 a.m.
§ Mr. McGovern
I think we should be failing completely in our duty if we did 884 not protect these young men who are to be called up for military service. It is outrageous that they should not have proper comforts and proper accommodation in the Army. The Financial Secretary has told us that these men, or many of them—I do not want to exaggerate—will be accommodated for some time in tents. It is all very well for young men to be under canvas for a short time if the weather is good. I have been under canvas with the Volunteers for periods of two or three weeks, and with the type of weather we get sometimes, especially in Scotland, such accommodation can become not only uncomfortable but positively dangerous, men being soaked to the skin on many occasions. Ordinary barrack or hut accommodation can be uncomfortable, but apparently these men are to be accommodated eight in a tent for an indefinite period, because we have not been given any undertaking that it will be for only a short time.
The Financial Secretary objects to inserting in the Bill a statutory provision which would compel the Government to provide proper accommodation. I do not know what prevents the Government from going ahead with the provision of the necessary accommodation. They ought to give an undertaking that until proper accommodation is available none of these young men will be called to the Colours. That young men should be taken from comfortable homes and put under canvas for an indefinte period is an outrageous thing. The ordinary tent gives no proper accommodation, and is no substitute for ordinary home life, even when that is on a modest scale. I should like to have an undertaking from the Minister that they will be in tents for a very limited period only. Some of these young men may be damaged physically for the rest of their lives owing to the lack of accommodation, because there are many periods, even in summer, when the weather is very trying indeed, and living in tents is very dangerous.
The attitude of the Government and their supporters proves to me that they are completely lacking in sympathy towards the young men whom they are seeking to enlist for the purposes of defending the rich class in society. They are absolutely indifferent not only to the dislocation of home life which is bound to accompany the calling-up of the men but also to the financial hardships which 885 will fall upon the family and on the individual, and on top of all that they add this indignity and inhumanity. It is unbecoming of those who are seeking to employ young men to defend their selfish interests. If they are anxious to use these young men to defend them and their possessions the least they could do would be to give them proper accommodation and to see that they are not subjected to the rigours of life in tents in the weather that we may get in this country. Hon. Members opposite tell us that they have lived in tents. Although the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) says that he has been under canvas I take it that it was for a short time only, and I feel that he was very glad to get out of it.
§ 11.53 a.m.
§ Mr. Markham: Judging by some of the speeches from the benches opposite during the last few minutes one would imagine that the young men of this country were tender hot-house plants who would wilt and decay at a breath of fresh air. In actual truth, I venture to say, young men are far fitter now than we were 20 years ago. We were then under canvas for many months on end and as far as camp life was concerned came out from that experience better physically than we were at the beginning. I would ask hon. Members opposite to remember some of the things that did happen 20 years ago when many of us who were under the age of those who are now to be called up were put under canvas for the first time. Naturally some of us had had a certain amount of coddling as youngsters—we did not like draughts; we did not like certain other things—but I do not think anyone can deny that a great number of those who volunteered during the war years benefited considerably from their training under canvas before going out to France.
§ Mr. Alexander
Is not the hon. Member aware that it has been proved that on the last occasion thousands of our young men died directly due to overcrowding? They went away healthy but became infected, and instead of serving their country abroad died hi this country. That is what we want to stop now. We want the Government to be decent about it.
§ Mr. Markham
The overcrowding was not in tents. As a matter of fact, open-air accommodation is the thing that to a very large extent remedies that state of affairs. The trend of opinion in this country is towards the belief that one of the great remedies for the evils of overcrowding is open-air life. I have always said that many hundreds of thousands of men like myself, when we were 20 years of age or younger, benefited very considerably from the time we spent under canvas. I would go further, and say that the camps organised by the Boy Scouts, Church Lads Brigade and other movements not only for young men of 20 but for young lads of 10 to 15 years of age, in bivouaks in the summer, do the greatest possible amount of good. There are considerable medical grounds for urging that young men in industrial centres should get a chance of the free, open-air life that they can get under proper camping conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is extraordinary how the Opposition take every minute that they can on questions such as these but refuse to listen to others. The intolerance shown by the Opposition during the Debates on this Bill has been the very opposite of free speech, as we understand it.
Let me conclude my remarks. We have heard sob-stuff speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite based upon the most abyssmal ignorance of the good that the open-air life can do. There are Members of the Opposition who have been scoutmasters, camp leaders and so on, but who have remained silent during these Debates. I urge any hon. Member opposite who has spent time under canvas to get up in all honesty and say that he disagrees with a very stupid Amendment.
§ 11.58 a.m.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith rose—
We shall get nearer to a Division if we allow hon. Members to make their speeches without unnecessary interruption.
§ Mr. E. Smith
I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. I had actual experience of the conditions during and after the last War, and I feel bound to say a few words on behalf of the young men who are to be called up. I want to have an assurance from the Secretary of State 887 for War and the Financial Secretary that in no circumstances shall there be a repetition of what we went through. I always thought that our men were entitled to conditions at least as good as those of the officers, and one of my bitter memories is of the way in which we were treated compared with the treatment of officers and their batmen during the last War. I want to obtain the Minister's assurance that when men are put in tents there shall be not more than six in a tent. The men have to keep themselves smart and I am not complaining of that, because I realise the necessity of it. They have to deal with their equipment, and because of all that that implies I say that the maximum number in each tent should be six.
In addition to that, I hold that there
§ should be no tents in winter. I hope that an assurance will be given that whenever possible men shall not be put into tents. Tents are all right in decent weather, but as soon as it start to pour with rain, conditions become serious, as anyone will agree who has had experience of living under canvas. I am, therefore, asking for an assurance by the Secretary of State for War that men will have at least the same conditions as officers, that there shall be no differentiation, that men shall not be expected to live more than six in a tent and that there shall be no tents in winter.
§ Question put," That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 195.889
|Division No. 118.]||AYES.||[12.1 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Pearson, A.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hicks, E. G.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Ridley, G.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hopkin, D.||Riley, B.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Jagger, J.||Ritson, J.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Shinwell, E.|
|Benson, G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Silkin, L.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Burke, W. A.||Kirby, B. V.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Chater, D.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Lawson, J. J.||Stephen, C.|
|Collindridge, F.||Leach, W.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lunn, W.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Daggar, G||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Dalton, H.||McEntee, V. La T.||Thorne, W.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||McGhee, H. G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||McGovern, J.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dobbie, W.||MacLaren, A.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Ede, J. C.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Viant, S. P.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Mander, G. le M.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Marshall, F.||Westwood, J.|
|Gardner, B. W.||Maxton, J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Messer, F.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Montague, F.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Muff, G.|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Naylor, T. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.|
|Hayday, A.||Paling, W.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Boulton, W. W.||Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Boyce, H. Leslie||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Brass, Sir W.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)|
|Apsley, Lord||Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Colfox, Major W. P.|
|Assheton, R.||Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Bull, B. B.||Crooke, Sir J. Smedley|
|Beechman, N. A.||Butcher, H. W.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Castlereagh, Viscount||Cross, R. H.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Crossley, A. C.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Crowder, J. F. E.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Cruddas, Col. B.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Channon, H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Danville, Alfred||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Doland, G. F.||Kimball, L.||Rosbotham, Sir T.|
|Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.||Rowlands, G.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Latham, Sir P.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Levy, T.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Lewis, O.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Emery, J. F.||Liddall, W. S.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Lipson, D. L.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Selley, H. R.|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Loftus, P. C.||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Foot, D. M.||Lyons, A. M.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Furness, S. N.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||McKie, J. H.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Macquisten, F. A.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Goldie, N. B.||Maitland, Sir Adam||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Markham, S. F.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Touche, G. C.|
|Hambro, A. V.||Moreing, A. C.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Turton, R. H.|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Nall, Sir J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Patrick, C. M.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Holmes, J. S.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Petherick, M.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Procter, Major H.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||York, C.|
|James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Ramsbotham, H.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Captain Dngdale and Major Sir James Edmondson.|
§ 12.9 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page 10, line 2, after the first "to," to insert:take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment, or to.If there is one matter in this Bill on which we feel strongly, it is the matter of protecting the rights of the trade unions and of the workers in the event of a trade dispute. It is a matter of fundamental importance to the trade unions and to the workers generally. We in this country have not yet passed into the totalitarian orbit, although there are tendencies which create apprehensions in our minds. We are still entitled, in the event of grievances against employers, to refuse to work, and we are very jealous of that privilege. The right to strike, 890 although it is only resorted to in a moment of extremity, is a right which the trade union movement is anxious to safeguard, and in such a contingency we should resent very strongly the use of conscripts who might be employed, and, indeed, could be employed under the provisions of this Measure, either to assist in suppressing the men who were on strike and bringing the dispute to an end, or to take their places in any particular department of industry. The other day, when we were discussing the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill, hon. Friends of mine, particularly the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and, I believe, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), raised the question of the use of the auxiliary forces during trade disputes, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in replying on the Debate, used these words: 891The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members raised the point of whether this Measure could be used in connection with internal disputes. It is not intended to do anything of the sort, and in my belief it could not be so used. The opening words of the Bill are that the Government have to be satisfied that the service is urgently required for ensuring preparedness for the defence of the Realm against any external danger. Those words were put in to show that there was not intention of using the Measure for internal purposes, and it is not intended so to use it."—[OFICIAI. REPORT 9th May, 1939; cols. 377–8, Vol. 347.]That was a specifiic assurance, and we were grateful for it. But that assurance only applies to the men who come within the provisions of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill, that is to say, the Territorials to begin with, and also the men who, after they have gone through their six months' training, are automatically transferred to the reserve or auxiliary forces. Once they have been so transferred, they could not, within the assurance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, be utilised for such a purpose. But it will be noted that, because there is no similar provision in the present Bill, a man who was undergoing his six months' training could be used by the War Office on behalf of the Government, perhaps in consultation with the Minister of Labour, for such a purpose, and it is with a view to obtaining a specific assurance which will satisfy the trade union movement and the workers generally that we are now raising this matter. The terms of the Amendment are so clear that its purpose must be obvious. It is this: It is perfectly true that the Regular forces can be employed to perform operations during a trade dispute, either for the purpose of bringing civil commotion to an end or for the purpose of taking the place of the men concerned in the dispute. For example, in case of a strike on the railways a soldier could be brought out to occupy key positions, and indeed to occupy positions in any other department of the railway service. There have been most unfortunate examples in the past of cases in which the Regular troops have been brought out for such a purpose.
I do not wish to arouse unnecessary acrimony by detailing these matters, which are well within the recollection of hon. Members. But there is a distinction between the Regular forces and the men who are concerned in this Measure. This is the distinction as I see it. While 892 I object to troops being called out for such a purpose, whether in the Regular forces or in any other department of the Services, yet at the same time I do not raise that issue now, for this is not an appropriate time to raise it. But here is the distinction. In the case of the Regular forces a man enlists on a voluntary basis after making the necessary inquiries, he knows that he may be called out for such a purpose and he knows that risk. That is his responsibility. But in the case of these men who are conscripted there is no alternative. They may have very strong objections to being used during a trade dispute, and quite rightly so, for many of them come from working-class homes and have worked in the workshops and mines and so on, and they would be very reluctant to be used for the purpose of suppressing the activities of their fellow workers and comrades.
There is a distinction which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War ought to be ready to meet. In one case men voluntarily enlist and take the consequence, and in the other case men who have no alternative and are compelled to come in, ought not to be used for such a purpose. I speak as one who in the past has taken considerable interest in the trade union movement and in the organisation of workers of various kinds, and I am bound to say that I have taken part in a great many trade disputes. In the present circumstances I may be faced with this position: It so happens that I have a son who is eligible for service. I doubt whether at any time he will conceive a liking for this Government. He has very strong objections to Fascist aggression and very strong views about Herr Hitler, but he certainly has no particular liking for this Government. If he is called up, as no doubt he will be, and if in a trade dispute he were called out for the purpose of dealing with the activities of the workers, it would be a very awkward situation. We should be on opposite sides, and I should dislike that intensely. Because I desire to protect my own boy, and other hon. Members want to protect their boys in such a contingency, I ask the Minister to give us the assurance for which we ask, and I have some reason to believe that he is more likely to be conciliatory on a matter of this kind than on some of the Amendments that we have presented to the Committee.
§ 12.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Mander
This Amendment raises an issue of first-class importance. These young men are to be called up for one specific purpose only, the defence of this country at home and overseas, and it would be entirely wrong to use them for the purpose of intervention in any internal dispute. It may be that such a thing is not contemplated for a moment at the present time. I fully believe that that may be so. It may be that assurances will be given that there is no such intention, but unless there is statutory authority preventing it I do not think the situation will be at all satisfactory. Circumstances change. I must say that I take a very gloomy view of the future myself, as long as this Government remains in office, and it may be that the situation not only internationally but internally will deteriorate so much that we shall have a great deal of civil strife and commotion. Then it will be said "The situation has changed and we must after all have regard to what has happened, and we are very sorry that we have got to use the troops." Unfortunately, experience has shown us that we cannot rely on the verbal assurances given by this Government. I am sure that they mean them at the time, but they do not count them binding if they are not convenient. Unless there are in the Statute definite words which will make it impossible for the Government to use these young people for intervention in trade disputes, there will be the gravest danger that in the future circumstances may arise when they will be used, contrary to the wishes of the House and the country, and contrary to the wishes and intentions of the Government itself at the present time. Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment.
§ 12.24 p.m.
§ Mr. Kirkwood
I hope that the Minister will grant us this very small request because as I read the Bill a very serious situation may arise as far as the workers are concerned. This is the very thing that we fear as a result of conscription. It is one of the reasons why I have definitely stated that I will do all I can to keep this country from going conscript. The one outstanding thing that the workers of the country have left is the right to strike. We fear that with conscription the Government are taking away from these young men the right to say what they will do: 894Their's not to reason why. Their's but to do and die.They will have no option unless we can convince the Minister how essential is this safeguard, if the Government are to have a chance of getting the young men of this country to agree to the demands made upon them. I hope the Government realise how much they are asking the youth of our native land to surrender. In my opinion, they are asking them to surrender their all. We are asking now for a small amount of freedom to be left to those men, so that they shall not be asked to take part in any industrial dispute. I know what it is to see the soldiers being brought in during a dispute. Nothing arouses so much the ire of the worker who is out in the streets, and of the womenfolk. We have evidence of it all over the country: in England, Wales and Scotland, time and again; let alone in Ireland. Therefore, I would appeal to the Secretary for War to give us this small concession on behalf of those men whom they are going to conscript.
§ 12.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Macquisten
I have never been able to understand the distinction between a volunteer and a conscript. A man volunteers, let us say, after hearing an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). When he wants to quit, he cannot. He has not his freedom; he has not the right to strike. Nobody should ever give promises in politics, because circumstances may change and, as a result, one may be put in the unfortunate position of having to do what is wrong or break one's promise. I have been asked over and over again to make promises, and I have said, "No, I have seen too many political promises broken." But I do not belive that these boys could ever be used for the purpose that is suggested. I believe they will all get a fine holiday, but they will never be used for such a purpose as this. The Government do not need to. Our trade unions are very reasonable bodies—sometimes the men break away from the advice of the leaders, but that is becoming rarer and rarer. I should be surprised if during a time of stress the Government did anything to cause industrial disputes. The thing is so unlikely that it is not worth while inserting this Amendment.
§ 12.30 p.m.
§ Mr. E. J. Williams
We all enjoy the dialectics of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). [An HON. MEMBER: "And the dialect."] Yes, and we enjoy the dialect, too. Needless to say he is a Scot.
§ Mr. Williams
The hon. and learned Member answered his own argument very well. He said that he never breaks promises, because he never makes them, and he never makes them because circumstances change. It seems essential that we should have this Amendment if the future is to be determined by changing circumstances. We want to see that, whatever the circumstances are in future, we have a statutory obligation on the Minister to see that these young men are not used to break a strike or used by any employers in a lock-out. I am sure the Minister fully understands what this means, and that the whole of the trade union movement in this country is behind this Amendment. The trade union movement certainly has a virulent opposition to conscription as a whole, but quite a number of people who might otherwise support conscription and who are allied to the trade union movement, have a suspicion that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge of industrial conscription. That suspicion will not be allayed if the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment, but he can remove a great deal of that suspicion by accepting it.
Like the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) I have had a great deal of experience of industrial disputes. I can remember soldiers being called in to settle a very serious affair in Tonypandy in 1910. Those horrible riots that took place in Mid-Rhondda in that year were almost directly attributable to bringing in an element quite foreign to the Welsh valleys. I can remember in later years—because I had some responsibility in the matter—naval ratings being brought in to do the work of safety men underground. I suggest that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Seaham with regard to these conscripts places them in an entirely different category from Regular soldiers. I do not believe that men in the Regular Army would at any time, of their own volition, attempt to break a strike. They are just 896 commanded to do certain things; if they do not do them, they are faced with the consequences under military law. But the Government case for this Bill is that there is an international military situation which can be met only by the introduction of this Measure, and that there is nothing of a civil nature in this country which warrants this Bill or anything appertaining to it. We ought to have not merely an undertaking from the Minister, but a statutory obligation imposed that no Minister in the future can use these conscripts for civil purposes—for the purpose of breaking a strike or aiding an employer in a lock-out to impose unwarrantable conditions on the workpeople.
§ Mr. R. Morgan
Does the hon. Member mean during the six months' conscription period, or during the period of training With the Territorials?
§ Mr. Williams
I mean for the time they are actually under the purview of military discipline. If they are at any time under military discipline they should not be so used, and at the moment it would mean that they would be under military discipline for the six months. But the Government would have the authority to call them up at a later stage, and, therefore, they should not, at any time they come under the purview of the Government for military purposes, be used to break a strike or to do anything of a civil nature that would interfere with anything that would appertain to normal collective bargaining or agreements in industry.
§ Mr. Lipson
Suppose there was a strike for a political purpose—I have heard it suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that industrial pressure might be used to change the mind of the Government—would that apply then?
§ Mr. Williams
Whatever dispute or strike took place, I should not permit it to be denned by any lawyer. That was what took place in 1926. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises the time that could be 897 occupied if we were attempting to debate what happened in 1926. We do not believe that these strikes are political at all. They are so considered, of course, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in order so to tie up the political movement in the future and introduce into it as much political prejudice as possible, and impair, as he thought on that occasion, the prospects of the Labour party obtaining political power. Therefore, I would not leave the definition in the hands of any lawyer. I am certain that the Secretary of State for War will not satisfy the trade union movement in this country if he gives us less than is contained in this Amendment. I reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friend, that these persons, during the six months they are under military authority, should not be used at any time to interfere in any kind of civil dispute that may impair the wage conditions of persons engaged in industry.
§ 12.39 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
It is seldom that I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), but I agree with him on this occasion that these men who are called conscripts, but whom I prefer to call National Service volunteers, should not in peacetime, at all events, be involved in trade disputes. But there might be two other situations. There might be a decision in wartime where a trade dispute was brought about against the wishes of the trade union leaders and which might be fostered, one might say, by German money. The only people available might be certain troops among whom there were some of these men, as they are not to be separate bodies. Therefore, in wartime possibly this restriction should not apply. There is another situation in which, if war were imminent, a trade dispute might be a danger to the nation. It is difficult to deal with such situations, but in time of absolute peace—and I am afraid we are not in that time at the present moment—it might be possible to evolve some form of words to prevent these people who have been temporarily enlisted from being used in connection with trade disputes. Although I am not in a district where there are a large number of industries, it being mainly an agricultural district, I realise that these young people should not be used in industrial disputes. There 898 are other methods of dealing with this matter, and if the Government cannot accept the Amendment, I hope that they will agree to find some safeguarding words to keep these men out of disputes in peacetime.
§ 12.41 p.m.
§ Lieutenant-Commander Fletcher
There is one very strong point to which I would ask the Secretary of State for War to give his mind in considering this Amendment. While we are agreed that the Regular forces of the Crown may be called upon in the case of civil commotion and civil disputes, it should be borne in mind that, while officers and men in the Regular Army have, perhaps, no very strong political opinions, and are not very keenly interested in politics, in the case of the men who will be called up for the period of six months will be found political opinions and views associated with the conditions of life and employment, and these will vary very considerably among those who are called up. It would in all probability be the case that, if these men were called upon to deal with some civil dispute or civil commotion, there would be very strong and deepseated differences of opinion among them as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute in question. Therefore, among the men themselves would be created very strong differences of opinion because of their being called upon to deal with some civil dispute, and on that ground alone it is most undesirable that these men should be called upon to deal with civil disputes, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will be able to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ 12.43 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles Williams
I think that most of us who heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) realise that this is one of the fundamental differences in the country upon this Bill. There should be no possible fear that it could be used, as was the case, for instance, in France, for the purpose of in any way interfering with industrial disputes. I, and, I think, a large number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, want to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in the Bill of that kind, and we accepted and voted for the Bill only because we realise the great national emergency with which we are faced to-day. That is the 899 only reason why I voted for the Bill. If I thought that it was for the purpose that the hon. Member above the Gangway genuinely feared, if there were any danger of that, I would even vote for the Amendment. Frankly, I do not think that we can use hard-and-fast words to deal with this matter at the present time. We have had two or three other Amendments dealing with other things in which that position has been pointed out.
I would like to put two considerations to hon. Members above the Gangway which, I think, are essential in considering this matter. Can anyone possibly conceive that anybody with wisdom would use these young men coming straight from civil life for a period of six months for the purpose of interfering in a trade dispute. [Interruption.] I am trying to keep this apart from the party point of view. We are always being chipped by hon. Members above the Gangway if we take another point of view from what they do. As far as I can see, it would not be possible, and I cannot conceive that the Government are in the least likely, to use these men for that purpose.
I should like to draw attention to one further point. Hon. Members realise that we have had a period free from industrial disputes during the last few years. That is due to the fact that a certain gentleman, whom we know as Lord Baldwin, was able to infuse a good deal more sense into the employers and the employed. In the event of war or in the days immediately preceding war, we are to have allies, and I hope that one of those allies will be Russia. Suppose it becomes urgent, for some particular purpose, to load certain ships, and there is urgency to get them off to Russia, during critical days. Are we going to put into the Act words which might conceivably prevent certain men being used to help our allies in such circumstances? That is a point well worth consideration. In dealing with this- Bill we cannot consider only ourselves; we have to consider those who may be fighting on our side as allies. I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway not to do anything which might give the impression that we are edging away from the Russian point of view.
§ 12.46 p.m.
§ Mr. Hicks
I should like to reinforce the plea that has been made to the Secretary of State for War to see whether it is possible to accept the Amendment. He will be aware, as the House is aware, that because of this departure from the voluntary system, so far as military conscription is concerned, there has been very definite apprehension in the minds of trade unionists that in the event of certain difficulties arising, military men would be used in industrial disputes. I am sure that we can get his assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that is not intended under the Bill, but I should like him to accept the Amendment or such other words as would give effect to what the Amendment intends to convey. We have already the statement from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government who have spoken that this measure of military conscription is not intended to replace the voluntary system.
The Minister will be aware of the immense efforts that have been made under the voluntary system to supply all kinds of labour for work which can be done quite as well in mufti as in khaki. There is no need to recruit men and put them into khaki in order to discharge tasks that can be done in industry in mufti. Unless we get some words which will guarantee us against such an event, there is a definite danger that in case of industrial difficulties arising the military would be used to take the place of men out in a dispute. I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that this country has been relatively free from industrial disputes for a long time. I did not know that Lord Baldwin had such great power, for which we must give him credit, in the direction of promoting sanity, but in so far as any influence is used to promote the common good, it is welcome. There are very grave dangers in regard to the matter raised by the Amendment, and I should like the Minister to give us an assurance.
If there are industrial disputes, they do not arise out of imagination. There is some very definite reason for any industrial dispute, and they have to be understood in order to tackle them. Men do not voluntarily leave their employment and impose handicaps upon themselves, without good cause. Men do not come 901 out for the fun of the thing. There is some definite, deep-rooted economic reason why men leave their jobs. It ought not to be difficult to agree on some form of words appearing in the Bill so that there will be a guarantee that steps will not be taken to interfere with the legitimate rights of men in regard to industrial disputes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance.
§ 12.49 P.m.
§ The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
The Debate has taken place in a very good spirit, and I have been agreeably surprised by the extreme moderation of the request made to me, particularly by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. There is unanimity of feeling on both sides of the House that these militiamen should not be used for any of the purposes mentioned in the Amendment, during their time of training. I do not think they could be so used except in very unexpected circumstances. Apart from statutory provisions outside the military code members of the Forces cannot be ordered to do purely civilian work. There is a qualification of that condition, but that is the general position and it covers part of the Amendment, which asks that we should refrain from employing these men on any duties customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. I have said that apart from statutory provisions outside the military code members of the military forces cannot be ordered to do purely civilian work; but there is a qualification. It is their duty to aid the civilian power in the case of disorder. That is a duty imposed not only upon soldiers but upon all citizens. There is sometimes a misconception that because soldiers are organised in a military body if called upon to aid the civil power they are doing something more than the duty of civilians. A magistrate can call upon the aid of the forces, but it is for the commanding officer to decide to what extent he will use his military authority. The use of the troops does not differ under the common law from the use of civilians in the event of disturbance.
If the life of the community is imperilled, if its food supply, water supply and transport services are jeopardised by commotion, the Emergency Powers Act would be put into operation and the military would discharge the functions they 902 were called upon to discharge, under regulations laid before the House of Commons. I think I have made it plain that it would be extremely difficult for the Government, out of hand, to employ the forces in an industrial dispute. There is no intention to employ troops, and particularly these men, for that purpose. I have been asked to give an assurance which I am told would allay suspicion and doubt which are very legitimately entertained.
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
I know the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) always asks for more. I have been asked for an assurance, but I want to do more than just give an assurance. I should not like anybody to feel that we were passing this Bill with any ulterior motives in our minds. It is true, as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has recalled, that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, on the other Bill, said that it was impossible to call men up under that Bill for participation in an industrial dispute because the Bill was confined to external danger. In this Bill no such phrase is used. Therefore, what I propose to do, if it meets with the agreement of the Committee, is to have a more permanent record of our intentions than my mere verbal declaration. We cannot accept the Amendment because it would interfere with the general military law; it would have to much more precise than it is. But I am prepared to give each one of these Militiamen a written statement saying that any liability he might be presumed to be under to be ordered by military authority to aid the civil power in an industrial dispute during his period of continuous training will not be enforced in his case. We will put that in writing and give it to all Militiamen. I hope that the assurance will satisfy hon. Members. I will give that undertaking to each individual. I do not want to accept the Amendment because it will not stand examination as a precise legal definition, but I will do the next best thing and give the assurance that they will all have this probably in the document which will contain a general description of their duties.
§ Mr. Shinwell
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates putting such a provision in the Bill, or whether he merely proposes to issue it with the ordi- 903 nary regulations which are furnished to men who are enlisted?
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
I was not proposing to put it in the Bill, but I am willing to give that assurance. I will go further and promise that every one of these men shall have it. I do not think I ought to be bound by Statute.
§ 12.57 P.m.
§ Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft
I I am in general agreement with the spirit of the Debate, but I would point out the possibility when this nightmare has passed, which I hope will not be long, that in two years' time we may find the normal defence of this country largely resting upon men who have joined under the Military Training Bill. If that is the case we might have a smaller regular Army than at present, and it might therefore preclude the only force we have in the case of holding up the life of the nation. The Territorial Army cannot be used in any way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the long view in this respect.
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
This is a temporary Bill and we are dealing only with young militiamen while they are called up for six months' training. The hon. and gallant Member is looking rather further ahead.
§ Mr. Shinwell
On the whole, the assurance is satisfactory to my hon. Friends, but I should like to ask whether this instruction will apply during the whole course of this Bill, that is during the period to which the Bill applies and whether each individual will receive this instruction?
§ Mr. Hore-Belisha
It will apply to everybody undergoing six months' training. After that they will become part of the general forces of the country.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Ridley
I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, at the end, to insert:Provided also that any persons called up for military training under this Act shall be entitled freely to form associations for the discussion of military and political matters and the conditions of their service and to elect representatives to take up their grievances with the military and civil authorities.
§ It being One of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 106, Noes, 215.905
|Division No. 119.]||AYES.||[1.0 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Gardner, B. W.||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Garro Jones, G. M.||Mander, G. le M.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Marshall, F.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Mathers, G.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Maxton, J.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Messer, F.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Montague, F.|
|Batey, J.||Groves, T. E.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Muff, G.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Benson, G.||Hardie, Agnes||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Mayday, A.||Paling, W.|
|Burke, W. A.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Pearson, A.|
|Chater, D.||Higgs, W. F.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hopkin, D.||Ridley, G.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Jagger, J.||Riley, B.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Ritson, J.|
|Collindridge, F.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Shinwell, E.|
|Daggar, G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Silkin, L.|
|Dalton, H.||Kirby, B. V.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Lathan, G.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lawson, J. J.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Day, H.||Leach, W.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Dobbie, W.||Lunn, W.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Ede, J. C.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McEntee, V. La T.||Stephen, C.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||McGhee, H. G.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Frankel, D.||MacLaren, A.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Thorne, W.||Watson, W. McL.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Thurtle, E.||Westwood, J.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Tinker, J. J.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Tomlinson, G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Viant, S. P.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Furness, S N.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Apsley, Lord||Gluckstein, L. H.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Assheton, R.||Goldie, N. B.||Owen, Major G.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Gower, Sir R. V.||Patrick, C. M.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Petherick, M.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Grimston, R. V.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton|
|Beechman, N. A.||Guest, Lieut. -Colonel H. (Drake)||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Blair, Sir R.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hambro, A. V.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hannah, I. C.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Rowlands, G.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Bull, B. B.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Holmes, J. S.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Scott, Lord William|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Hutchinson, G. C.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Channon, H.||James, Wing-commander A. W. H.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Christie, J. A.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Colfox, Major W. P.||Kimball, L.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Spens, W. P.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Latham, Sir P.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cross, R. H.||Levy, T.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lewis, O.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Lipson, D. L.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Lélwellin, Colonel J. J.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|De la Bère, R.||Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Touche, G. C.|
|Donman, Hon. R. D.||Loftus, P. C.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Denville, Alfred||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.|
|Doland, G. F.||Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)||Turton, R. H.|
|Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||McKie, J. H.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Macquisten, F. A.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Maitland, Sir Adam||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Eckersley P. T.||Markham, S. F.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Emery, J. F.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Moreing, A. C.||Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||York, C.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Nall, Sir J.||Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain McEwen.|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.|
§ The chairman then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at One of the Clock at this day's sitting.
§ Amendments made:
§ In page 10, line 22, leave out from "in," to "and," in line 23, and insert "the royal navy or the regular air force."
§ In line 24, leave out "and."
§ In line 36, leave out "by virtue," and insert "in pursuance."
In line 40, at the end, to insert:
and, unless that force is part of the army reserve, he shall, upon such entry or enlistment, be deemed to be discharged from the army reserve.
In page n, line 2, leave out from the beginning to "unless," in line 4, and insert:
deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section who enlists in the regular military forces or in the regular air force.
§ In line 5, leave out "entry or."
§ In line 7, leave out "sub-section (2) of this section," and insert "that subsection."
In line 16, after "person," insert:
deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section.
In line 18, leave out:
in pursuance of such arrangements as aforesaid.
§ In line 23, after "is," insert "so."
§ In line 24, leave out "by virtue of sub-section (2) of this section."
In line 23, at the end, insert:
(6) Where a person, having entered or enlisted for service in any of His Majesty's reserve and auxiliary forces in pursuance of arrangements under sub-section (4) of this section, is discharged from that force before the expiration of the period for which, by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section he would otherwise have been liable to serve as a militiaman then, subject to any directions of the Army Council, he shall, upon being so discharged, be deemed to be again duly enlisted under section thirty of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, for the unexpired part of the said period:
Provided that, during the period for which any person is deemed by virtue of this subsection to be enlisted under the said section thirty, he shall not be liable to be calfed out for a special course of training under subsection (2) of that section.
§ In line 37, leave out "postponing the day on," and insert "altering the place or time at."
§ In page 12, line 18, leave out "from," and insert "beginning with."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 110.909
|Division No. 120.]||AYES.||[1.13 p.m.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Edmendson, Major Sir J.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Apsley, Lord||Channon, H.||Ellis, Sir G.|
|Assheton, R.||Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Emery, J. F.|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Christie, J. A.||Emmott, C. E. G. C.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Entwistle, Sir C F.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Colfox, Major W. P.||Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Colman, N. C. D.||Everard, Sir William Lindsay|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Fildes, Sir H.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)||Findlay, Sir E.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Foot, D. M.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Fox, Sir G. W. G.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Fremantle, Sir F. E.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Furness, S. N.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Cross, R. H.||Fyfe, D. P. M.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Crossley, A. C.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Crowder, J. F. E.||Gluckstein, L. H.|
|Bratt, Sir W.||Cruddas, Col. B.||Goldie, N. B.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||De la Bère, R.||Gower, Sir R. V.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Denville, Alfred||Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Doland, G. F.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Grimston, R. V.|
|Bull, B. B.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Duncan, J. A. L.||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Eastwood, J. F.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Eckersley P. T.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.|
|Hambro, A. V.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Selley, H. R.|
|Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Markham, S. F.||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Moreing, A. C.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Holmes, J. S.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Spens, W. P.|
|Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Owen, Major G.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.||Patrick, C. M.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Touche, G. C.|
|Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Petherick, M.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Kimball, L.||Picktnorn, K. W. M.||Turton, R. H.|
|Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Procter, Major H. A.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Latham, Sir P.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Levy, T.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Lewis, O.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Lipson, D. L.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.|
|Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Rothschild, J. A. de||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Rowlands, G.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Loftus, P. C.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Russell, Sir Alexander||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||York, C.|
|Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)||Salmon, Sir I.|
|McKie, J. H.||Samuel, M. R. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.||Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain McEwen.|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Maitland, Sir Adam||Scott, Lord William|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Parker, J.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Pearson, A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hardie, Agnes||Ridley, G.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Riley, B.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hayday, A.||Ritson, J.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Silkin, L.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hicks, E. G.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Benson, G.||Hopkin, D.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jagger, J.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Chater, D.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirby, B. V.||Stephen, C.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Cocks, F. S.||Lathan, G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Collindridge, F.||Lawson, J. J.||Thorne, W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leach, W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Daggar, G.||Lunn, W.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dalton, H.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Tomlinson, G.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||McEntee, V. La T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||McGhee, H. G.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||MacLaren, A.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Day, H.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Westwood, J.|
|Dobbie, W.||Marshall, F.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Ede, J. C.||Mathers, G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Maxton, J.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Messer, F.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Frankel, D.||Montague, F.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Muff, G.|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Naylor, T. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Paling, W.|